This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

A faulty production line

Report this comment to a moderator

Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.

Report comment to moderator

Required fields.


Are NICE guidelines becoming a ‘laughing stock’?


This saddens me because I was a huge fan of NICE at its inception. The idea that we could have evidence-based guidelines for common decisions, rather than authority-based guidelines or politically-motivated guidelines seemed like "just what the doctor ordered". And I thought their use of QALYs was an excellent, conceptually sound way to allocate resources across widely differing areas. And the early guidelines seemed - to me - to deliver what they promised. But in the last couple of years, more and more bizarre-seeming decisions have appeared, suggesting that the committees are being led by single-issue enthusiasts rather than generalists with a sound overview. There was a brilliant proposal recently - may have been in the BMJ: NO EXPERTS TO WRITE GUIDELINES. At least not guidelines intended for primary care. Primary care guidelines only to be written by generalists, who may, like a jury, take evidence from different experts to inform their decisions. I think this would be an excellent way for NICE to point itself back in the direction of sanity that it initially seemed to be travelling.

Posted date

05 Mar 2015

Posted time