The topic of ME services within the NHS was recently discussed at a ForwardME meeting. This was led by the charity reMEmber, who made some good points. I'm going to duplicate here, because I have a feeling this ForwardME link will likely change and may disappear.

Many thanks for this heads up, I have used it as follows to alert our local NHS Alliance Commissioning & Contract Team :


'Dear Nicola and Carrie,
I hope the recent Suffolk/North Essex Alliance (CCGs) position paper meeting on Me and CFS further service developments was a positive experience regarding our local petition for adequate local services.

The topic of ME services within the NHS was recently discussed at a ForwardME meeting.

https://forward-me.co.uk/14th-july-2021/

Please note following;

https://forward-me.co.uk/
Baroness Scott of Needham-Market

Ros Scott has been a member of the House of Lords since May 2000, and has a particular interest in the Voluntary and Community sector, and the environment.

She is keen to foster better understanding of ME, and is a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group for ME.

Email: ScottRC@parliament.uk

regards,


B

Suffolk Youth & Parent Support

and

Norfolk and Suffolk ME and CFS Service Development Group.

reMEmber’s observations on the ME/CFS services in the NHS
This was led by the charity reMEmber, who made some good points. I'm going to duplicate here

These services were set up more than ten years ago but there has been no national review of them. The model was not to our liking from the start.

Our preferred model would have been along the lines of that formerly run by Professor Tony Pinching at Barts, with a consultant who would see all patients referred to the service, who could prescribe medicines, and backed up by a small team of experts eg occupational therapist, community nurse.

There is not comprehensive coverage. Some places have never had a ME/CFS service. In other places there was once a service which has now closed down. We believe that there is no service at all in Wales and not much in Scotland.
Some clinics have no doctor attached. In others there is a doctor but he or she may be only part-time. GPs with a Special Interest have been shown not to be the answer; patients need to see an expert doctor, but many do not see a doctor at all at their ME/CFS clinic.
The deficiencies in these services were highlighted in two important reports in 2017. “Specialist treatment of CFS/ME; a cohort study among adult patients in England” by Bristol University found that two-thirds of patients seen by those services reported, after one year, that their condition was only a little improved, unchanged or worse. Five years after being seen 85% of these patients reported they still had CFS/ME, 9% said they were uncertain and only 5% said they no longer had the condition.
The second study “Spotlight on specialist services; UK healthcare for people with ME”, produced by AFME found that less than half of the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and their equivalents in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales commissioned a specialist service for CFS/ME and less than a third recorded any data on how many people in their area had the illness.
Early, accurate diagnosis is essential, but patients are not seen early enough and there is a high rate of misdiagnosis by GPs (40% at Newcastle and Barts for example)
Many centres have no domiciliary service or provision for the severely affected who cannot get to an out-patient facility. There is nowhere with an in-patient facility for ME/CFS patients and the ME/CFS clinics do not provide for children with the illness.
Therapy in the centres is almost entirely CBT or GET (because of NICE and PACE). There are some exceptions; when Dr Amolak Bansal (Immunologist) led the South West London and Surrey service they offered Vitamin B12 by injection, Vitamin D3, mindfulness meditation, hormones including melatonin for sleep disorders, antivirals, antibiotics and Pacing – the therapy preferred by most ME/CFS people. A key point was that these therapies were offered on a personalised basis (not “one size fits all”). We attended their tenth birthday party in 2016; a number of past patients were there, and all said how improved they felt in mind, body and spirit – they knew they were not cured but they were able to manage their condition much better.
reMEmber has, on a number of occasions, brought these shortcomings to the attention of the DHSC and NHS England. Sir Nicholas Soames, when an MP, and the Countess of Mar have both asked Questions on our behalf in Parliament, but the answer is always the same – that provision for CFS/ME is a matter for the local Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). Our attempts to engage CCGs on this subject have been unsuccessful; looking at ME provision seems to be very low down on their list of priorities.
However, with the re-organisation of Forward-ME and with the new NICE Guideline in mind, now may be a good time to focus the Health Departments once more on this subject.
A united Forward ME would carry much more weight than an individual charity. We suggest pressing for a thorough review of the ME/CFS services within the NHS with a view to establishing a comprehensive, nationwide service. reMEmber recommends:

All patients to be examined by an expert consultant physician
Prompt, accurate diagnosis
A domiciliary service for the severely affected
A dedicated service for children and young people with ME/CFS.
Multi-disciplinary teams in all centres'
 
Job ad

NHS
Highly Specialist Psychologist in Pain & ME / CFS
Job Description
The Pain Service is an award winning psychology/therapy led interdisciplinary team providing high quality pain management services to people in Hackney living with persistent pain. The ME/CFS Service was set up in 2018 to work with patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/ chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS).

This is an exciting opportunity for a clinical, health or counselling psychologist with experience of working with clients with long term health conditions, to join a dynamic team of psychologists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, nurse specialist, pharmacist and consultant working across both services. With support from psychology, the teams work in a psychologically informed way and the multi-disciplinary teams are trained to use an acceptance and commitment framework to support our patients to live well even in the presence of pain and ME/CFS. Psychological therapy is both highly valued and well-established within the teams and the successful applicant would work as a member of a team of psychologists who are skilled in a range of approaches including ACT, CBT, mindfulness and compassion focused approaches.

The successful applicant will assess and manage a caseload of patients with persistent pain both on a 1:1 basis and will work alongside MDT colleagues to deliver our pain management group programme and to develop groups in the ME/CFS Service. There will be opportunities for close interdisciplinary working, research, teaching and training & contributing to service development. We place a strong emphasis on CPD through team based training and support for attending external courses. There may be opportunity to work into the newly set up Long Covid Service which is also based in the same department, depending on service needs.
https://restless.co.uk/job/nhs-highly-specialist-psychologist-in-pain-me-cfs-clapton-916647429/

either they still haven't got the memo or ACT is the way to get around the possible removal of CBT from the guidelines issue.
 
either they still haven't got the memo or ACT is the way to get around the possible removal of CBT from the guidelines issue.

It will be interesting to see the final wording, but the latest 2020 draft NICE guidelines could be interpreted as recommending CBT for ME/CFS. They clearly state it is not a curative treatment, but do suggest it is a useful supportive intervention.

It is sad if they do leave the draft as it is, as there is no research at all on the value or otherwise of supportive CBT in ME/CFS; at best NICE should only be recommending appropriate psychological support should be available to those that need and/or want it not highlighting just CBT without any objective justification. There continues a worry that the new guidelines will allow current specialist services to just rebrand CBT and GET as supportive therapy and activity management, but continue as they are under a ‘pacing up’ umbrella.

From this ad, given it is also a pain clinic, it is not clear how this service envisages the ongoing use of CBT, ACT, mindfulness or compassion focused approaches with ME. They are not necessarily a bad thing if they are solely supportive and presented as unevidenced experimental options, and as long as they are not offered to the exclusion of the management of all the other symptoms of ME, such as hypersensitivities, food intolerances, orthostatic intolerances and many others.
 
It will be interesting to see the final wording, but the latest 2020 draft NICE guidelines could be interpreted as recommending CBT for ME/CFS. They clearly state it is not a curative treatment, but do suggest it is a useful supportive intervention.

It is sad if they do leave the draft as it is, as there is no research at all on the value or otherwise of supportive CBT in ME/CFS; at best NICE should only be recommending appropriate psychological support should be available to those that need and/or want it not highlighting just CBT without any objective justification. There continues a worry that the new guidelines will allow current specialist services to just rebrand CBT and GET as supportive therapy and activity management, but continue as they are under a ‘pacing up’ umbrella.

From this ad, given it is also a pain clinic, it is not clear how this service envisages the ongoing use of CBT, ACT, mindfulness or compassion focused approaches with ME. They are not necessarily a bad thing if they are solely supportive and presented as unevidenced experimental options, and as long as they are not offered to the exclusion of the management of all the other symptoms of ME, such as hypersensitivities, food intolerances, orthostatic intolerances and many others.
A bit too many social media posts on how this is interpreted for chronic pain. ...
Along the lines of being discharged as no room for a " mindfulness nook" in a living room and suggestions of " journalling" as a pain option...

I'm sure there must be some clinicians working wonders somewhere but too many anecdotes along these lines to not raise red flags .
 
ACT ok well on what evidence base is that being applied to people with ME? Is it even referred to in the draft guidelines?
Sounds like they've never seen a patient with actual ME/CFS...

It contradicts the importance of people being given an early diagnosis and being supported to manage their 'energy envelope'.

Given that people are most likely to recover in the early years, are they aiming ACT at people who have had the condition for several years? Surely, the long timers wouldn't want to waste their precious limited energy and health attending clinics who are going to tell them to accept their serious and chronic ill health? Bizarre and definitely implies they think ME/CFS is a mental health, 'MUS' or 'functional' condition.
 
I really hate the term 'living well', it completely trivialises how difficult it is to suffer from a serious chronic illness. There is a big difference in managing ones ill health as best as possible to have the best quality of life you can within the confines of severe pain or severe energy impairments (not to even mention all the other debilitating symptoms of ME, social isolation, lack of support, financial difficulties etc.) and 'living well'.
 
I really hate the term 'living well', it completely trivialises how difficult it is to suffer from a serious chronic illness. There is a big difference in managing ones ill health as best as possible to have the best quality of life you can within the confines of severe pain or severe energy impairments (not to even mention all the other debilitating symptoms of ME, social isolation, lack of support, financial difficulties etc.) and 'living well'.

Wish I could give that post multiple likes.

This "living well" business is insidious. The implication that it is wholly within the power of the person suffering chronic illness to change their lot.....simply by a change of attitude.

This is seriously regressive stuff. Can you imagine the outcry today if it became known that someone who belonged to an ethnic minority or was gay, or transgender was sent to ACT when they complained they weren't being treated fairly, that obstacles were being put in place to prevent them participating in society?

So why is it acceptable to do this to people living with long term health conditions?
 
I really hate the term 'living well', it completely trivialises how difficult it is to suffer from a serious chronic illness. There is a big difference in managing ones ill health as best as possible to have the best quality of life you can within the confines of severe pain or severe energy impairments (not to even mention all the other debilitating symptoms of ME, social isolation, lack of support, financial difficulties etc.) and 'living well'.

Yes. They've just cut & pasted the stuff about chronic pain and added ME/CFS. They seem to have no sensitivity to the idea that illness can be severely limiting such that human needs cannot be met without additional support.
 
ACT ok well on what evidence base is that being applied to people with ME? Is it even referred to in the draft guidelines?
They have a special permit.

il_570xN.1296855583_wbyg.jpg
 
Wish I could give that post multiple likes.

This "living well" business is insidious. The implication that it is wholly within the power of the person suffering chronic illness to change their lot.....simply by a change of attitude.

This is seriously regressive stuff. Can you imagine the outcry today if it became known that someone who belonged to an ethnic minority or was gay, or transgender was sent to ACT when they complained they weren't being treated fairly, that obstacles were being put in place to prevent them participating in society?

So why is it acceptable to do this to people living with long term health conditions?
Even worse, consider the extreme whininess of most of those people having to deal with minor inconveniences to their privilege, like Clare Gerada ranting for months about how she hates wearing masks, as if her opinion held any value on whether they are useful. They can't even deal with minor criticism, the mere suggestion that they are not perfect is basically an attack on their person and everything they represent.

This minor trivial adaptation is too much, and these people go around telling people to suck it up dealing with 1000x worse, as if they are perfectly equivalent. If they'd live a single day in our bodies they would collapse into depression, they clearly cannot endure this much hardship, the worst thing they've clearly ever endured is having their drink served in the wrong type of glass.
 
Yes. They've just cut & pasted the stuff about chronic pain and added ME/CFS. They seem to have no sensitivity to the idea that illness can be severely limiting such that human needs cannot be met without additional support.
Looks like a fairly typical HR exercise of squeezing a new responsibility into an existing service, or shifting personnel across from one service area to another, or circumscribing a new position as the best fit for a preferred candidate. None of which is very promising from a service user perspective.

Acceptance is likely a necessity for anyone faced with life changing experiences if that person is not to substantially limit the options (such as those might be) that they have for the best available outcome of that change. The principle in health terms is - "yes compared to where you were, your life is now crap, now what are your options for the crap not to overwhelm you ?"

ACT as an intervention for chronic pain is primarily concerned with just a single dimension of disease (pain) and if the patient has ongoing illness which is the source of pain, then the patient will likely have access to specialist support and/or treatment that will form a large part of the ACT area of reference. That specialist support and/or treatment is currently absent for ME/CFS and the therapist is free to expand their area of reference to every dimension of disease the patient reports, with a strong possibility that their illness will be reduced to a behavioral problem, irrespective of any lip service paid to 'organic disease'.
https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/pmt.15.32 From an ACT perspective a narrow and inflexible behavior pattern characterized by avoidance of pain and distress plays a central role in the development and maintenance of disability and reduced quality of life
The reality for most PwME is that across the multiple impairments they have, that for sheer necessity they are living somewhere close to the optimal/maximal activity they can achieve and making substantial behavioural changes requires exceptional investment of resources that are in short supply. Yet ACT demands:
...the treatment objective is to develop a wider and more flexible behavior repertoire, or to increase behavioral flexibility (also referred to as psychological flexibility), defined as the ability to act in accordance with personally held values also in the presence of interfering pain and distress. Notably, this implies that ACT is not primarily about reducing pain intensity but rather its influence on behavior, that is, pain interference.
and
Similar to other behavior therapies, ACT is an exposure-based treatment in which the patient is encouraged to engage in personally important activities previously avoided due to pain and distress. In this process, acceptance (or willingness to experience) is promoted as a behavioral response to pain and distress that cannot be directly changed, to facilitate engagement in activities that are meaningful although possibly painful.
 
Yes. They've just cut & pasted the stuff about chronic pain and added ME/CFS. They seem to have no sensitivity to the idea that illness can be severely limiting such that human needs cannot be met without additional support.
Seems so:

https://www.healthwatchhackney.co.uk/news/mental-health-trust-pulls-out-of-chronic-fatigue-service/

Mental health trust pulls out of chronic fatigue service
East London Foundation Trust (ELFT) has stopped taking referrals for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome in City and Hackney and will cease running the service from April this year.

City and Hackney clinical commissioning group (CCG) said the mental health trust had decided to end the service because it considered the provision ‘not part of their core business.’

The CCG is planning to commission a new Complex Chronic Conditions service locally that would including the existing pain clinic service at St Leonards Hospital.

In the meantime GPs have been told to refer new patients to the Royal Free Hospital.

Chronic Fatigue syndrome , also known as ME or myalgic encephalomyelitis, is a debilitating long-term illness with a wide range of symptoms including extreme tiredness.

Around 70 patients a year in City and Hackney are referred to the chronic fatigue service. Around 50 of these patients go on to receive treatment for Chronic Fatigues.

Under-18s who show symptoms of chronic fatigue will continue to have an initial assessment with the child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS).

Children who require treatment will be referred to the Royal Free Hospital’s all-age service.

A CCG spokesman said: ‘It is planned that a City and Hackney-only service will be provided locally as part of the Homerton pain clinic.

‘Joining pain and chronic fatigue together makes clinical sense as the two share some similarities in terms of treatments. It also means that we will be able to retain local provision.’

He said the new service was expected to be operational ‘later this year’ but in the meantime local GPs had been asked to refer patients with Chronic Fatigue at the Royal Free Hospital.
 
Does anyone understand what is going on here? ELFT were the people who put out a ridiculous video with Rona Moss-Morris on CBT etc. that I think I quoted in my NICE report. It sounds as if they have withdrawn from ME as not part of their core business?
They set up the new 'Chronic Fatigue' service by merging with the existing pain clinic in 2018 apparently. But the new service does include 'Chronic Fatigue Syndrome' patients. The news article was from 2018, I quoted it to show the CFS/ME treatments are simply an add on to the pain approach.

The Chronic Fatigue Service based at St Leonard’s Hospital in Hackney is one of the largest such services in the UK. Formerly based at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, the Chronic Fatigue Service is provided jointly by East London Foundation Trust and Barts Health NHS Trust. The service celebrated its 25th anniversary in 2009.

The Chronic Fatigue Service provides a comprehensive, multidisciplinary out-patient service for people with chronic fatigue syndrome, (CFS) sometimes known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), people suffering from fibromyalgia (chronic widespread pain), and people with fatigue secondary to another medical condition.

We have found that approximately three-quarters of our patients with Chronic Fatigue significantly improve or recover with treatment in our clinic. Research has suggested that a quarter recover and half significantly improve. For some people, recovery may Not mean a return to previous lifestyles, if this contributed to them becoming ill in the first place.

https://www.hackneyicare.org.uk/kb5/hackney/asch/service.page?id=JL22oAmw39M
 
Last edited:
They set up the new 'Chronic Fatigue' service by merging with the existing pain clinic in 2018 apparently. But the new service does include 'Chronic Fatigue Syndrome' patients. The news article was from 2018, I quoted it to show the CFS/ME treatments are simply an add on to the pain approach.



https://www.hackneyicare.org.uk/kb5/hackney/asch/service.page?id=JL22oAmw39M
interesting, this might be what is happening elsewhere also(?)
see
https://www.s4me.info/threads/royal...nic-fatigue-cfs-aug-5-2021.21719/#post-361100
 
Posts moved from NICE pauses publication of updated ME/CFS guideline hours before publication was due - 17th August 2021


They may claim data from their clinics =success if as survey showed, clinics encouraged to massage figures, and non compliant =discharge= job done= success :-(

As far as we know they don't seem to do much in terms of follow up. They seem to do 'patient satisfaction surveys which come out well for them and perhaps some other subjective measures. I don't believe they do any real follow up (appointment wise) and not in the long term. But it would be really interesting to hear about follow up from people who have attended clinics.

In terms of research there is work on a national outcomes database (done by Crawley and Collins) and I don't think their results were great.
Some discussion here UK: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis National Outcomes Database | Science for ME (s4me.info)

Here is one paper on outcomes (Crawley etc) Treatment outcome in adults with chronic fatigue syndrome: a prospective study in England based on the CFS/ME National Outcomes Database | QJM: An International Journal of Medicine | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Results
Baseline data obtained at clinical assessment were available for 1643 patients, of whom 834 (51%) had complete follow-up data. There were improvements in fatigue [mean difference from assessment to outcome: −6.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) −7.4 to −6.2; P < 0.001]; physical function (4.4; 95% CI 3.0–5.8; P < 0.001), anxiety (−0.6; 95% CI −0.9 to −0.3; P < 0.001), depression (−1.6; 95% CI −1.9 to −1.4; P < 0.001) and pain (−5.3; 95% CI −7.0 to −3.6; P < 0.001). Worse fatigue, physical function and pain at clinical assessment predicted a worse outcome for fatigue at follow-up. Older age, increased pain and physical function at assessment were associated with poorer physical function at follow-up.

Conclusions
Patients who attend NHS specialist CFS/ME services can expect similar improvements in fatigue, anxiety and depression to participants receiving cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy in a recent trial, but are likely to experience less improvement in physical function. Outcomes were predicted by fatigue, disability and pain at assessment.

Worth noting poor follow up (51%). Its intended to be a 12 month follow up but data is given between 6 and 24 months and then they fitted a statistical model to adapt to a 12 month time (I think and I'm not convinced this is a valid thing to do). Follow up is subjective measures. And similar or worse than trials!

This paper
Specialist treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome/ME: a cohort study among adult patients in England | BMC Health Services Research | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)
Gives some more measures (I think on the same data) and they claim "
Conclusions
This multi-centre NHS study has shown that, although one third of patients reported substantial overall improvement in their health, CFS/ME is a long term condition that persists for the majority of adult patients even after receiving specialist treatment."

but I don't think that is really justified. I think table 3 is interesting as it sets out changes in work/education but of course there are issues in that there is no control group, some patients didn't receive many sessions and many drop outs.

Specialist treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome/ME: a cohort study among adult patients in England | BMC Health Services Research | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

Another paper from Crawley (I think same data + some dutch data
manuscript_for_PURE.pdf (bris.ac.uk)

Then there was a BACME survey
CFS/ME National Services Survey Feb 2018 (bacme.info)
(or possibly a series of them). I did look a week or so ago but can't remember anything interesting.

I do wonder if it is worth us looking at such papers and summarizing an opinion as this seems to be the data they would rely on. Opinions both in terms of the quality of data, follow up rates, times and questions and hence the possible bias as well as the actual results.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Merged thread
No idea of the content and not a recommendation.

Adults with long-term physical or mental health conditions are being invited to enrol on a free online course aimed at helping them improve the management of their symptoms.

The Living Well Programme, provided by Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust, is open to people aged 18 or over who have been living with a long-term condition for at least six months.

Their long-term conditions may include heart disease, asthma, Multiple Sclerosis (MS), depression, anxiety, arthritis, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) or Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS).

The course is provided by two trained volunteer tutors, who themselves are living with long-term health conditions, and involves six weekly sessions, each lasting two hours.

With participants setting their own goals, the course covers topics including symptom management, problem-solving, exercise, communication skills, sleep, dealing with difficult emotions and decision-making skills.

https://www.sussexcommunity.nhs.uk/...eople-with-long-term-health-conditions/499431

eta: interesting that they use ME rather than CFS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom