UK: The Yellow Card Scheme has been confirmed as the route to report 'adverse incidents' from GET and CBT (or has it?)

think @Keela Too and @MeSci are right the person writing this is trying to weasel round it and in doing so has been very misleading. However given that MEResearch have now posted about it the Dept of Health will have to clarify. If they clarify that the Yellow Card scheme is not available then they are showing themselves up.

if they are really saying that if you want to report harm from psychological/exercise therapy you have to complain to the therapist that is seriously poor because they are not then collecting systematic data about the therapy just assuming it is something the therapist has done that has caused the problem - which is of course the Sharpe theory about how the harms have arisen

ETA if making a complaint to the medical professional handling your treatment is the right approach for psych treatments why would it not be the right approach for medication or prosthetics, mesh or whatever why would you even have a yellow card system for anything.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely - but it might be a wasted effort if it isn’t collated. My view is a proper collation system is required and SOON. Many GPs will look at the current yellow page set up and just say it doesn’t apply, and so not offficially report harm. Direct patient reports are probably taken less seriously.
 
Keela Too said:
Absolutely - but it might be a wasted effort if it isn’t collated. My view is a proper collation system is required and SOON. Many GPs will look at the current yellow page set up and just say it doesn’t apply, and so not offficially report harm. Direct patient reports are probably taken less seriously.
Click to expand...
By the way, I thought the system was changed so patients as well as professionals can fill it in?
 
Inara said:
What about just reporting harms anyway? At least it will be seen, and then maybe ignored, but we can say we reported harms on the Yellow Card, there is no other option therefore we have to use that.
Click to expand...

It's important to put them on record. Right now the mantra of "no harm recorded" is accurate. It's misleading because they specifically do not provide a means to report them. But it is accurate to say that no harm has been recorded. It's the same with PACE. We know there was deterioration and that they specifically buried it in the data.

It's a loophole they are exploiting to provide clinical advice that is free of clinical accountability. There is a basis for it with CBT, but GET is specifically physical therapy (with gaslighting on top but whatever) and as such should fall under some definition of clinical treatment.

You can be certain that once the psychosocial house of cards tumbles, everyone involved will claim to not have known about the consequences of what they were doing and they will point to the absence of any reported harm to make their case.

Government records, especially in medical services, are preserved by law. They may be dismissed but the record will be preserved. It will be useful later when hearings are held about who knew what and where to assign blame.

IMO every means to report the specific harm caused by GET should be used. Most are inconsequential, but at least records will be preserved that everyone involved fully know about the harm they are doing. In the face of evidence all they will have left is "I didn't believe it", which is not a valid excuse. But there has to be evidence in official records to bolster that case.
 
Keela Too said:
So it seems the MERUK article has been updated. The answer to Jim Shannon was correct. No Yellow Card reporting for psych therapies
Click to expand...

Acceptable for CBT but GET is physical therapy. It has an added layer of gaslighting but at its core it is physical therapy and not just a psychological treatment.

Question is whether physical therapy is exempted, which would be bizarre.
 
rvallee said:
Acceptable for CBT but GET is physical therapy. It has an added layer of gaslighting but at its core it is physical therapy and not just a psychological treatment.

Question is whether physical therapy is exempted, which would be bizarre.
Click to expand...

Alternatively I’ve heard CBT for ME, described as - GET with the added push from the psyche angle to adhere to physical increases. Both push for increase, even if they pull back first, the aim is to return to normal functioning.

Having said that both therapies are devised in line with a psychosocial premise. Neither seems to have any means to officially report problems.
 
Barbara McMullen Could a new database be started for people to report harms that didn't fill in the survey? We could follow the same format as the yellow card and call it the amber card
1f603.png
:D. We could periodically send it to our political representatives.

Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom