{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021363173957273652, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006103763987792472, 'mean_word_length': 5.881118881118881, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Auditing the implementation of SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) clinical guidelines.

Clinical practice guidelines are increasingly being recognised as integral to the clinical effectiveness agenda. According to the recent Scottish White Paper, Scotland "leads the way in clinical effectiveness". The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), established in 1993, has produced over 20 clinical practice guidelines, and plans to produce at least as many more, while reviewing existing guidelines at a minimum of every two years. This represents a substantial investment of NHS resources. This paper investigates whether this investment is being recouped in Scottish NHS acute trusts via the implementation of SIGN guidelines, and whether their implementation is being audited properly. It is argued that without clinical audit, guideline implementation is unlikely to succeed. This has important ramifications for the implementation of clinical governance.