In this editorial we, as members of the 2022 NICE Guideline Committee, highlight and discuss what, in our view, are the key guideline recommendations (generated through evidence synthesis and consensus) for mental health professionals when caring for people after self-harm, and we consider some of the implementation challenges.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) initiated an ambitious effort to develop the first shared decision making guidelines. The purpose of this commentary is to identify three main concerns pertaining to the new published guidelines for shared decision making research, practice, implementation and cultural differences in mental health.

This article provides guidance on the management of challenging behaviours (CBs) in dementia care, and introduces concepts from positive behavioural support not usually applied to dementia. While the use of formulations has received a lot of attention in recent years, the mechanisms of how to apply the formulation-led interventions requires more consideration. In order to assist caregivers to deliver effective interventions we need to have a better understanding of the CBs we are attempting to manage, and also produce management strategies with clearer goals. Ideally we would also want caregivers to be able to describe the skills they employ in a coherent manner in order to facilitate self-reflection and to be able to pass on their skills to junior colleagues. This paper attempts to fulfil these needs by integrating two new models with philosophies already used in dementia care. In terms of new concepts, the first is the Arousal Cycle, which gives caregivers an awareness of the five phases of a typical CB (wellbeing, trigger, escalation, CB, and recovery phase). In relation to the second, the Traffic Light analogy examines CBs in terms of four management stages: primary prevention, secondary prevention, reactive strategies, and calming strategies. It is proposed that we distinguish between these stages when composing our formulations and care plans, and thereby produce better targeted interventions. By the end of the paper the reader will have been presented with material integrating concepts from the fields of dementia and intellectual impairment, and been introduced to new ways of managing CBs.

The main current intervention for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adult primary care is individual trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT). Group TF-CBT for PTSD has been advocated in order to improve access and cost. Barriers to the development of group TF-CBT include the need for a large number of sessions and therapist input in order to manage high levels of affect, possible dissociation and secondary traumatisation. This case study was prompted via our community engagement project when local women who had been involved in a single road traffic accident requested group therapy. The aim was to develop a NICE guideline-compliant brief 8-session group TF-CBT intervention that circumvented the above-mentioned barriers and is described in detail. In order to improve access, the group was delivered in the community. Standard and PTSD-specific measures were administered pre-therapy and post-therapy. Eight clients were offered treatment: two dropped out and six completed treatment. At the end of treatment, 3/6 clients attained reliable improvement in their PTSD symptoms. Two of these three clients also reached recovery. This change was maintained at 3-month follow-up where 4/6 clients attained reliable improvement, with three maintaining recovery. The remaining two clients showed minimal change in their PTSD symptoms. Overall, clients reported high-level satisfaction with the treatment protocol. This case study demonstrates a potentially clinically effective and cost-effective group TF-CBT intervention for non-complex single-incident PTSD.

‘Rapid tranquillisation’ refers to the use of medication to calm highly agitated individuals experiencing mental disorder who have not responded to non-pharmacological approaches. Commonly it is the initial stage in the treatment of severe and enduring illness. Using medication in this way requires particularly robust evidence of efficacy and the management of side-effects. This article attempts to integrate current understanding of the neurochemical mechanisms of underlying illness and drug actions with therapeutic interventions. It distinguishes arousal from agitation, and effects on sedation from tranquillisation. It reviews critically the practice of rapid tranquillisation in the light of new evidence, changes in the NICE guidelines and British National Formulary recommendations and a national audit (POMH-UK). Broader aspects of management, known as ‘restrictive practices’ (such as control and restraint and seclusion), psychological support of team members, incident reporting, risk assessment, monitoring and medico-legal aspects are not covered.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for major depression is an effective treatment, but outcomes for complex cases, with co-occurring biological, psychological and social factors, are variable. Complexity factors can cause treatment to become diffuse, disorganized and over-complicated. At Step 3, disorder-specific protocols should be provided with therapy kept as simple as possible and delivered responsively, e.g. barriers to treatment should be tackled, ensure the client is well-prepared and seek to form a strong therapeutic alliance. At Step 4, if disorder-specific protocols have been ineffective, the priority is to formulate how complexity factors are interacting with the client's depression. An individualized formulation is used to carefully target these interactions. The treatment is still evidence-based and simple at the point of delivery, but there is greater emphasis on case-level interactions that are unique to each individual. Case examples are used to illustrate both approaches.

Objectives: Colloquial evidence (CE) has been described as the informal evidence that helps provide context to other forms of evidence in guidance development. Despite challenges around quality, and the potential biases, the use of CE is becoming increasingly important in assessments where scientific literature is sparse and to also capture the experience of all stakeholders in discussions, including that of experts and patients. We aimed to ascertain how CE was being used at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Methods: Relevant data corresponding to the use of CE was extracted from all NICE technical and process manuals by two reviewers and quality assured and analyzed by a third reviewer. This was considered in light of the results of a focused literature review and a combined checklist for quality assessment was developed.

Results: At NICE, CE is utilised across all guidance producing programmes and at all stages of development. CE could range from information from experts and patient/carers, grey literature (including evidence from websites and policy reports) and testimony from stakeholders through consultation. Six tools for critical appraisal of CE were available from the literature and a combined best practice checklist has been proposed.

Conclusions: As decisions often need to be made in areas where there is a lack of published scientific evidence, CE is employed. Therefore to ensure its appropriateness the development of a validated CE data quality check-list to assist decision makers is essential and further research in this area is a priority.

Background: A large body of research has identified that many therapists do not use research to inform their practice, but few studies investigate the reasons behind this. Aims: The current study seeks to understand what sources therapists use to inform their practice and why they are chosen. Method: Thirty-three interviews with psychological therapists in the UK were undertaken. These were transcribed and analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Results: Two superordinate themes emerged. The former focused on the nature of evidence and the latter described why certain sources were used to make clinical decisions. When discussing evidence, participants felt that research studies, specifically Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), used unrepresentative samples. Therapists felt that research other than RCTs, particularly qualitative research, was important. Therapist specific factors were felt to be as, or more, important than the technique used to treat patients. When discussing the sources they used, therapists preferred to use their clinical experience or their patients’ experience to make clinical decisions. Theoretical or practical information was preferred to empirical research. The presentation of information was felt to be important to encourage the implementation of research, and therapists also felt tools such as outcome measures and manuals were too rigid to be useful. Finally, patients’ choice of treatment was felt to be important in treatment decisions. Conclusions: The views of therapists were heterogeneous, but this study highlighted some of the barriers to closing the gap between science and practice. This knowledge can be used to increase the translation of science into practice.

Background: Keeping clinical practice recommendations up-to-date with a continually evolving evidence base presents challenges. Resources required to update recommendations compete with those needed to evaluate newer treatments.

Methods: We describe an approach developed by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for updating clinical practice recommendations for new interventional procedures and we evaluate relevant initial experience of using this system. Depending on whether evidence for a procedure is judged adequate or inadequate for safety and efficacy, use in clinical practice is usually recommended with either “normal” or “special” arrangements for patient consent, data collection and institutional oversight, respectively. We examined whether differences in the state of the evidence at the initial and the updated appraisal of procedures were associated with changed recommendations.

Results: Since 2008, updating of recommendations focuses on procedures with initially inadequate evidence. “Special arrangements” recommendations about eleven procedures were updated after 3.3–6.5 years (median, 5.3 years), and recommendations for six were changed to “normal arrangements.” Overall, procedures with changed (“special-to-normal”) recommendations had a greater increase in the number of patients included in observational studies published since the initial guidance.

Conclusions: Procedures with changed (“special-to-normal”) recommendations generally had greater increases in their evidence base. Although uncertainties about optimal methods for keeping evidence-based recommendations up-to-date remain, this experience should be useful to policy makers in developing processes for prioritizing scarce resources for updating clinical practice recommendations. Further studies are needed about the value placed on “updated” recommendations by clinicians, policy-makers, and patients.

This paper describes the development of the clinical practice guideline on schizophrenia from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and outlines its main recommendations. It reviews the evidence on effective implementation of guidelines generally and examines issues specific to the schizophrenia guideline. It describes NICE'S approach to supporting implementation alongside that developed by the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH) and looks at local implementation examples for schizophrenia.

The paper highlights key considerations for the forthcoming revision of the NICE schizophrenia guideline. It makes recommendations concerning the scope of the guideline and the quality and type of data available to the guideline developers: the lack of data on outcomes such as quality of life and social functioning, the challenges presented by unpublished papers and areas where evidence is limited. Since publication of the schizophrenia guideline, the NICE development process has undergone significant methodological improvements. The grading of evidence has been refined and more recently NICE proposed that grading of recommendations be dropped. Consensus methods are increasingly and more effectively used to deal with areas where the evidence-base is limited. NICE and the NCCMH have developed a more implementation-ready range of guideline products.

The initial NICE guideline on schizophrenia was positively received nationally and internationally. This paper highlights challenges that will be involved in updating the guideline and ways to refine the methodology of development. Ultimately the impact of the guideline will be measured not in its methodological rigor but in how its successful implementation improves patient care.

Declaration of Interest: Stephen Pilling in receipt of funding from NICE for the production of clinical guidelines.

Objectives: The UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the Jordan office of the Medicines Transparency Alliance embarked on a pilot project to design an evidence-based guideline for cost-effective pharmacological treatment of essential hypertension in Jordan. The project's objectives were to directly address a major health problem for Jordan by producing a guideline; and to delineate the strengths and weaknesses of Jordan's healthcare process to allow similar future efforts to be planned more efficiently.

Methods: The pilot spanned a period of approximately 8 months. Activities were overseen by local technical and guideline development teams, as well as experts from NICE. NICE's hypertension guidelines and economic model were used as a starting point. Parameters in the economic model were adjusted according to input and feedback from local experts with regards to Jordanian physician and patient practices, resource costs, and quality of life estimates. The results of the economic model were integrated with the updated available clinical trial literature.

Results: The outputs of the economic model were used to inform recommendations, in the form of a clinical algorithm. A report of the process and the strengths and weaknesses observed was developed, and recommendations for improvements were made.

Conclusions: The pilot represented the start of what is intended to be a healthcare process change for the country of Jordan. Issues emerged which can inform strategies to ensure a more cohesive and comprehensive approach to the cost-effective use of appropriate drugs in managing chronic disease in Jordan and countries operating in a similarly resource-constrained environment. Furthermore, our pilot highlights how richer countries with relevant experience in evidence-informed healthcare policy making can assist others in strengthening their decision-making methods and processes.