UK: British Psychological Society: Call for members and people with Long Covid to work on practice guidelines.

The group will work to develop guidance about Long Covid and how psychologists contribute to rehabilitation, treatment and support.

Dr Faith Martin, one of the group leads, said:

"Around 2 million adults are known to be living with Long Covid in the UK. It is vital that we work with experts by experience in creating good practice guidelines for psychology in work with people with Long Covid."

The deadline for applications is Monday 7 October.
LINK

 

There is just no way this is good for anyone suffering from LC.

Basically paying 3x over for negative benefits: the losses from people being disabled, health care resources being spent foolishly anyway, then psychologists doing more work that brings nothing to compensate for the other 2, which they won't.

One day this will be studied in economics academia, as a most extreme example of incompetence. It takes professionals to fail this hard. Like the difference between causing a disaster with a shovel, or a giant bulldozer filled with enough dynamite to take down a mountainside.

I wouldn't bet much on this being studied in psychology, though. They clearly don't have the self-awareness for that. The individuals might, but the institutions. Ugh, the institutions. People love to point out to mobs as examples of crowds being less intelligent than individuals but damn do institutions deliver far more in that regard, but in a slow-moving and calculated way.

 

This doesn’t sound as clear as the me/cfs survey regarding ‘not thinking they can treat the condition’ and being about sorting out misinformation should people need to access psych support for other reasons.

it mentions rehab etc

clarification and detail in this is important

it’s worrying this is happening at the same time as the me/cfs one but seems so different- not sure that’s coincidence?

 

I wonder if these are her publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...d_self-management_intervention_for_Long_COVID

https://formative.jmir.org/2022/10/e41410/

What's the point of this effort? The BPS are currently producing ME guidance. LC refers to a mishmash of different conditions; the term is of use principally as a stratifier. It doesn't need its own guideline.

 

If the Society is trying to do much the same as for ME/CFS then it should be a good thing.

Their members may well be able to help and support some people. Ironically, I think psychologists who understand ME and LC could potentially be helpful to people really struggling with pacing, e.g. encouraging them to explore how priorities and guilt and obligations cut across it, and how they might learn to accommodate it. Pacing is bloody hard on everybody involved and has the potential to be destructive in relationships.

But psychologists also need to know they have no role with those who're not seeking the therapeutic approaches they offer. In other words, ME and Long Covid are exactly the same as every other long term condition.

 

But they want to involve people living with it. They can't assume their experience is the same, or that their priorities will be the same as pw ME/CFS. People with Long Covid haven't lived through PACEgate either, so they may have different relationships with or views of the profession.

(Second sentence edited slightly)

 

We can only hope the contributing members won't be the same ones who wrote this stuff in the BPS Response to the NICE consultation on the Draft Guideline on Management of Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 in December 2020:

https://cms.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-06/BPS Response to the NICE consultation on the Management of Long-Term Effects of Covid-19.pdf

 

Hmm - in 2022 the BPS appeared to be superglued to Rona Moss-Morris and her unevidenced ideology. The BPS needs one hell of a shift to come up to any kind of standard that would not endanger ME patients, whatever level of illness they are.

.

 

There is another thread on here - bpswatch I think?

it gives a good sense of how potentially it is an organisation with some strange things going on meaning (sounds familiar to the recent press release on royal college of physicians) ‘maybe’ there is an issue

but I don’t think it’s all re: the members and don’t know how problematic/ rescuable as it’s just that one I’ve read so far.

but it’s an important one to start doing the right thing

I’m sure I saw the nice submission from them for the 2007 guidelines and it was flagging what it should have been re:concerns with that and everything behind it