Coming soon; BBC Radio 4 investigation into IAPT Sep 2019

chrisb said:
The big advantage of this scheme is that by failing to follow up the complex patients their problems can safely be ignored. They no longer exist. Management bonuses all round for resolving the problem.
Click to expand...
With no process to report harms, you can report no evidence of harm. QED. Basically betting on people diagnosed (nevermind whether it's accurate and it's likely not) with mental illness to be ignored as raving lunatics if they complain. Just like us. Basically disenfranchising people for having the wrong disease, negating their agency and testimony as fundamentally and unquestionably invalid.

Frankly this is looking to be even more sadistic than the old system of asylums, from which the lesson learned seems to be how to be better at hiding the horror in plain sight. Straight up evil.
 
I followed some of Mike's links in his IAPT section:

http://www.cbtwatch.com/category/iapt/

I found this LSE report, which forms part of the history behind the claim that IAPT should either cost CCGs very little or become fully cost neutral:

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/special/cepsp26.pdf

It possibly deserves a thread of its own, but I'm not cognitively up to starting one. I'll bring my post to the attention of the mods incase they want to do this on my behalf.


Moderator note:
A thread to discuss the LSE report has been created here
https://www.s4me.info/threads/how-mental-illness-loses-out-in-the-nhs-2012-lse-report-on-economic-cost-of-iapt.11535/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rvallee said:
Fast-food psychotherapy. "Recovered" in 5 minutes or you're out.

This is a complete dumpster fire. What the hell are they thinking? There are ponzi schemes out there that are far more sustainable than this.
Click to expand...

Mike highlights in his blog posts that IAPT's definition of 'recovered' is clinically meaningless. He makes some suggestions for how 'recovery' should be properly evaluated, but of course these require suitably qualified therapists, whereas IAPT therapists are mostly 'Well-Being Practicioners' with no clinical experience and only very basic IAPT based training.

The lack of appropriate clinical experience and training is also the case for many of the so-called 'High Intensity' CBT IAPT trained therapists - they simply aren't qualified to appropriately assess meaningful clinical outcomes for their patients, using the clinical tools Mike suggests.
 
Last edited:
I don't get why Sharpe would re-tweet this. Surely he agrees it's a great thing that "*Anyone* can operate as a therapist, psychotherapist or counsellor in the UK". His general stance on research seems to indicate that, whereas the tweet he's re-tweeted is anti that.

Tempted to make a tweet back, but won't as might get into trouble.
 
ladycatlover said:
I don't get why Sharpe would re-tweet this. Surely he agrees it's a great thing that "*Anyone* can operate as a therapist, psychotherapist or counsellor in the UK". His general stance on research seems to indicate that, whereas the tweet he's re-tweeted is anti that.

Tempted to make a tweet back, but won't as might get into trouble.
Click to expand...
My guess is he didn't listen to the program and only latched on a comment he thought meant abuse towards staff, rather than from. He has a habit of doing that anyway.

And the worst of it isn't even happening yet. IAPT seems to be slow to implement but to meet the growing demand in the next few years will actually require to lower the standards, requirements and oversight even further. Isn't CBT just a cheap certificate that only takes a few hours? What could possibly go wrong in shifting a huge number of people who need medical help towards poorly-trained staff with little to no oversight and no feedback system? Oh, yeah, everything. Full-speed ahead, deaf and blind. Yee-haw! No looking back!
 
Critique Of IAPT On BBC TV

Nov 2 2019
5 minute interview with BBC TV,

the main points are:

  • only the tip of the iceberg of those attending IAPT fully recover https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1359105318755264 this contrasts with the Organisations claim of a 50% recovery rate
  • IAPT has only ever marked its’ own homework, despite over £3 billion being spent on it in the last decade. There has been no independent assessment of outcome, of the quality that would be expected were the effectiveness of a drug was being evaluated
  • IAPT fails to effectively engage and treat people. The IAPT Annual Report (2018)/2019] see link below, reveals that a third (31.2%) of new referrals drop out before treatment and approximately two thirds (61.1%) do not complete a course of treatment (using IAPT’s liberal definition of treatment as attending 2 or more session) with almost a third (29.54 %) attending only one treatment session.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/hwn9ncuuyds8qfa/IAPT Annual Report 2018-2019.pdf?dl=0

  • the most common gateway into IAPT is via a 20-30 minute telephone assessment with the most junior members of staff who are trained to signpost people via problem descriptors they do not make diagnoses
  • most IAPT clients do not get psychological therapy rather they are given either guided self help, computerised cbt or invited to attend a class/group i.e they receive low intensity interventions which are without the evidence base of the psychological therapies (high intensity)
Dr Mike Scott
Click to expand...
[https: //vimeo.com/316124732] minus spaces
http://www.cbtwatch.com/critique-of-iapt-on-bbc-tv/
 
Sly Saint said:
Critique Of IAPT On BBC TV

Nov 2 2019
5 minute interview with BBC TV,


[https: //vimeo.com/316124732] minus spaces
http://www.cbtwatch.com/critique-of-iapt-on-bbc-tv/
Click to expand...

IAPT has only ever marked its’ own homework
Click to expand...
The thing about lying to yourself is that you also end up lying to others in the process. Some people are OK with that. Others get quite pissed off about it. There are going to be tough questions to be asked about who pocketed money in this.

So far IAPT seems to have avoided a serious audit but very likely even this assessment is from a best-case perspective where the worst problems are hidden. Especially as it's still expanding and thus burning money at an increasing pace.

The sand this nonsense is built on is PACE. Although a pile of tripes is probably a better analogy and passed putrefaction comes desiccation into dust.
 
Hopefully a paper I have co-authored with Keith Geraghty ‘ Treating Medically Unexplained Symptoms via Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT): Major Limitations Identified’ should appear before long. I did mention to Radio 4 my concerns about IAPTs expansion into MUS, but they record far more material than is broadcast so whether it finds its way into the 40 min programme I don’t know.


so paper with Keith Geraghty also on the way.
Click to expand...

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