Royal Cornwall Hospitals
"a collaborative biopsychosocial/occupational approach to patient rehabilitation and care. Applications need to be able to provide tailored programmes of rehabilitation and symptom management with a good knowledge of Graded Activity and Lifestyle Management, as well as Vocational Rehabilitation for those who are most debilitated with the condition."
This sounds terrible.
happy to pee money up the wall on something not in the guidelines whilst claiming they are short of both cash and staff in implementing the necessary care for patients who might be at risk of dying, and unable to provide basics to mean someone can live independently safely.
All I can think is what a bunch of bigots people are. So much so they will spend money to still shove down the throat these ideologies for no good scientific reason, and when it isn't required of them. Someone is making the decisions somewhere to ask for this in order for funding to be assigned.
And yes I'm done with allowing people, who should know better as part of their job or age to claim 'good intentions'. If you have good intentions on
anything then you listen properly and do basic research and are accountable when it backfires and causes bad consequences from someone - and that informs your future behaviour.
The weight of responsibility for someone's health should be on these people's shoulders and I find it terrifying - what 'good reason' is there for shoving all this, harmfully, down people who don't want or deserve or find it appropriate's throat against guidance? and what would cause someone to make so much effort to do it?
Having seen the KPIs reported for the Southern one I wonder whether the driver is actually that Trusts or CCGs have left in 'recovery' as a 'result measure' because these things are written to 'targets' and expectations of what someone will 'meet'.
You can imagine such places saying 'x appointments for a course' or something. Whether they are targets people get obsessed with showing they are 'doing something' over being able to 'do what is useful'. Cultures can force people to use these in order to answer for themselves in funding meetings etc.
What measure should we as an ME community be suggesting replaces that? - satisfaction is iffy, and even perfect scientific care doesn't guarantee improvement, with appropriate treatments being individual.
What is used for equivalent conditions?
And who is it that is setting these things which are causing these decisions to be made on these job descriptions, it will surely trace back to something and somewhere - you normally have to get these signed off. I think FOIs or something showing that someone is asking which individual it is that is inadvertently or advertently driving this would be useful in order they know their name is understood to be next to that decision? Hey they could even be asked the question directly.
