I might have been unclear, sorry. I'm not a native english speaker, and I meant to ask if I was mistaken in thinking that they are suddenly advocating thorough physical investigation, as I feared I might have misunderstood the meaning of "thorough clinical assessment". (Of course the detail will be in the article itself.)
I already spent my Friday afternoon going through some of my my sources and collecting instances where it was advised to NOT do thorough investigations. Like saying physicians should perform minimum investigations and stating GP's should act as "gatekeeper" to secondary care services.
It leads indeed to a circular situation: We think there's nothing wrong with you -->we advise doing only the most basic test and sticking on a MUS or CFS label as fast as possible -->there are no abnormalities found, therefore.....arrow back to the start. (Now there's a nice arrow diagram that actually represents reality. Talk about
Vicious Circles....)
Thank you
@Arvo for this. You weren't unclear. Maybe I was.
Yes, I read the words "thorough clinical assessment", to mean looking at all spheres including the physical. But they advocate GET/CBT for CFS and ME. So, there doesn't seem to be any change. Unless as you say the full article might say something new.
Do you know if restricting tests to a minimum for suspected cases of CFS is an actual government policy? Or just what the BPS Movement recommends?
It's my understanding that doing little testing is an important part of some medical practices. IME this has been the situation for many decades .The BPS Movement's advice to do the bare minimum meshes nicely with what some are already not doing.
I'd like to add that physicians may be advised by their governing bodies and the state to do less testing for all patients.
It seems bizarre and risky to advocate little testing for any suspected disease, which at first look may be what patients have when they visit their doctor regarding fatigue and/or pain.
This is how we end up with a notable number misdiagnosed with "cfs" or ME, when eventually it's found they have cancer, Parkinson's, MS etc.
I will find that article called "Misdiagnosis on grand scale?" A couple studies noted in the article found that up to about 50% of people diagnosed as having "cfs" or ME, actually had other diseases.
There don't seem to be any legal repercussions for making these misdiagnoses.
I've looked up "clinical assessment". I'm not at my computer right now, but what immediately popped up was "clinical assessment" for suspected psychological conditions. The definition I saw included looking at all realms of the patient's situation. We know that's not how it has been played.
Thats what we've been trying to tell you for as long as you've been in the field... ME is unusual, difficult to understand, it's not what you expect, and it's made worse by things that make others better.
