I agree with most of what has already been said. I actually was underwhelmed with the quality of the UK ME/CFS CPD module - I think it needs some work before it is as helpful as we would hope a CPD course to be. I don't think it should be recommended in its present form (my comment and thread here)
UK: ME/CFS CPD module from Study PRN and supporting podcasts
With my committee hat on, I think the committee and Jonathan needs to discuss how the response is formulated.
Jonathan could reply in his personal capacity, as the person appointed to the Roundtable by S4ME and taking into account feedback here. Or the committee, as the elected representatives of members, might sign off on a drafted response. Given the very short time frame, personally I think trying to draft a response and then have eligible members vote on it is not going to be possible.
I mention this because I suspect that members will have different views on what should be said, not least because we have members who are also members of Doctors for ME. And, for documents that purport to represent S4ME, there needs to be some process for ensuring that they do in fact appropriately represent the views of S4ME members.
UK: ME/CFS CPD module from Study PRN and supporting podcasts
With my committee hat on, I think the committee and Jonathan needs to discuss how the response is formulated.
Whilst this is not a formal consultation process, we would welcome comment from stakeholders who were represented at the roundtable workshop held last October. Please could you respond on behalf of Science for ME?
Jonathan could reply in his personal capacity, as the person appointed to the Roundtable by S4ME and taking into account feedback here. Or the committee, as the elected representatives of members, might sign off on a drafted response. Given the very short time frame, personally I think trying to draft a response and then have eligible members vote on it is not going to be possible.
I mention this because I suspect that members will have different views on what should be said, not least because we have members who are also members of Doctors for ME. And, for documents that purport to represent S4ME, there needs to be some process for ensuring that they do in fact appropriately represent the views of S4ME members.
Last edited: