1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 20th November 2023 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Our chronic fatigue syndrome/encephalomyelitis service is nice (?!), but is it patient friendly? experience of going beyond audit

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by MeSci, Mar 17, 2018.

Tags:
  1. MeSci

    MeSci Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,295
    Location:
    Cornwall, UK
    Source: Archives of Disease in Childhood
    Vol 103, Suppl 1, G18
    Date: March 2018
    URL: http://adc.bmj.com/content/103/Suppl_1/A7.2

    Our chronic fatigue syndrome/encephalomyelitis service is nice, but is it patient friendly? experience of going beyond audit
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    AM Taylor, J Man, EJ Parish, T Segal
    - Children and Young People's Services, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    Abstract

    Aim

    To assess the quality of diagnosis and management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)/Encephalomyelitis (ME) in a tertiary Service against NICE guidelines, along with views of the young people assessed.

    More at link.
     
    MeSci, Mar 17, 2018
    #1
    MSEsperanza, MEMarge, Invisible Woman and 11 others like this.
  2. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    Awesome.

    Wonder if Archives of Disease in Childhood is doing a special issue on CFS?
     
    Esther12, Mar 17, 2018
    #2
    MSEsperanza, MEMarge, Invisible Woman and 7 others like this.
  3. Allele

    Allele Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,047
     
    Allele, Mar 17, 2018
    #3
    MEMarge, Invisible Woman, ladycatlover and 1 other person like this.
  4. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,518
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    more back of an envelope BS
     
    NelliePledge, Mar 17, 2018
    #4
    MEMarge, Invisible Woman, adambeyoncelowe and 3 others like this.
  5. Daisybell

    Daisybell Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,627
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Presumably this paper was written because the authors had no clinical work to do, having had only 30 referrals to the service in total over a 12 month period. So they had to do something to justify paying them a salary. It’s unfortunate perhaps for them that the overriding impression is that the service is a waste of money and effort for all involved.
     
    Daisybell, Mar 17, 2018
    #5
    Joh, Invisible Woman, Jan and 14 others like this.
  6. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    25,756
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    It's such a joke.

    First, it seems that only 30 people got referred to the service over a 12 month period. 3 didn't go, so that left 27.

    Of the 27 patients, when parents or the patient were contacted, only 10 'answered the telephone'. So that left 10, 8 of which were parents and 2 of which were patients.

    Of the 10, only 5 agreed with the statement ‘this is a good service for my friends and family to be looked after in if they needed similar treatment or care’.

    When we ask for more research, this isn't the sort we are asking for.
     
    Hutan, Mar 17, 2018
    #6
    MSEsperanza, hinterland, Invisible Woman and 20 others like this.
  7. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    25,756
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    We've shifted the thread to a research subforum. Our subforum headings aren't great for this type of service delivery research, there is only 'biomedical research' or 'psychosocial research' to choose from. We've put it in psychosocial research as the service offers GET and CBT.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2021
    Hutan, Mar 17, 2018
    #7
    Lidia, adambeyoncelowe, ladycatlover and 4 others like this.
  8. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    50,077
    Location:
    UK
    Looks to me like they are trying to hold on to their jobs and / or jumping through required paperwork by doing a service evaluation - and doing it very badly. What I don't understand is why a journal would publish such unscientific crap. All it boils down to is - we phoned a few people and asked if they liked us.:banghead::banghead::banghead:
     
    Trish, Mar 18, 2018
    #8
    MSEsperanza, Little Bluestem, Arnie Pye and 12 others like this.
  9. Flying Dutchman

    Flying Dutchman Established Member

    Messages:
    21
    This was published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, which is the official journal of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

    This paper is an abstract presented at the RCPCH's Annual Conference, held in Glasgow, 13-15 March 2018.

    One thing that stands out is that the percentages reported don't make sense. Four percentages are reported as being based on a sample size of 27 - but two of these four (43% & 73%) are not outcomes that can be obtained by selecting any whole number as a proportion of 27.

    (They had 30 referrals in all. The four percentages cannot have been obtained as proportions of 30, either.)
     
    Flying Dutchman, Mar 24, 2018
    #9
    MEMarge, Invisible Woman, Jan and 6 others like this.
  10. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    25,756
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Well spotted @Flying Dutchman.

    I think none of the four percentages work with a divisor of 27. One works with a divisor of 30 (22/30 = 73.3%) and perhaps they could have another one with a divisor of 30 if we excuse bad rounding (26/30 = 86.7%).

     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
    Hutan, Mar 26, 2018
    #10
    MEMarge, Invisible Woman, Wonko and 3 others like this.
  11. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,987
    It would be good to know the split between cbt/ get within the 73%
     
    Amw66, Mar 26, 2018
    #11
    MEMarge, Hutan, Invisible Woman and 2 others like this.
  12. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    Could be worth contacting the authors about their percentages, and seeing what they say?
     
    Esther12, Mar 26, 2018
    #12
    MEMarge, Hutan and Invisible Woman like this.
  13. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    25,756
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    The title implies that the service is compliant with the NICE guideline criteria, it's just that those patients don't seem to be appreciating it enough.

    But regardless of how they came up with the percentages, the figures suggest much less than NICE compliance. Given that they only had 30 referrals and only 27 young people to treat in one year, you'd think they could manage to tell all patients something about symptom management, education, and general principles of ME and record that in the patient notes.

    I mean, it's not a high bar. A couple of leaflets spouting BPS nonsense, a standard letter for the young person to give their school and some boxes to tick on the patient records would cover it. And yet even that seems too hard.
     
    Hutan, Mar 26, 2018
    #13
    MEMarge, Woolie, 2kidswithME and 3 others like this.
  14. Little Bluestem

    Little Bluestem Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,450
    I'll bet the 2 who 'disagreed a lot' were the 2 patients.
     
    Little Bluestem, Mar 30, 2018
    #14
    MEMarge, Hutan, adambeyoncelowe and 1 other person like this.

Share This Page