How are you taking part in this consultation?

You will not be able to change how you comment later.

You must be signed in to answer questions

    The content on this page is not current guidance and is only for the purposes of the consultation process.

    Equality impact assessment - Otitis media with effusion in under 12s

    The impact on equality has been assessed during guidance development according to the principles of the NICE equality policy.

    1.0 Checking for updates and scope: before scope consultation (to be completed by the Developer and submitted with the draft scope for consultation)

    Is the proposed primary focus of the guideline a population with a specific communication or engagement need, related to disability, age, or other equality consideration? Y/N

    If so, what is it and what action might be taken by NICE or the developer to meet this need? (For example, adjustments to committee processes, additional forms of consultation.)

    Children under 12 years is the focus of the guideline, OME being most prevalent in pre-school aged children. No adjustments to the committee processes or consultation is proposed. The committee will not include children but will include lay members who may be e.g. parents or carers of children with OME or young people who had OME as a child. Stakeholder organisations working with and advocating for children with OME will be invited to take part in the consultation as per standard NICE process. NICE has produced a guideline on babies, children and young people's experience of healthcare and this guideline will likely be referenced.

    Have any potential equality issues been identified during the check for an update or during development of the draft scope, and, if so, what are they?

    • Age

    The guidelines covers children under 12 years of age. Within this age group, OME is most common in pre-school aged children.

    • Disability

    Children with complex needs, including learning disabilities and children with sensory disorders and autism may be at an increased risk of delayed detection of OME because the impact of OME may be less apparent. For example, the inability to follow instruction at school may be attributed to a difficulty in understanding rather than to difficulty hearing. Persistent or fluctuating OME can lead to increased risk of adverse outcomes which may already be increased in these children, such as problems with learning, speech and language development, listening skills, auditory processing skills and impact on social relationships and confidence.

    • Gender reassignment

    None identified.

    • Pregnancy and maternity

    None identified.

    • Race

    None identified.

    • Religion or belief

    None identified.

    • Sex

    None identified.

    • Sexual orientation

    None identified.

    • Socio-economic factors

    Children from families of lower socioeconomic status may be disadvantaged, for example they may have difficulties affording transport to access treatment.

    • Other definable characteristics:

      • Children who are non-English speaking or whose first language is not English
        The inability to follow instruction at school may be attributed to a language barrier rather than a hearing loss potentially leading to undiagnosed and untreated OME which could further impact on the child's developmental outcomes.

      • Children who move between places, for example travellers or refugees

    Children who move between places and do not have permanent places of residence are not likely to have the same level of monitoring and treatment as their peers and could therefore end up with untreated OME.

    • Looked-after children

      Looked after children may have multiple placements and carers or inadequate handover of care between placements and the impact of OME on their hearing may not be recognised and managed appropriately.

      What is the preliminary view on the extent to which these potential equality issues need addressing by the Committee?

      The committee should consider carefully if and how inequalities in outcomes for some groups identified in box 1.2 could be addressed in the guideline. The committee should consider whether data should be analysed separately for groups where equality issues have been identified and whether separate recommendations are required on a case-by-case basis.

      Completed by Developer: Maija Kallioinen, Guideline Lead

      Date: 01.09.2021

      Approved by NICE quality assurance lead: Simon Ellis, Guideline Lead

      Date: 03.09.2021