Improving GPs’ approaches to functional somatic syndromes: a pilot training program with a focus on compassion & communication, 2025, Ariane

Wow. This is shocking and are not based on actual proper psychology - either scientific, academic nor clinical.

I'm actually shocked that those who think it is OK to write such things aren't cast out of a profession. The terms are poisonous. But also inciting. It's therefore inappropriately earmarking out for bullying and 'special treatment' based on nothing medical at all, so these people have no mandate from their position to be writing such things about other human beings.

And most of these are just labels out of context, so someone with a disability (or for example who is being offered harmful GET despite guidelines saying it is harmful and should have been removed) gets the label 'used' to hide what is instead bad behaviour from somewhere else in the system. THe last thing healthcare needs is more ways to either be vindictive or for people to cover wrongs by outcasting/putting false slander on the person who might have something valid to complain about, thereby removing the voice/testimony being believed. This says it all about a culture issue doesn't it?

- it seems something which is based purely on the 'administrative' side of the job (GPs deal with rationing and who gets what which is often handed down to them as decisions of how much time, and what can and can't be referred already decided in the form of decision trees etc?), ie whatever someone's actual background many of the tasks implicit within their day are just admin. This could even just be an administrator (I say this having been one in that broader term), and hence why I speak because without such a background to medicine in most organisations such names and descriptions would be met with disgust by those in said organisation, as a sign of the attitude of whoever wrote it.

And the bad organisations who might use it about their customers might tend to think these days about the PR if it got out and not to do so. ie so it wouldn't be funny anymore/would be a pretty serious thing.

I'm shocked people writing this sort of thing aren't sacked, because it would be a scandal anywhere else, but I guess the answer is in who asked them to do it

Using such 'persona' I do know about. And they have to be based on accurate, proper, market research. None of this seems to comply.

As are absent something which is even more important which is checks that those who aren't any of these aren't getting caught up as collateral damage by the concepts/name calling getting short-cut and the full list of criteria being cherry-picked - which I would have to assume could only be used in the most barn-door, absolutely sure and have checked there isn't something else going on (like them being wound up by something beforehand that was perhaps inappropriate, there being good practical disability-based reasons for a request etc)

I very frankly do not understand why they didn't get the professionals in, who do know how to do this ie not these 'psychs' but those who are professionals in services marketing in big businesses so have specialised in these processes and issues, - if there was an actual need (I doubt that is why this is being done, and it's about incitement and propaganda under a trojan horse of 'irritating issues' that apply to other groups - just like when they used 'frequent flyers' who were generally older people and eg alcoholics to then twist said report to being about sending those with MUS out of the medical service to CBT even though they weren't the demographic who were the frquent flyers it was just a switch-and-bait report).

 

Well said, and the primary point that I think we need to keep making.

FOr some reason people assume this reduces what taxpayers would pay for people just doing the job normally, and having a healthcare service without the huge empires and just providing medicine without rationing out certain demographics on paper before anyone has met them or looked at them for the sake of it.

All of this is expensive additional cost. That's it. It isn't 'saving' anything. ANd that is before you look at the increased costs from something being picked up later when treatment is more expensive and the overal cost to economy of making certain people less productive by choice. And before we have the ridiculousness these people try to do things like sell taking someone who might need a blood test for iron and then tablets they themselves pay prescriptions for, and write pathways that doubt them unnecessarily which often is done by sending them away assuming stress and telling them to come back in two weeks - and all the costs associated with that appointment that never needed to happen, and then all the costs associated with unhelpful referrals for something that at best doesn't help, but likely just has harms noone has listed yet.

It reminds me of those people who are so keen to not listen because they assume what someone will say 'they don't have time for' that they spend five minutes telling you how busy they are and filibustering that 10 second sentence. Except someone is telling them not to deal with certain people or things and send them to x under the inference and sometimes outright sales pitch it is 'saving potential costs'. Once the CCG has been conned into buying it then those on CCG often carry on with it because if you bought it then it's harder to say it wasn't in line with what it promised so the whole thing is out of hand because of how the system works and where the power lies (and certain individuals knowing exactly how to play it).

It's still happening with ulcers, which gives you an idea of where the health system is and what this bps kingdom has been doing. I will again tell the story of a few years ago having heard from 2 different people about someone close to them having 'just got out of hospital' and their stories were identical. And all started with barn-door symptoms that anyone might have thought ulcer, but instead they'd both clearly been (by different GP surgeries under the same local area) put through a decision chart that sent them away for 2 weeks, then suggested stress, then one got told to eat an apple a day and by six weeks they ended up in hospital as they were vomiting blood. And in hospital it start with 'the most urgent possibilities first' so ulcer was the last thing to be considered.

 

"He's not a heartsink patient, he's a very naughty boy."

 

Fell asleep watching the House of Lords this afternoon while they debated the Mental Health Act Bill. Apart from an argument that part of the bill seeks to grab Henry VIII's powers inappropriately in the used of ECT, I learned a new phrase: supply induced demand.