UK: Mentally ill 'spend months on hidden waiting list'

Andy

Andy

Retired committee member
Patients with mental illnesses are left languishing for months on "hidden" waiting lists by England's NHS talking therapy service, the BBC can reveal.

The service - called Improving Access to Psychological Therapies - provides therapy, such as counselling, to adults with conditions like depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety.

It starts seeing nine in 10 patients within the target time of six weeks.

But that masks the fact many then face long waits for regular treatment.

Half of patients waited over 28 days, and one in six longer than 90 days, between their first and second sessions in the past year.
Click to expand...

NHS England acknowledged the pressure on the system was causing delays, but pointed out that despite the delays, half of patients given treatment still recovered.
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50658007
 
This was also reported on Radio 4 Today and the NHS representative advised the these "hidden" waiting lists are published regularly and that the majority of patients recover significantly. Only one of the people from this article was included in the piece.
 
response from Dr Mike Scott cbt watch

BBC Chooses To Ignore Talking Therapies 10% Recovery Rate
this morning BBC Radio 4 focussed on the problems caused by the Improving Access To Psychological Therapies (IAPT) long waiting lists (half more than 28 days) but reiterated IAPT’s claim of a 50% recovery rate. But IAPT has only ever marked its’ own homework on recovery rates. I spent hours explaining to Radio 4 reporters that the true recovery rate is more likely 10% as detailed in my paper published in the Journal of Health Psychology last year, but they totally ignored this – shortening waiting time for something, that is most likely to be ineffective approaches pointlessness:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/flvxtq2jyhmn6i1/IAPT The Need for Radical Reform.pdf?dl=0

billions of £s have been spent on IAPT over the last decade all without any publicly funded independent assessment of outcome, this would never have been permitted in evaluating a drug. NHS England claimed IAPT has exceeded expectations , but can cite no independent evidence. NHS England have failed the public in terms of accountability.
Click to expand...

http://www.cbtwatch.com/bbc-chooses-to-ignore-talking-therapies-10-recovery-rate/

eta:
There is a troubling alliance of powerholders BBC, IAPT, BABCP and BPS that is ignoring the real needs of those with mental health problems.
Click to expand...
 
I asked recently if I could get some help with psychological issues (not serious - just coping with being ill, etc.) and got told if I wanted to sit down with an actual psychologist it would be 'years'.

My GP wrote to the mental health team and asked about other options. Of course all that's available is Talking Therapies. I've had it before. It's crap. Nonsense. Just end up on the phone to someone scoring your anxiety or depression symptoms on a not-fit-for-purpose questionnaire and then totting up the scores to see if they are higher or lower than last time. Crap. Total crap. It's like going on one of those pointless courses at work.
 
NHS England acknowledged the pressure on the system was causing delays, but pointed out that despite the delays, half of patients given treatment still recovered.
Click to expand...
Uh, yeah, this is a blatant lie. It's a subtle lie but it is blatant nonetheless, the least of which is a definition of "recovery" that is meaningless.

Politicians lie, this is expected, but for medical authorities it's scandalous.
There is a troubling alliance of powerholders BBC, IAPT, BABCP and BPS that is ignoring the real needs of those with mental health problems.
Click to expand...
Literally the entire aim of BPS and it fails miserably at it, in addition to making everything else works. The entire premise is that it may not address the symptoms themselves but it makes people better equipped to deal with them, making them mentally more resilient, while improving access to those who actually need counseling. Literally does the opposite on all counts. Spectacular job, Simon and friends. This is world-class level of incompetence.
 
Last edited:
Sly Saint said:
response from Dr Mike Scott cbt watch

BBC Chooses To Ignore Talking Therapies 10% Recovery Rate


http://www.cbtwatch.com/bbc-chooses-to-ignore-talking-therapies-10-recovery-rate/
Click to expand...
Comment:
Barry McInnes
5th December 2019 at 8:49 am

I listened to that too Mike. Depressing, wasn’t it. By the end I was repeating in a monotone voice….”This is not the story, This is not the story. This is not the story.” Then up pops David Clarke with his post-truth drivel about IAPT helping two-thirds of patients that are treated. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy on the part of the BBC, but it drives me to despair that producers and interviewers aren’t grasping what the real story is: chronic attrition and manipulation of outcome data.
Click to expand...

he wrote a blog in sept:
IAPT 2019: Still failing to thrive?
http://therapymeetsnumbers.com/iapt-2019-still-failing-to-thrive/
[ironically re-tweeted by MS]

further comment from Mike Scott
admin
6th December 2019 at 11:36 am
Chronic attrition and manipulation of outcome data just about sums it up Barry. I think you are absolutely right Kojay sometime in the hopefully not too distant future, people will look back with incredulity at such a massive waste of money without any discernible benefit. Chuck you are right about the propaganda for IAPT, paradoxically there is less evidence for the effectiveness of IAPT than there is for antidepressants and it is doubtful that the latter make a clinically significant difference, but there is ever escalating marketing of them. The propaganda machines in both instances are gargantuan. Little bit of good news Liz, my paper on IAPT and MUS is very close to final acceptance for publication.
Click to expand...
 
Sly Saint said:
[ironically re-tweeted by MS]
Click to expand...
I'm trying to grasp the thought process here and... I can't. Other than maybe on the notion that throwing even more money at it will make it magically work, which is pretty much the basis of all of Sharpe and Wessely's research, that it may not work on a small scale but maybe going all in will somehow make it work, giving it the "boost" of confidence that is needed to overcome the flawed perception from patients that prevents it from working. "[C]hronic attrition and manipulation of outcome data" is certainly their bread and butter.

Sunk cost is a very expensive monster to feed. I do wonder when the dam will break. Given that all of Wessely's accomplishments were entirely speculative and aspirational, I also wonder if that's what will do to actually look at his track record, not on the promises that it made but on their almost universal failure.
 
TigerLilea said:
Here in BC we only have access to psychiatrists through our medical system. If you want to see a psychologist you have to pay privately. I was told years ago that the wait list to see a psychiatrist is over a year.
Click to expand...

When I first became sick my GP, who also had a psychology degree, figured everything was anxiety. He was an idiot. When I asked for second opinion, he would only refer me his friend the psychiatrist in Vancouver and only if I promised to take any med he offered no questions asked. He also told me there was no psychiatrists in Langley/Surrey area just in Vancouver. Obviously I didn't agree. I found another doctor and got a referral to one in my area. It took about a month. I also went to Mental Health while waiting. Your right there is no psychologist to see payed for by MSP. They only offer group CBT. Had the person assessing me felt I actually did have a mental health issue she could have got me in sooner to see a psychiatrist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom