Criteria versus guidelines: Are we doing the best for our paediatric patients?. (1st April 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hanvey, Kate; Ambler, Marette; Maggs, Justine; Wilson, Katherine
• Is Part Of: Cochlear implants international. Volume 17(2016)Supplement 1
• Page Start: 78
• Page End: 82
• Publication Date: 2016-04-01
• Subjects: Cochlear implant -- Borderline -- Reverse slope -- NICE guidance -- Non-traditional -- Candidacy -- Criteria; Cochlear implants -- Periodicals; 617.882
• DOI: 10.1080/14670100.2016.1157310
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1467-0100

Abstract

Abstract : The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance for the provision of cochlear implants (NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance 166. Cochlear implants for children and adults with severe to profound deafness. 2009. National Health Service National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.) are used to develop candidacy criteria by public health funding bodies within the UK. Often the guidance is interpreted as strict 'criteria' whereby clinicians adhere to specific audiometric thresholds without accounting for the acceptable range of performance on individual tests or a child's functional development. In this paper four clinical paediatric case studies are described from two cochlear implant centres which serve to illustrate difficulties in applying NICE guidance as strict criteria. These are presented in the context of recommending more flexible interpretation based on the content of the current guidance along with considerations of circumstances where NICE guidance might be adapted to optimise use of cochlear implant technology within a national framework.