UK:ME Association funds research for a new clinical assessment toolkit in NHS ME/CFS specialist services, 2023

Discussion in 'ME/CFS research news' started by InitialConditions, May 8, 2023.

  1. FMMM1

    FMMM1 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,812
    If a public service [NHS England] is launched then it's reasonable to ask that appropriate monitoring is included --- in fact that's Government policy (even if it rarely happens) i.e. to ensure the policy is an effective use of public money. I don't see this as low level --- this is the service which implements the NICE Guideline - correct? If there isn't (appropriate) monitoring of outcomes then we're back in the PACE position --- there is a service --- national patient group has monitored outcomes & the results are positive!
    I could be wrong of course!
     
  2. Kitty

    Kitty Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,807
    Location:
    UK
    Most people with a 'proper' chronic illness have an annual review, don't they? I have them for two different conditions, neither of which impact me nearly as much as ME.

    Might it make sense to recommend people are reviewed annually by their GP practice rather than by ME/CFS clinics, which substantial numbers will never have attended in the first place?

    If treatments the person has had are captured, it would provide something of an evidence base for the long-term outcomes. Most of them will be on the person's medical record, it's not a case of individuals needing to remember the dates or details. And a short series of questions about any recent treatment and their current work/ education/ training/ parenting/ caring status could be completed quite quickly by phone or online, at least for people who are not severely ill.
     
    Hutan, tornandfrayed, MeSci and 9 others like this.
  3. bobbler

    bobbler Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,734
    If those are trained well, and not from some guideline eg put together by Clare Gerada, then it gets around clinics being able to claim they can't do long-term impact because they don't do long-term care (ridiculous). I think only doing short-term measures and claiming it must be that way 'because clinics just do short term' or suggesting it ends if someone drops out either because the clinic is so poor in what it offers or someone gets iller and there is no remote options is also unacceptable.

    I just don't think it is right that there shouldn't be a proper clinic because that in itself is causing oppobrium towards patients probably by overworked GPs. And if you compare it to a clinic where there is a proper biomedical clinician, as there should be for ME/CFS there is noone they look up to and would respect the instructions of.

    Maybe putting it as some sort of proper KPI (QOF? Ie like asthma has payment attached to eg x% completing a yearly review) theoretically might change things, but would we trust the GP power situation and controls to not use this opportunistically? How does all of that work, and when you think about the hierarchy and workload/career for those feeding into it then is it still far too early on in what is know regarding the condition and importantly getting a decent staff base together to even think about that - because I suspect the asthma guidelines were developed with asthma consultants behind it, and not 'the head of GPs' or the like.

    Is there also an issue regarding research if we don't have measures that push clinics to start taking responsibility for patients and proper medical care and decent biomedical research, that we won't have that basis for eg someone to spot similarities and try out things that might work and maybe even get ideas for trials etc?

    But I'm not sure from a political perspective of there should be long-term care in clinics, and said clinics should have ways with GPs of spotting when someone is at a 'moment of truth' point eg might be about to take a big nosedive unless adjustments are quickly rushed through and be able to have urgent appointments.

    I really don't think the format of offering a course is of much use, and is just used to hide resources and time from professionals which would be better spent on eg writing letters to suggest adjustments that are needed.

    Most importantly it relates to a sense of responsibility for the long-term care and outcome of patients. If you only have to see mild people short term you don't know what the condition is and begin lumping them in with treated cancer patients and other different things. So it is circular for education and the false beliefs issue for HCPs.

    Sorry... lots of questions:)
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2024
    JellyBabyKid, Sean, Missense and 4 others like this.
  4. MrMagoo

    MrMagoo Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,192
    Hutan, Sean, Missense and 4 others like this.
  5. MrMagoo

    MrMagoo Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,192

    Attached Files:

    Sean, Peter Trewhitt, Kitty and 2 others like this.
  6. MrMagoo

    MrMagoo Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,192
    Maybe there should be an annual review PROMS
     
  7. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,067
    Location:
    Australia
    There was a 2.5 year long-term follow-up paper.

    Some of the control group did cross-over and try CBT/GET after the trial ended. But they were identifiable and enough data was available to compare those who did cross-over with those who didn't, and there was no difference, meaning adding GET or CBT added no benefit.

    See the attached paper for the full details.
     

    Attached Files:

    MEMarge, alktipping, MrMagoo and 6 others like this.
  8. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,860
    Location:
    Australia
    Yes, I'm a big fan of the 'give money directly to patients' as a control group option.
     
    rvallee, Hutan, Sean and 10 others like this.
  9. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,377
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
  10. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    55,420
    Location:
    UK
    @sarahtyson, in the hope that you are continuing to read and take notice of comments on this thread, I would like to draw the attention of your team to this discussion of a team in Australia working on clinical trials and at the same time developing what looks to me like a very good set of tools to track and evaluiate change in the patients to test effectiveness of the treatments.
    https://www.s4me.info/threads/open-medicine-foundation-omf.11075/page-23#post-537961
    To summarise, they are using FUNCAP, a wearable, and a personalised symptom tracker app. They are also takng multiple biological samples to enable comparison of any biological metrics with the subjective and objective activity and symptom metrics.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2024
  11. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    55,420
    Location:
    UK
    I've lost track of what's happening in this project. As far as I remember, there have been 3 questionnaires so far, one on symptoms, one that was supposed to be on PEM but mixed it up with all symptoms after activity, and one on function. I think there are supposed to be 2 more. Has anyone heard any news?
     
  12. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    55,420
    Location:
    UK
    @sarahtyson can you give us an update? If you don't want to do it here, perhaps ask the MEA to do an update on their website.
     
  13. MrMagoo

    MrMagoo Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,192
    Regular readers of this thread may be interested to know that a new survey has been released - PREM (Patient Reported Experience Measure)
    Please be advised that the link which was provided in the MEA Instagram/website for the survey, does not work…

    here is a screenshot of the insta with more details
     

    Attached Files:

    Peter Trewhitt, Sean, Amw66 and 4 others like this.
  14. MEMarge

    MEMarge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,926
    Location:
    UK
    Also on their Facebook page. (21 hrs ago at 11am)

    ETA: Link on here goes to survey
     

    Attached Files:

  15. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    55,420
    Location:
    UK
    Can anyone link to the survey, please.
     
    alktipping, Peter Trewhitt and Kitty like this.
  16. Kitty

    Kitty Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,807
    Location:
    UK
  17. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,854
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    And if you say you’ve not received “treatment” since 2021 you’re bumped out.
     
    MeSci, Sean, alktipping and 4 others like this.
  18. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    55,420
    Location:
    UK
    Thanks, here's the introductory page:

    Developing a Clinical Assessment Toolkit for People with ME/CFS and Clinical Services. Stage 4: Patient Reported Experience Measure for ME (PREM-ME)

    We are asking adults in the UK who have been diagnosed with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), which is also known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and have received treatment for their ME since 2021 (ie within the last three years) to complete this online questionnaire. This includes people whose ME/CFS was triggered by a covid infection (i.e. long covid).

    This is the 4th stage of a research study to develop a clinical assessment toolkit for ME/CFS. The work is led by Prof Sarah Tyson (University of Manchester), who has ME herself. We are working with people with ME/CFS and clinicians in ME/CFS specialist services to co-produce a series of assessments which will help people with ME/CFS and services in assessment, management and service development. The previous tools have assessed people with ME/CFS’s symptoms, PEM and activity levels. This assessment is a little different as it focusses on the service, rather than the individual patient. It aims to measure ‘patient experience’, or satisfaction with the service. This will be used when patients are discharged. The information provided is important for developing and improving services in the future.

    We have devised a draft questionnaire, and the aim of this data collection is to test out it out, to check the questions make sense and produce good quality information. We will also explore how we can make it as short as possible while covering all the issues that are important to people with ME/CFS. If you would like more information about the toolkit project and some frequently asked questions (FAQs) please click here Assessment Toolkit [meassociation.org.uk].

    The survey takes about 10 mins to complete in one go, but you can take as long as you want to complete it. Your answers will be saved automatically so you can take breaks and come back to same place when you return. If you need help from another person, or another person to complete the survey on your behalf, that is fine. If you would prefer a paper copy or complete the survey by phone, or if you have any other questions, please contact Sarah on sarah.tyson@manchester.ac.uk.

    For further information, the patient information sheet is found here.

    Consent (you must select all fields below to proceed)
    • I have read the participant information sheet (PIS v4 23rd Jan 2024) and have had opportunity to consider the information and ask questions and had these answered satisfactorily.

    • I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving a reason and without detriment to myself. I understand that it will not be possible to remove my data. I agree to take part on this basis.

    • I understand that any anonymised data collected may be made available to other researchers.

    • I understand that data collected during the study may be looked at by individuals from The University of Manchester or regulatory authorities, where it is relevant to my taking part in this research. I give permission for these individuals to have access to my data.

    • I agree to take part in this study.
     
  19. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    55,420
    Location:
    UK
    I guess most of us won't be eligible to do this one, as we haven't 'received treatment' for our ME/CFS in the NHS in the last 3 years.

    Given that there is no treatment for ME/CFS, that means nobody. I gues they mean people who have been to specialist clinics.
     
    MeSci, Sean, alktipping and 6 others like this.
  20. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    55,420
    Location:
    UK
    17. What interventions did you receive? (tick all that apply)
    Yes No
    Tests (or referrals to another service) for other conditions
    Tests to make or confirm the ME/CFS diagnosis
    Explanation of the physiological causes and impact of ME/CFS
    Explanation of the psychological causes and impact of ME/CFS
    Education/ support to find your baseline (i.e. a stable level of activity with few or no symptoms)
    Education about how to manage your energy limitations and activity levels (also known as pacing)
    Interventions to help you pace: heart rate monitoring
    Interventions to help you pace: diary keeping
    Interventions to help you pace: symptom-controlled pacing (also known as symptom-contingent pacing or ‘pacing up’)
    Interventions to help you pace: Other (Please state)

    Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) to cure/treat your ME/CFS
    Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) to help you cope with a chronic disabling condition
    Graded exercise/activity therapy (i.e. fixed, regular increases in activity regardless of symptoms)
    Other (Please state)
     
    Sean, bobbler, Peter Trewhitt and 3 others like this.

Share This Page