Person Centred Approaches to Long Term Condition Management

This came up on Twitter, and although it mostly relates to diabetes, I thought a process like this could perhaps be useful for ME patients.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1036277118244671488


PROVIDED - OF COURSE - THE CARE WAS NOT BASED ON PACE-STYLE CBT/GET!

http://coalitionforcollaborativecar...ng-term-condition-management-in-primary-care/

If this sort of process was used, it could help highlight patients who have less family support, or more difficult circumstances, and so help to direct appropriate additional support towards those who are most in need.

I guess it’s too soon to look at something like this before the basic premise of standard ME care is sorted out (ie We have good care in place that is NOT based on deconditioning hypothesis, or the concept of sensitisation or whatever notion the BPS cabal foist in our direction next!)

However, for the future, sympathetically applied, something like this might be more constructive than MUS and IAPT.

Just a thought..

Any diabetics here know anything more on this? Does it work as it seems it should?

 

Agree, to some degree @Trish

However, if a “process” is required to replace the IAPT & MUS processes, then I’d rather support something like this.

 

My niece is in her mid 20's and was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes when she was a toddler.

She is a very active person with a busy lifestyle and would love an insulin pump. The NHS won't supply one because she manages her condition too well. She can't afford one - the pump itself is over £1k and then the thingies (cartridges?) are really expensive too and they won't fund that either (even though they would save on her usual supplies).

In short she controls her illness reasonably well. There's a device which would help her do it better and that could probably save the NHS money in the long term and they won't even let her pay the difference in cost, let alone fund it.

I think there's a good chance she'd tell them to naff off.

Edit -spelling

 

In some ways it’s a simplification. Each patient gets one of four management options. Part of which might be managed by the secretaries behind the system (referring to others etc).

AND if it could counter the slick MUS/IAPT machines then, honestly, I’d not object to jargon.

If the letter also gave pointers to watch out for, and the advice to recontact them if the patient had further concerns, then it would not sound so condescending.

Anyway, I thought the idea of interest, as it really does seem to look at getting the best for each patient, whilst being mindful of resources.

Having said that, I’m sure our psych brigade could mash it to their needs pretty quick.

 

I’ve tweeted the author, just to see if he expresses any opinion on MUS & IAPT

https://twitter.com/user/status/1036537298740043776