You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Viewpoint
Continuously advancing quality care
  1. Aoife Molloy1,
  2. Terence Stephenson2,
  3. Martin Marshall3
  1. 1 Infectious Diseases, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
  2. 2 UCL Great Ormond St Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK
  3. 3 Royal College of General Practitioners, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Terence Stephenson, UCL Great Ormond St Institute of Child Health, University College London, London WC1X 8SH, UK; t.stephenson{at}ucl.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2020-321394

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Paediatricians have a role in advocating that children should not receive treatments which do not work, which then frees up time for treatments which do work.

    The Evidence-Based Interventions programme is a clinically led programme which uses the latest evidence to reduce inappropriate care by publishing guidance for tests, treatments and procedures proven to be inappropriate in some circumstances or which can sometimes do more harm than good.1 It is a joint enterprise between national partners: the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, NHS Clinical Commissioners, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as well as NHS England and NHS Improvement.

    The programme’s independent Expert Advisory Committee was invited to develop an approach to select interventions and agree guidance. The Committee compiled a list of interventions with no or limited clinical effectiveness, based on clinical evidence and research including NICE guidelines, Choosing Wisely recommendations and peer-reviewed publications.2 It particularly looked at surgical interventions and diagnostics where there was high variability in the application of clinical guidelines. It also worked with the relevant specialist clinical societies and …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors TS and MM cochaired the independent Expert Advisory Committee, which collated the evidence and published the recommendations. TS conceived of the submission and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. MM commented on the manuscript and provided a primary care perspective. AM, clinical lead for the NHS England Evidence-Based Interventions programme, sourced the data and drafted the final version of the published recommendations.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests AM, clinical lead for the NHS England Evidence-Based Interventions programme. TS and MM cochairs of the independent Expert Advisory Committee.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.