Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a significant complication of many systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), although the clinical presentation, severity and outlook may vary widely between individuals. Despite the prevalence, there are no specific guidelines addressing the issue of screening, diagnosis and management of ILD across this diverse group. Guidelines from the ACR and EULAR are expected, but there is a need for UK-specific guidelines that consider the framework of the UK National Health Service, local licensing and funding strategies. This article outlines the intended scope for the British Society for Rheumatology guideline on the diagnosis and management of SARD-ILD developed by the guideline working group. It specifically identifies the SARDs for consideration, alongside the overarching principles for which systematic review will be conducted. Expert consensus will be produced based on the most up-to-date available evidence for inclusion within the final guideline. Key issues to be addressed include recommendations for screening of ILD, identifying the methodology and frequency of monitoring and pharmacological and non-pharmacological management. The guideline will be developed according to methods and processes outlined in Creating Clinical Guidelines: British Society for Rheumatology Protocol version 5.1.

Background: There is an increasing need to understand the wider impacts of research on society and the economy. For health research, a key focus is understanding the impact of research on practice and ultimately on patient outcomes. This can be challenging to measure, but one useful proxy for changes in practice is impact on guidelines. Methods: The aim of this study is to map the contribution of UK research and UK research funders to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) public health guidelines, understanding areas of strengths and weakness and the level of collaboration and coordination across countries and between funders. The work consisted of two main elements: analysis of the references cited on NICE guidelines and interviews with experts in public health. Results: Across the papers cited on 62 NICE public health guidelines, we find that 28% of the papers matched include at least one UK affiliation, which is relatively high when compared to other health fields. In total, 165 unique funders were identified with more than three acknowledgements, based in 20 countries. 68% of papers which acknowledge funding cite at least one UK funder, and NIHR is the most highly cited funder in the sample.   Conclusions: The UK makes an important contribution to public health research cited on NICE PH guidelines, although the research does not appear to be bibliometrically distinct from other research sectors, other than having a relatively low level of international collaboration. However, the extent to which NICE public health guidelines reflect practice at the local authority level is less clear. More research is needed to understand the sources of evidence to support public health decision making at the local level and how NICE guidance can be made more applicable, timely and accessible in this new context.

We examine the suitability of three methods using patient-level data to evaluate the time-varying impacts of national healthcare guidelines. Such guidelines often codify progressive change and are implemented gradually; for example, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) suspected-cancer referral guidelines. These were revised on June 23, 2015, to include more cancer symptoms and test results (\"features\"), partly reflecting changing practice. We explore the time-varying impact of guideline revision on time to colorectal cancer diagnosis, which is linked to improved outcomes in decision-analytic models. We included 11,842 patients diagnosed in 01/01/2006-31/12/2017 in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink with England cancer registry data linkage. Patients were classified by whether their first pre-diagnostic cancer feature was in the original guidelines (NICE-2005) or was added during the revision (NICE-2015-only). Outcome was diagnostic interval: time from first cancer feature to diagnosis. All analyses adjusted for age and sex. Two difference-in-differences analyses used either a Pre (01/08/2012-31/12/2014, n = 2243) and Post (01/08/2015-31/12/2017, n = 1017) design, or event-study cohorts (2006-2017 vs 2015) to estimate change in diagnostic interval attributable to official implementation of the revised guidelines. A semiparametric varying-coefficient model analysed the difference in diagnostic interval between the NICE groups over time. After model estimation, primary and broader treatment effects of guideline content and implementation were measured. The event-study difference-in-differences and the semiparametric varying-coefficient methods showed that shorter diagnostic intervals were attributable to official implementation of the revised guidelines. This impact was only detectable by pre-to-post difference-in-differences when the pre/post periods were selected according to the estimation results from the varying-coefficient model. Formal tests of the parametric models, which are special cases of the semiparametric model, suggest that they are misspecified. We conclude that the semiparametric method is well suited to explore the time-varying impacts of guidelines codifying progressive change.

In the UK, there is ongoing integration of pharmacists into general practice as a new healthcare service in primary care. Evaluation of the service involves national measures that require pharmacists to record their work, on the general practice clinical computer systems, using electronic activity codes. No national agreement, however, has been established on what activities to record. The purpose of this study was to attempt to reach consensus on what activities general practice-based pharmacists should record.
The e-Delphi method was chosen as it is an excellent technique for achieving consensus. The study began with an initial stage in which screening of a general practice clinical computer system and discussion groups with pharmacists from two \'pharmacists in general practice\' sites identified 81 codes potentially relevant to general practice-based pharmacists\' work. Twenty-nine experts (pharmacists and pharmacy technicians from the two sites along with experts recruited through national committees) were then invited by e-mail to participate as a panel in three e-Delphi questionnaire rounds. In each round, panellists were asked to grade or rank codes and justify their choices. In every round, panellists were provided with anonymised feedback from the previous round which included their individual choices along with their co-panellists\' views. Final consensus (in Round 3) was defined as at least 80% agreement. Commentaries on the codes from all e-Delphi rounds were pooled together and analysed thematically.
Twenty-one individual panellists took part in the study (there were 12 responses in Round 1, 18 in Round 2 and 16 in Round 3). Commentaries on the codes included three themes: challenges and facilitators; level of detail; and activities related to funding. Consensus was achieved for ten codes, eight of which related to activities (general and disease specific medication reviews, monitoring of high-risk drugs and medicines reconciliation) and two to patient outcomes (presence of side effects and satisfactory understanding of medication).
A formal consensus method revealed general practice-based pharmacists\' preferences for activity coding. Findings will inform policy so that any future shaping of activity coding for general practice-based pharmacists takes account of pharmacists\' actual needs and preferences.

BACKGROUND: Health technology assessment (HTA) has been reinforced in France, notably with the introduction of economic evaluation in the pricing process for the most innovative and expensive treatments. Similarly to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England, the National Authority for Health (HAS), which is responsible for economic evaluation of new health technologies in France, has published recommendations on the methods of economic evaluation. Since economic assessment represents a major element of HTA in England, exploring the differences between these methodological guidelines might help to comprehend both the shape and the role economic assessment is intended to have in the French health care system.
METHODS: Methodological guidelines for economic evaluation in France and England have been compared topic-by-topic in order to bring out key differences in the recommended methods for economic evaluation.
RESULTS: The analysis of both guidelines has revealed multiple similarities between France and England, although a number of differences were also noted regarding the elected methodology of analysis, the comparison of studies\' outcomes with cost-effectiveness thresholds, the study population to consider, the quality of life valuation methods, the perspective on costs, the types of resources considered and their valuation, the discount rates to apply in order to reflect the present value of interventions, etc. To account for these differences, modifications will be required in order to adapt economic models from one country to the other.
CONCLUSIONS: Changes in HTA assessment methods occur in response to different challenges determined by the different philosophical and cultural considerations surrounding health and welfare as well as the political considerations regarding the role of public policies and the importance of their evaluation.

The United Kingdom (UK) uveal melanoma guideline development group used an evidence based systematic approach (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)) to make recommendations in key areas of uncertainty in the field including: the use and effectiveness of new technologies for prognostication, the appropriate pathway for the surveillance of patients following treatment for primary uveal melanoma, the use and effectiveness of new technologies in the treatment of hepatic recurrence and the use of systemic treatments. The guidelines were sent for international peer review and have been accredited by NICE. A summary of key recommendations is presented. The full documents are available on the Melanoma Focus website.

These guidelines concern the management of anogenital herpes simplex virus infections in adults and give advice on diagnosis, management, and counselling of patients. This guideline replaces the 2007 BASHH herpes guidelines and includes new sections on herpes proctitis, key points to cover with patients regarding transmission and removal of advice on the management of HSV in pregnancy which now has a separate joint BASHH/RCOG guideline.

Clinical practice guidelines produced by NICE - the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence - are seen as key mechanisms to regulate and standardise UK healthcare practice, but their development is known to be problematic, and their adoption and uptake variable. Examining what a guideline or health policy means to different audiences, and how it means something to those communities, provides new insight about interpretive discourses. In this paper we present a micro-analysis of the response of healthcare professionals to publication of a single NICE guideline in 2009 which proposed a re-organisation of professional services for chronic non-specific low back pain. Adopting an interpretive approach, we seek to understand both the meaning of the guideline and the socio-political events associated with it. Drawing on archived policy documents related to the development and publication of the guideline, texts published in professional journals and on web-sites, and semi-structured interview data from professionals associated with the debate, we identify a key discourse that positions the management of chronic non-specific low back pain within physician jurisdiction. We examine the emergence of this discourse through policy-related symbolic artifacts taking the form of specific languages, objects and acts. This discourse effectively resisted and displaced the service reorganisation proposed by the guideline and, in so doing, ensured medical hegemony within practice and professional organisations concerned with the management of non-specific low back pain.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, pruritic, inflammatory dermatosis that affects up to 25% of children and 2% to 3% of adults. This guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in the management and care of AD, providing updated and expanded recommendations based on the available evidence. In this first of 4 sections, methods for the diagnosis and monitoring of disease, outcomes measures for assessment, and common clinical associations that affect patients with AD are discussed. Known risk factors for the development of disease are also reviewed.

BACKGROUND: Beta lactams (BL) are the most widely prescribed antibiotics in the UK and the commonest cause of hypersensitivity reactions. There are no UK guidelines for BL testing and the most relevant guidelines were devised by the European Network for Drug Allergy (ENDA) on behalf of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
OBJECTIVE: Delivery of allergy services differs across Europe, so this survey was designed to investigate how closely UK practice adhered to these guidelines.
METHODS: An online survey, using surveymonkey.com software, was sent to all consultants offering an allergy service in the UK and who were members of either BSACI or \'Travellers\' (Immunology consultant group).
RESULTS: The response rate was 48% (n=81/165) and BL allergy testing was undertaken by 78% of respondents. All responders requested SsIgE, although four responders stated they rarely requested. Skin testing was undertaken by 87% of respondents who perform beta lactam testing with 17% undertaking skin prick testing (SPT) only, 77% SPT followed by intra-dermal testing (IDT) if the former were negative or indeterminate and 6% SPT and IDT in all cases. The drugs, doses and protocols for skin testing varied considerably. Drug provocation testing was undertaken by 87% of respondents who undertake beta lactam testing with significant heterogeneity in protocols. Respondents that investigated ≤ 20 patients per year demonstrated lower adherence to ENDA recommendations compared to those who saw > 20. Following positive testing, 79% advised avoidance of all penicillins only and the remainder advised additional drug avoidance.
CONCLUSIONS: This survey revealed variation in the investigation and management of BL hypersensitivity in the UK with some centres reporting procedures that could potentially put patients at risk of anaphylaxis if allergy was falsely excluded. This survey highlights an urgent need for evidence based national guidelines and standardisation of practice.