Implementation of a Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) Pathway at the Living Well Partnership(LWP), Primary Care Network (PCN), 2025, Refat et al.

ME/CFS Skeptic

ME/CFS Skeptic

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Abstract
Background: Evidence suggests that early identification and treatment of CFS improve patient outcomes, reduce the risk of prolonged disability, and prevent unnecessary investigations. The Pathway was developed and implemented in January 2023 to standardise the diagnosis and management of suspected CFS cases in LWP, PCN.

Aim: To implement a standardised diagnostic approach using structured questionnaires and mandatory investigations, enhance GP confidence in managing complex fatigue cases, ensure timely and accurate referrals through specific criteria, reduce repeated patient contacts for fatigue, and integrate social prescribing to support patients with confirmed CFS.

Method: The CFS pathway identifies prolonged fatigue symptoms through E-consults. Patients complete a CFS questionnaire, followed by a comprehensive GP review Including blood tests screening for underlying conditions. The integration of CFS questionnaire with Arden's CF template supports decision-making based on both subjective and objective findings. Furthermore, inclusion and exclusion criteria guide appropriate referrals to the chronic fatigue service.

Results: Between February and May 2023, 66 patients were coded with fatigue, subsequently 8 confirmed CFS cases, alongside diagnoses of iron deficiency anaemia, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, Coeliac disease and hepatitis: 7 patients were referred to CFS service with an approximate wait-time of 4 weeks. GP feedback indicated increased confidence in managing complex fatigue presentations and improved patient experiences. Additionally, integration of social prescribing has been implemented to support confirmed CFS cases.

Conclusion: This pathway demonstrates the effectiveness of structured care for chronic conditions in reaching a diagnosis, for example, CFS in primary care, highlighting the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for holistic patient care.

© British Journal of General Practice 2025.

Link to the study:
https://bjgp.org/content/75/suppl_1/bjgp25X742149
 
BrightCandle said:
Relying on the subjective comments of 7 patients would be less than ideal, but relying on what their GPs said about the patients is totally worthless.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

It just proves how broken and politicised the whole system has become.

Where are the technical/funding panels, the ethical oversight committees, and peer-reviewers/editors on this? Why are they waving this shit through in the first place? Why is nobody holding them to account? How is every single level of quality control in this area simultaneously dysfunctional, and failing in the same way, with the same appalling results?

Poor research could not even get past the first round of applications, let alone make it all the way into received 'truth' and government & insurance industry policy, if these guys were all doing even a modestly competent job.

The tail now wags the dog. The model has become too important to... something or somebody, to be allowed to fail. Methodology, ethics, patients' lives, etc, are all being sacrificed to save it from falsification, from being exposed for what it really is, and consigned to its rightful place in the shame bin of medical history.

This is the by far the biggest barrier to progress.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top