United Kingdom: News from BACME - British Association of Clinicians in ME/CFS

Invisible Woman said:
On the other hand though, if BACME are publicly stating that they are prepared to work with the guidelines, even if their fingers are crossed behind their backs as they say it, then it does weaken the "well, the clinics won't support it argument".

The only thing that's for sure, no matter what happens with the guidelines we'll still have our work cut out for us.
Click to expand...
Yes, all I am realistically hoping for from the revised NICE guidelines is that they make clear how serious a medical illness ME is and that it exposes the 2007 guidelines for what they were/are - eminence based medicine. That ME/CFS can be a long term illness(decades, not years) and people with ME/CFS deserve access to healthcare like every other patient gets. That our GPs should be supporting us and not abandoning us and that severe patients get the support and healthcare they require, including access to social care and disability benefits. Additionally, that they deal with the problems that parents of children and young people face.
 
Simbindi said:
I think with decent NICE guidelines there is potential for this. Many professionals may not have wanted to join this organisation because their terms state they expect members to support the implementation of the (2007) NICE guidelines and the RCPCH guidelines (which Crawley must author). A decent NICE guideline for ME/CFS could actually change this organisation in the future to become something much more aligned to patient ME groups' needs.
Click to expand...
I think this is a salient point. Many professionals couldn't join BACME before. Many of them might decide to do so now.

Since the organisation represents its members, a broader range of members will mean it has a broader perspective, too.

E.g., it might be quite a different organisation if all the Doctors with ME and Physios for ME members signed up tomorrow.
 
Ariel said:
I am afraid I don't understand what BACME do exactly but is there any hope of organizations becoming more supportive over time?
Click to expand...

It's possible if as @Simbindi says new members with different ideas join up up and dilute the opinions of current members.

Unfortunately,in the short term at least, no, i really doubt it.

Already BACME have had a conference discussing their dysregulation hypothesis which replaces the deconditioning hypothesis. The treatment for both being the same, of course. A technique designed to distract and muddy the waters as the hypothesis is irrelevant when the treatment doesn't work.

They are aware and have cheerfully gone on failing to gather long term.follow up information, failing to accurately define let alone report harms caused by the treatment they inflict.

Personally, I think therapists who see nothing wrong with the status quo with regard to patient safety and informed consent are as big a problem as the treatment itself.
 
Ariel said:
Sorry for not knowing but what are the mechanics of this organization being involved with patients? I cannot understand why all of these people are just allowed to sit around hypothesizing and are somehow given access to NHS patients.
Click to expand...

This is an organisation whose members are some of the therapists delivering treatment on behalf of the NHS.

https://www.bacme.info/
 
Ariel said:
Sorry for not knowing but what are the mechanics of this organization being involved with patients? I cannot understand why all of these people are just allowed to sit around hypothesizing and are somehow given access to NHS patients.
Click to expand...
They are an organisation for professionals but state they have patient representatives. The names of these reps are not provided, but the Sussex and Kent patient organisation is a member, which would indicate that their patient representatives are drawn from this group.
 
Ariel said:
Sorry for not knowing but what are the mechanics of this organization being involved with patients? I cannot understand why all of these people are just allowed to sit around hypothesizing and are somehow given access to NHS patients.
Click to expand...
I am guessing BACME was set up after the introduction of the 2007 NICE guidelines because there was subsequently national funding provided to set up specialist 'CFS' clinics across England, so the professionals working in these clinics 'needed' an official body to represent themselves, network etc.

It is because BACME is the 'official' organisation for those professionals working in all the NHS CFS/ME and apparently now other 'fatigue' clinics that their activities and published output needs to be monitored by us.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for explaining. I have had the illness for a long time and have been helped by my GP (although she is the only one at the practice who will help me). As these services do not help, I was having trouble understanding the situation. I think I unfortunately still cannot quite believe that people are really being "offered" these things on some level - I know intellectually it's happening and happened, but the reality just leaves me stunned. Does anyone relate to this?

I have had this illness for a long time so it just seems "normal" to me - it exists, PEM, etc - and I have been taken aback in the past year and a half by just how few medics even seem to know what it is. I think maybe even though I knew things were bad it was worse than I thought, because it's surreal that it could be this bad. The idea of people being in a professional organization about this illness in the context of the 2007 guidelines is just a big blank to me. Does anyone else feel like this?

I really hope someday this can all be put behind us. There is evidently a long way to go.
 
Ariel said:
Thanks for explaining. I have had the illness for a long time and have been helped by my GP (although she is the only one at the practice who will help me). As these services do not help, I was having trouble understanding the situation. I think I unfortunately still cannot quite believe that people are really being "offered" these things on some level - I know intellectually it's happening and happened, but the reality just leaves me stunned. Does anyone relate to this?

I have had this illness for a long time so it just seems "normal" to me - it exists, PEM, etc - and I have been taken aback in the past year and a half by just how few medics even seem to know what it is. I think maybe even though I knew things were bad it was worse than I thought, because it's surreal that it could be this bad. The idea of people being in a professional organization about this illness in the context of the 2007 guidelines is just a big blank to me. Does anyone else feel like this?

I really hope someday this can all be put behind us. There is evidently a long way to go.
Click to expand...
There are probably others on the forum who understand the history of BACME much better than myself. I have only got involved in patient discussions since joining this forum, I've never had any other patient group involvement. I joined here because I was aware that NICE was finally reviewing its outdated guidelines and wanted to have some involvement (from my bed) in helping better guidelines be created.

I was never personally harmed by the 2007 NICE guidelines as no doctor (in 30 years) has ever suggested I undertake GET or 'CBT for CFS', but on the other hand I never pushed to be referred to a specialist service and have accepted there aren't any available treatments that work to treat the underlying cause(s) of ME. I did ask a previous GP for a referral about 10 years ago because of needing to claim ESA, but when I spoke to the service they told me all they offered was help in learning how to live with the condition and nothing for someone like myself who had been living with it for 20 years anyway. At least they were very honest about that and I was able to state that on my ESA forms. However, I noted on the surveys about harm from GET and CBT some patients who had undergone the sessions at this same clinic stated they had worsened, so I guess it all depends on the individual therapist at these clinics. I suspect a lot depends on the clinic lead too, and there is often a high turnover of staff in these places.
 
adambeyoncelowe said:
Since the organisation represents its members, a broader range of members will mean it has a broader perspective, too.

E.g., it might be quite a different organisation if all the Doctors with ME and Physios for ME members signed up tomorrow.
Click to expand...
It would be great if that happened (at least, the UK members of those organisations).

Dx Revision Watch said:
9.1 The subscribers to the constitution are the members of BACME (a) Eligibility Membership of the BACME is open to UK-based healthcare professionals, researchers and patient representatives involved in the diagnosis and/or treatment of CFS/ME using clinically effective practice. Members must support CFS/ME services to deliver clinically effective treatment that is consistent with NICE and RCPCH guidelines or updated best available evidence, promote, support and share audit and evaluation information among CFS/ME services including encouraging the use of available tools to benchmark services and support research for individuals diagnosed with CFS/ME.

Individuals not meeting these criteria and with a specific interest in CFS/ME can apply to join BACME providing they agree to uphold clinically effective practice and the terms of the constitution. Each membership is for a single and separate individual.
Click to expand...

It's not very clear to me who can join, but it looks as though anyone 'with a specific interest in CFS/ME' can.
 
The organization has a document on PEM on its website dated Aug 2021 (as is the "dysregulation" document). Did they not have one before? Does anyone know if this represents a change in position from prior to Aug 2021?
(Sorry if this has been covered.)
 
Hutan said:
It's not very clear to me who can join, but it looks as though anyone 'with a specific interest in CFS/ME' can.
Click to expand...

Are there any plans to stop referring to it as "CFS/ME"? I know we have other battles but this term should die in my opinion if the new guideline is published; there is no reference to "CFS/ME". I just shudder every time someone uses this. The NHS should not be using a term that is not in any guidelines or used by other medical authorities.
 
Ariel said:
Are there any plans to stop referring to it as "CFS/ME"? I know we have other battles but this term should die in my opinion if the new guideline is published; there is no reference to "CFS/ME". I just shudder every time someone uses this. The NHS should not be using a term that is not in any guidelines or used by other medical authorities.
Click to expand...

I think this guideline will be the start of the end for 'CFS/ME'.
 
Ariel said:
The organization has a document on PEM on its website dated Aug 2021 (as is the "dysregulation" document). Did they not have one before? Does anyone know if this represents a change in position from prior to Aug 2021?
(Sorry if this has been covered.)
Click to expand...

These are new documents, added in the past month. There are people in BACME driving for change, and there are those who are more wedded to the old narratives. I sense a 'managed climbdown'.
 
Ariel said:
Are there any plans to stop referring to it as "CFS/ME"? I know we have other battles but this term should die in my opinion if the new guideline is published; there is no reference to "CFS/ME". I just shudder every time someone uses this. The NHS should not be using a term that is not in any guidelines or used by other medical authorities.
Click to expand...
I found that over the years more of my GPs keep insisting on referring to ME as 'CFS' (for example in referral letters), which seems to be what the NHS coding systems states is the 'preferred term'. So for that reason I encourage my current GP to use the compromise term 'CFS/ME', which is likely to change to 'ME/CFS' in the new NICE guideline. I think the change in the ordering of the terms is a major step forward, but it is gong to take a lot of campaigning to get the medical profession to just use the term 'ME' (which is the term my GP used 30 years ago).
 
Ariel said:
The organization has a document on PEM on its website dated Aug 2021 (as is the "dysregulation" document). Did they not have one before? Does anyone know if this represents a change in position from prior to Aug 2021?
(Sorry if this has been covered.)
Click to expand...
Ah, goodie. The "experts" on this disease, who have been "working" on this disease for years, have finally come around to understand the very first thing about this disease, or at least pretend to. At this rate, they may even get around the 101 stuff by the end of the millenium. Maybe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom