Our client was concerned at the draft scope issued by NICE for developing a guideline on nutrition. Our client considered that the proposed scope was unworkable and would result in a significant delay in issuing a definitive guideline which would, in turn, jeopardize our client’s position. In addition, our client considered that the scope was too broad, and that the key issues of relevant to the product would either be fudged or get lost in the larger piece of work.
Translucency assessed the subgroups of patients covered by the proposed scope, and defined for each subgroup the patients’ distinctive clinical and personal needs, the quality of the travailler avec des preuves in support of current clinical practice or possible alternatives, the setting and organisation of care, and the relationship between costs and benefits.
On the basis of its analysis, Translucency prepared a paper setting out a revised scope together with the arguments in support of the more restricted scope and the arguments against the broader scope. The paper was short and clear, allowing the key messages to be communicated clearly to a relatively casual and non-specialist reader, while being fully referenced.
NICE accepted the arguments we put forward on the client’s behalf. The client was entirely satisfied with the result, and was subsequently able to work with NICE using its in-house team to achieve a satisfactory place for its product in the final guideline.