Patients and bloggers often complain about their GPs’ lack of understanding of mental health, so I was interested to come across an article recently that suggests some ways in which the work of GPs (primary care) could be better aligned with mental health care.
Posts Tagged ‘IAPT’
Posted in For patients, Review, UK, tagged case study, CCGs, clinical commissioning groups, counseling, counselling, diagnosis, evidence, family, GPs, IAPT, mental health, mental illness, NHS, NICE, primary care, psychotherapy, recovery, secondary care, therapy, training on December 16, 2011| 1 Comment »
The Chief Executive of the NHS, Sir David Nicholson, wrote to all the NHS Trusts yesterday to explain more about how the NHS in England will be changing over the next three years. His letter includes a timetable for the changes.
These changes are focussed on improving outcomes, on improving the quality of NHS care — care which currently results in a accelerating avalanche of complaints from patients and from the relatives of deceased ex-patients.
Last week the UK government published its mental health strategy for England. It contains some good news for patients, and some not so good news. It has its critics and its supporters. Whatever your view of it, if your are involved in mental health in the UK its three simple principles are going to be important to you in the coming years.
In my analysis of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme’s recent data review, I was strict in my interpretation of the figures, and the final 4% success rate was a dismal result. It does no harm, and it might even do some good, to dream of what might have been.
I’ve been doing my sums, making me feel as if I have come back from my summer hols to face some tedious maths coursework that has to be completed before term starts. But this was not coursework. It’s a review of the NHS initiative to improve access to psychological therapies, IAPT.
Hoping to raise its profile over the coming years, the BABCP has produced a 35-page development plan and is asking its members for feedback. However, the BABCP is a strange organization in that it does not actually exist for the benefit of its members, nor indeed of its members’ patients. This strangeness is reflected in the plan.