NICE and Cochrane sign collaborative agreement to deliver ‘living’ guideline recommendations

InitialConditions said:
However, I noticed he's not hosting the next talk, either.
Click to expand...
yes. could have been a coincidence I suppose.

I have written to the webinar address, as invited (see below), and asked when the recording will be available. And also if they could send me the text of my question which wasn't asked. I never remember to screenshot or save the questions I ask at these things!

Hi Caroline Struthers,

Thank you for attending In Conversation Live with Professor Gillian Leng CBE. We hope you enjoyed our event.

Please submit your questions or comments to: webinar1@rsm.ac.uk.

We would be grateful if you would take the time to complete an online event evaluation to help us assess and continually improve the quality of our events.

The online event evaluation should take no longer than 5-10 minutes to complete and will close 1 week after the event.

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/PHQ14

Please support the Royal Society of Medicine in these unprecedented times and help us continue our mission in advancing healthcare through education and innovation. Now more than ever, we need your help to continue our work. Thank you for your generosity.

www.rsm.ac/donate

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Best wishes,
RSM Events Team

*Please note all views expressed in this webinar are of the speakers themselves and not of the RSM.
 
Her account seems very fair and reasonable but I do think it is a pity that she focuses again on this re herring of different things suiting different people and choice. I would have preferred it if, now that the guideline is out and has been successfully defended, she had put the emphasis on supporting her committee chairman, Peter Barry, and said simply 'I think we got it right because we stuck to the evidence'.

What the modern world needs is people in charge to whom it matters that we get things right, not that everyone is happy.
 
Hi,
got a response to another of my FOIs re meetings held between NICE & Cochrane:
"Dear Xxxx,

Reference No: EH-320401-Y1Y2R1

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

Thank you for contacting the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) with your request for information, sent to our office on 6 January 2022.



The Freedom of Information Act 2000 relates to recorded information held by a public authority, at the time that the request is made. I explained when I acknowledged your request that, as the article you directed to pertains to the collaboration agreement between NICE and Cochrane, we will search our records for information relating to this. I have listed your questions below and answered each one in turn.



  1. The minutes of any meetings held between NICE and Cochrane.


NICE met with Cochrane 3 times, on 10 March 2021, 23 June 2021, and 8 September 2021, to discuss the collaboration agreement. Minutes of these meetings are attached.



Please note we have redacted the name of the minute taker in the attached as disclosure would contravene one of the data protection principles. In such circumstances sections 40(2) and (3) of the Freedom of Information Act apply. In this case, our view is that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle. This states that personal data should be processed fairly and lawfully. It is the fairness aspect of this principle, which, in our view, would be breached by disclosure. In such circumstances, section 40 confers an absolute exemption on disclosure. There is, therefore, no public interest test to apply. We have therefore redacted this information from the document provided in our response.



  1. The agenda for any such meetings.


The agendas for the meetings of 10 March 2021, 23 June 2021, and 8 September are attached.



Please note we have redacted the name of the minute taker in the attached as disclosure would contravene one of the data protection principles. In such circumstances sections 40(2) and (3) of the Freedom of Information Act apply. In this case, our view is that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle. This states that personal data should be processed fairly and lawfully. It is the fairness aspect of this principle, which, in our view, would be breached by disclosure. In such circumstances, section 40 confers an absolute exemption on disclosure. There is, therefore, no public interest test to apply. We have therefore redacted this information from the document provided in our response.



  1. The email or other communication which arranged any such meetings.


Please see attached document titled ‘Meetings for Nichole’.



Please note we have redacted the names in the attached as disclosure would contravene one of the data protection principles. In such circumstances sections 40(2) and (3) of the Freedom of Information Act apply. In this case, our view is that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle. This states that personal data should be processed fairly and lawfully. It is the fairness aspect of this principle, which, in our view, would be breached by disclosure. In such circumstances, section 40 confers an absolute exemption on disclosure. There is, therefore, no public interest test to apply. We have therefore redacted this information from the document provided in our response.



  1. A list of dates of any such meetings.


10 March 2021

23 June 2021

8 September 2021



  1. Any contracts and or service level agreements that exist between NICE and Cochrane.


Please find attached word documents titled ‘2021-08-11 NICE_Cochrane Collaboration Agreement and Licence Unpublished Data SIGNED – redacted’. Please note we have redacted the signatures in the attached as disclosure would contravene one of the data protection principles. In such circumstances sections 40(2) and (3) of the Freedom of Information Act apply. In this case, our view is that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle.



This states that personal data should be processed fairly and lawfully. It is the fairness aspect of this principle, which, in our view, would be breached by disclosure. In such circumstances, section 40 confers an absolute exemption on disclosure. There is, therefore, no public interest test to apply. We have therefore redacted this information from the document provided in our response.



I hope this is useful to you. If you have any questions on this response you are welcome to email the enquiry handling team at nice@nice.org.uk.



If you are unhappy with this response and want an internal review of how we handled your request, you must write to us within 40 working days of our response. Send your request to: Associate Director, Corporate Office, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2nd Floor, 2 Redman Place, London, E20 1JQ or email: complaints@nice.org.uk. When we receive your request, we will send you an acknowledgement within 5 working days.



The Associate Director, Corporate Office, will review your complaint and send you a full reply usually within 20 working days. If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of this review, you can apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.



Kind regards



Katy



Katy

Communications Executive"

I'll post the attachment when I get that technical issue sorted!
@Caroline Struthers - Michiel has posted the documents provided by NICE re meetings with Cochrane

@Michiel Tack
 
Last edited:
Here are the documents Francis received and asked me to upload here on S4ME
(EDIT: haven't looked at these myself)
 

Attachments

You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom