Appendix 1 Endorsement of guidance and quality standards resources: assessment criteria

Appendix 1 Endorsement of guidance and quality standards resources: assessment criteria

NICE endorsement analysis

The full analysis leading to the endorsement decision is shown below.

1. Scope and purpose criteria – An analysis of the resource scope

Criterion

1. Scope and purpose

Evidence of meeting criteria

Overall assessment

1.1

Does the resource producer specify the NICE guidance or quality standard that the resource relates to? Which NICE guidance recommendations and/or quality standard statements does the resource cover?

Criterion met/not fully met/not met

1.2

Does the producer indicate if content goes beyond what NICE says with a rationale for this?

Criterion met/not fully met/not met

1.3

Does the resource address recommendations and/or statements with (potentially) poor uptake, identified difficulties in implementation or involving a significant change to practice?

Criterion met/not fully met/not met

1.4

Does the majority of the resource relate to NICE guidance and/or quality standards? It is not sufficient for just a small part of the resource to support implementation of guidance.

Criterion met/not fully met/not met

1.5

Is the intended user of the resource clear? If the intended users include patients has the resource been produced by an Information Standard certified producer?

Criterion met/not fully met/not met

2. Resource properties criteria – An analysis of the generic resource properties

Criterion

2. Resource properties

Evidence of meeting criteria

Overall assessment

2.1

Is there a process for handling resource updates including when they would happen aside of guidance recommendations or quality standard statements updates?

Criterion met/not fully met/not met

2.2

Can the resource be used in a UK health setting with no amendments required? If amendments are needed can they be made?

Criterion met/not fully met/not met

2.3

Can the resource be used as is or does it need other things to function, such as specific software, licensing or a fee paid?

Criterion met/not fully met/not met

2.4

Does the resource address potential sources of bias, such as using other sources of information, sponsorship or focus?

Criterion met/not fully met/not met

2.5

Did the producer involve relevant stakeholders/intended users in developing the resource? If not does the producer explain why not?

Criterion met/not fully met/not met

3. Recommendations criteria

Does the resource output align to the recommendations in the guidance/statements in the quality standard? Is the wording used in the resource consistent with NICE guidance/quality standard and not in conflict with it?

Criterion

3. Recommendations

Evidence of meeting criteria

Overall assessment

3.1

Do any aspects of the resource contradict NICE guidance and/or quality standards either directly or by omitting parts of recommendations or statements?

Criterion met/not fully met/not met

3.2

<add relevant recommendation/ statement>

Criterion met/not fully met/not met

3.3

<add relevant recommendation/ statement>

Criterion met/not fully met/not met

3.4

<add relevant recommendation/ statement>

Criterion met/not fully met/not met

3.5

<add relevant recommendation/statement>

Criterion met/not fully met/not met

Other issues