Coming soon; BBC Radio 4 investigation into IAPT Sep 2019

The big advantage of this scheme is that by failing to follow up the complex patients their problems can safely be ignored. They no longer exist. Management bonuses all round for resolving the problem.

 

precisely

 

Fast-food psychotherapy. "Recovered" in 5 minutes or you're out.

This is a complete dumpster fire. What the hell are they thinking? There are ponzi schemes out there that are far more sustainable than this.

 

With no process to report harms, you can report no evidence of harm. QED. Basically betting on people diagnosed (nevermind whether it's accurate and it's likely not) with mental illness to be ignored as raving lunatics if they complain. Just like us. Basically disenfranchising people for having the wrong disease, negating their agency and testimony as fundamentally and unquestionably invalid.

Frankly this is looking to be even more sadistic than the old system of asylums, from which the lesson learned seems to be how to be better at hiding the horror in plain sight. Straight up evil.

 

I followed some of Mike's links in his IAPT section:

http://www.cbtwatch.com/category/iapt/

I found this LSE report, which forms part of the history behind the claim that IAPT should either cost CCGs very little or become fully cost neutral:

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/special/cepsp26.pdf

It possibly deserves a thread of its own, but I'm not cognitively up to starting one. I'll bring my post to the attention of the mods incase they want to do this on my behalf.


Moderator note:
A thread to discuss the LSE report has been created here
https://www.s4me.info/threads/how-mental-illness-loses-out-in-the-nhs-2012-lse-report-on-economic-cost-of-iapt.11535/

 

And the Elder Wand of CBT?

 

And then the Resurrection Stone of MUS, because it just refuses to die.

 

Mike highlights in his blog posts that IAPT's definition of 'recovered' is clinically meaningless. He makes some suggestions for how 'recovery' should be properly evaluated, but of course these require suitably qualified therapists, whereas IAPT therapists are mostly 'Well-Being Practicioners' with no clinical experience and only very basic IAPT based training.

The lack of appropriate clinical experience and training is also the case for many of the so-called 'High Intensity' CBT IAPT trained therapists - they simply aren't qualified to appropriately assess meaningful clinical outcomes for their patients, using the clinical tools Mike suggests.

 

retweeted by Michael Sharpe
https://twitter.com/user/status/1176890686567780353

 

I don't get why Sharpe would re-tweet this. Surely he agrees it's a great thing that "*Anyone* can operate as a therapist, psychotherapist or counsellor in the UK". His general stance on research seems to indicate that, whereas the tweet he's re-tweeted is anti that.

Tempted to make a tweet back, but won't as might get into trouble.

 

My guess is he didn't listen to the program and only latched on a comment he thought meant abuse towards staff, rather than from. He has a habit of doing that anyway.

And the worst of it isn't even happening yet. IAPT seems to be slow to implement but to meet the growing demand in the next few years will actually require to lower the standards, requirements and oversight even further. Isn't CBT just a cheap certificate that only takes a few hours? What could possibly go wrong in shifting a huge number of people who need medical help towards poorly-trained staff with little to no oversight and no feedback system? Oh, yeah, everything. Full-speed ahead, deaf and blind. Yee-haw! No looking back!

 

Critique Of IAPT On BBC TV

Nov 2 2019
5 minute interview with BBC TV,

[https: //vimeo.com/316124732] minus spaces
http://www.cbtwatch.com/critique-of-iapt-on-bbc-tv/

 

What was the big news on 24 Sep 2019 just out of curiosity?

 

The thing about lying to yourself is that you also end up lying to others in the process. Some people are OK with that. Others get quite pissed off about it. There are going to be tough questions to be asked about who pocketed money in this.

So far IAPT seems to have avoided a serious audit but very likely even this assessment is from a best-case perspective where the worst problems are hidden. Especially as it's still expanding and thus burning money at an increasing pace.

The sand this nonsense is built on is PACE. Although a pile of tripes is probably a better analogy and passed putrefaction comes desiccation into dust.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1220995323721588736

 

Geraghty and Scott paper now out
https://www.s4me.info/threads/treat...ons-identified-2020-geraghty-and-scott.13501/