Petition for a Review of NHS Talking Therapies

[Sly Saint]

It is not at all easy to put your head above the parapet and question the modus operandi of NHS Talking Therapies. Many fear it is the pathway to professional suicide. But the adage that ‘all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men remain silent’ has been very apt over the past 15 years.

Discussion on NHS Talking Therapies is prevented in BABCP (see’ Vanquished by BABCP Presidents’ http://www.cbtwatch.com/iapt-the-myth-and-the-reality-vanquished-by-babcp-presidents/ ) and recently the Editor of the Psychologist (https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist...psychological-approaches-expand-and-take-root) in an interview with Dr Whittington, totally failed to challenge the basis of the latter’s mission to expand the reach of the Service. A petition is a necessary voice of protest.

One Size Does Not Fit All; Independent Review for NHS Talking Therapies Needed Now
We’re calling on Maria Caulfield Minister of State for Mental Health to urgently and independently review the provision of Community Mental Health Care via NHS Talking Therapies (NHS TT – formerly known as Improving Access to Psychological Therapies, or IAPT).

We believe that while more and more people are suffering from common mental health distress, the availability and accessibility of therapeutic help via the NHS Talking Therapies has become severely limited, indeed a denial of care. NHS TT claim to provide a successful adult mental health service but this is based on their own statistical data which is presented in a misleading way. Neither IAPT nor NHS TT has been subjected to independent audit. An independent review is now crucial to enable a change towards the provision of a service which can genuinely and flexibly respond to the psychological and emotional needs of our communities and support staff in their pay and conditions.

What is wrong with NHS Talking Therapies?

• Restricted choice of therapy options, frequently limited to CBT, web based self- help therapy or non-relational therapies using scripts
• An exceptionally high drop-out rate; only one third of people finish treatment
• Misleading use of data to claim a 50% recovery rate
• Misleading use of data to claim 90% of people referred are seen within 6 weeks
• Very low follow up rate so no evidence of therapeutic benefit over time
• Many therapists are working for low pay, long hours, in gig-economy contracts. Stress and burn out are very common due to pressure to produce ‘results’
• Thousands of trained psychotherapists and counsellors are available but not employed in NHS Talking Therapies
• A highly medical and individualised model, with little recognition of the social causes of mental health distress
• Not cost effective, private companies providing ‘care’ for profit
• More a denial of care than care responding to people’s needs
• Fails to address inequality in mental health care
• Little hope of providing ‘integrated care in local communities for people suffering severe and common mental health difficulties ‘ as promised in the NHS’s Community Mental Health Framework for Adults and Older Adults (2019-21)
• An ideological project adapted to utilitarian and managerial values

http://www.cbtwatch.com/petition-for-a-review-of-nhs-talking-therapies/

to sign petition on site you need to give your name and email.

 

[John Mac]

Signed

 

[Haveyoutriedyoga]

Additional issues

• Telling patients and GPs they have a short waiting time but that short waiting time only being for group therapies
• Pushing people to do group therapies before offering 121 (kind of life stepped care but out of convenience and practicality for them not just to follow a stepped care approach which in itself doesn't fit all)
• Not proactively following up with people who don't, for any possible reason, bite their hand off at the first offer
• Using patient reported outcomes measurements for all without varying for people who have confounding factors e.g. other conditions that affect what the questions mean
• Recommending CBT without due care and attention to ensure potential 'contraindications' aren't present e.g. autism, trauma
• Declaring success based on single or very few data points e.g. one questionnaire at the end of the course, no long term follow ups and improvement of only a few points on that one occasion compared to the first measurement can tip a person from 'casesness' to 'not'