OP456 The Format And Language Consistency Of Guidance At The National Institute Of Health And Care Excellence (NICE)

Abstract

Introduction

NICE is undergoing transformational change aiming to improve consistency across the different types of guidance and to bring together related guidance in a more accessible way (NICE Connect). Currently, NICE publishes myriad guidance with different language and formats, which may lead to stakeholder confusion and gaps in the provision of information. Here, the consistency of the format and language of a subset of NICE guidance was assessed to understand where and how guidance could be better aligned. This preliminary investigation is important to determine the extent of inconsistencies and whether a more detailed analysis is warranted.

Methods

Ten randomly selected pieces of guidance published (or updated) April 2018 – March 2019 from three programs were assessed (two pieces of guidance or ten percent of guidance per program, whichever was greatest): Medical Technologies (n = 2); Diagnostics (n = 2); Technology Appraisals (n = 6). Guidance was assessed on aspects listed on the guidance webpage (for example, summary type, additional sections, links to other resources, format) and the guidance pdf (for example, table of contents and language). Observed data and trends are described.

Results

The webpage summary and additional sections were consistent within and between programs. Additional information on the webpages showed themes which are not currently standardized (for example, guidance history). In the table of contents only one section was consistently included in all guidance, and the terminology was not consistent across different types of guidance. The format used to present evidence differed between programs (webpage tab or within the pdf), as did terminology for the external assessment groups.

Conclusions

These descriptive data highlight inter- and intra-program inconsistencies in the content and format of NICE guidance, especially in the guidance table of contents and the format and language regarding the provision of evidence. These inconsistencies contribute to the inaccessibility of NICE guidance, making it potentially difficult for patients and professionals to understand guidance, conditions and treatments as a whole.

A more comprehensive analysis is warranted to extend and validate these conclusions. Future research of this kind could constructively direct the resources and priorities of NICE transformational projects, and could lead to an improvement in the accessibility of NICE Guidance.