Dataset Information

Are food and drink retailers within NHS venues adhering to NICE Quality standard 94 guidance on childhood obesity? A cross-sectional study of two large secondary care NHS hospitals in England.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess whether the food and drink retail outlets in two major National Health Service (NHS) district general hospitals in England adhere to quality statements 1-3 of the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) quality standard 94.

Design

Cross-sectional, descriptive study to assess the food and drink options available in vending machines, restaurants, cafes and shops in two secondary care hospitals.

Main outcome measures

Adherence to quality statement 1 whereby the food and drink items available in the vending machines were classified as either healthy or less healthy using the Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM). Compliance with quality statements 2 and 3 was assessed through the measurement of how clearly the shops, cafes and restaurants displayed nutrition information on menus, and the availability and prominent display of healthy food and drink options in retail outlets, respectively.

Results

Adherence to quality statement 1 was poor. Of the 18 vending machines assessed, only 7 (39%) served both a healthy food and a healthy drink option. Neither hospital was compliant with quality statement 2 wherein nutritional information was not available on menus of food providers in either hospital. There was inconsistent compliance with quality standard 3 whereby healthy food and drink options were prominently displayed in the two main hospital restaurants, but all shops and cafes prioritised the display of unhealthy items.

Conclusions

Neither hospital was consistently compliant with quality statements 1-3 of the NICE quality standard 94. Improving the availability of healthy foods and drinks while reducing the display and accessibility to less healthy options in NHS venues may improve family awareness of healthy alternatives. Making it easier for parents to direct their children to healthier choices is an ostensibly central component of our healthcare system.

SUBMITTER: James A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5701976 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing interest internationally in linking reimbursement decisions with recommendations for further research. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) can issue guidance to approve the routine use of a health intervention, reject routine use or recommend use within a research programme. These latter recommendations have restricted use to 'only in research' (OIR) or have recommended further research alongside routine use ('approval with research' or AWR). However, it is not currently clear when such recommendations are likely to be made.ObjectivesThis study aims to identify NICE technology appraisals where OIR or AWR recommendations were made and to examine the key considerations that led to those decisions.MethodsDraft and final guidance including OIR/AWR recommendations were identified. The documents were reviewed to establish the characteristics of the technology appraisal, the cost effectiveness of the technologies, the key considerations that led to the recommendations and the types of research required.ResultsIn total, 29 final and 31 draft guidance documents included OIR/AWR recommendations up to January 2010. Overall, 86 % of final guidance included OIR recommendations. Of these, the majority were for technologies considered to be cost ineffective (83 %) and the majority of final guidance (66 %) specified the need for further evidence on relative effectiveness. The use of OIR/AWR recommendations is decreasing over time and they have rarely been used in appraisals conducted through the single technology appraisal process.ConclusionNICE has used its ability to recommend technologies within research programmes, although predominantly within the multiple technology appraisal process. OIR recommendations have been most frequently issued for technologies considered cost ineffective and the most frequently cited consideration is uncertainty related to relative effectiveness. Key considerations cited for most AWR recommendations and some OIR recommendations included a need for further evidence on long-term outcomes and adverse effects of treatment.