• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

MUS, PPS services and IAPT integration into NHS primary care - what's happening across the UK?

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
It's unfortunate that they've sacked Suzy, but it doesn't mean something nefarious is going on. They may have disagreed with her approach rather than her message--and remember, the Countess of Mar is looking at this through a political lens.

Who is "they" Adam?

As I've gone to some lengths to explain on another forum, it is currently unclear whether any of the Forward-ME member org reps were involved in the decision to dismiss my services or whether any of the org reps had reviewed the letter before it was sent and had approved its content.

Unless or until I have confirmation, the use of "they" is not appropriate.
 
Last edited:

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
Who is "they" Adam?

As I've gone to some lengths to explain on another forum, it is currently unclear whether any of the Forward-ME member org reps had been involved in the decision to dismiss my services or whether any of the org reps had reviewed the letter before it was sent and had approved its content.

Unless or until I have confirmation, the use of "they" is not appropriate.


Which has considerable significance for me because I should like to know whether the content of the letter, as sent to me, represents:

1 The personal decision and views of the Countess of Mar.
2 The decision and views of selected of the Forward-ME members org reps, following review of the content of the letter, and if so which orgs had signed off on this letter.
3 The consensus decision of all the Forward-ME members org reps, following a review of the content of the letter.

And if you think it's splitting hairs or that it hardly matters - well it does matter, because I also advise other organizations who are members of Forward-ME and the content of the letter may potentially affect my future working relationship with those organizations.
 
Last edited:

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
They couldn't send representatives often anyway, so it's fair to assume the rest of the group just figured nothing had changed. They're not mind-readers, after all.

@adambeyoncelowe

Twice now, you've referred to "the rest of the group" making assumptions. Again, the "rest of the group" isn't relevant. It is the understanding between the Countess of Mar (as Chair and owner of Forward-ME) and Invest in ME that is relevant.

It is the Countess of Mar who decides who is and who is not a member org; it is the Countess of Mar who instructs the webmaster to update the Forward-ME website - perhaps I am missing something, but what the "rest of the group" may assume is neither here nor there.
 

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
...Forward ME have dismissed Suzy Chapman...


Clarification:

The letter I received was signed, "Mar Chairman, Forward-ME."

It is unclear from the letter, whether the intention to dispense with my services as an external adviser had been discussed with the Forward-ME member org reps.

Nor does the letter clarify whether the Forward-ME org reps had been given an opportunity to review the letter and had reached consensus over its content.

From the information I have received, so far, it suggests that the org reps were not aware of this decision or that this letter was being sent.

So until I have clarification, I shall proceed on the basis that this was a chair's action - as opposed to the consensus decision of Forward-ME's member organizations (or selected of those organizations).

This difference is not a small thing, since I also advise other organizations who are members of Forward-ME and the content of the letter may potentially affect my future working relationship with those organizations.
 
Last edited:

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,464
Location
UK
I am very dismayed.....and bewildered by this development, Suzy. They could not have a better-informed advisor in position than you and your dismissal makes us all even more vulnerable.

I do hope you receive clarification on this seemingly bizarre decision asap. It is very unpleasant, but cannot be any reflection on your amazing comprehension of a complex subject and your incredible accomplishments for which we all owe you a huge debt of gratitude. You are indeed one of the heroes of this community. :trophy::trophy::trophy::bouquet::bouquet:
 

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
I am very dismayed.....and bewildered by this development, Suzy. They could not have a better-informed advisor in position than you and your dismissal makes us all even more vulnerable.

I do hope you receive clarification on this seemingly bizarre decision asap. It is very unpleasant, but cannot be any reflection on your amazing comprehension of a complex subject and your incredible accomplishments for which we all owe you a huge debt of gratitude. You are indeed one of the heroes of this community. :trophy::trophy::trophy::bouquet::bouquet:


Well, thank you, Countrygirl.

Lady Mar set out in her letter at length and in robust terms why she considers my services are no longer required.
 
Messages
67
@adambeyoncelowe

Twice now, you've referred to "the rest of the group" making assumptions. Again, the "rest of the group" isn't relevant. It is the understanding between the Countess of Mar (as Chair and owner of Forward-ME) and Invest in ME that is relevant.

It is the Countess of Mar who decides who is and who is not a member org; it is the Countess of Mar who instructs the webmaster to update the Forward-ME website - perhaps I am missing something, but what the "rest of the group" may assume is neither here nor there.

Sorry, I was posting in two different forums at the same time, and then didn't check back in here. You answered this over at Science 4 ME, and I felt your answer there gave the relevant info: https://www.s4me.info/threads/more-...n-geneva-with-who-and-their-plans.3803/page-4

When I posted here, I wasn't sure who was responsible for the letter and if anyone else had agreed to its being sent. Then I realised the Countess of Mar doesn't need anyone else to sign it off--she can send it on her own.

By 'they' I obviously meant 'Forward ME'. The impression given is that Forward ME is a group, hence why I referred to 'they'. Although, Forward ME seems to mean the Countess of Mar herself, for all intents and purposes.

It doesn't matter that you can't share the letter you received, though, because you've basically told us all what it said anyway. The specifics are largely irrelevant at this point. Although it would be good to hear from the CoM herself at some point.
 
Last edited:

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
Sorry, I was posting in two different forums at the same time, and then didn't check back in here. You answered this over at Science 4 ME, and I felt your answer there gave the relevant info: https://www.s4me.info/threads/more-...n-geneva-with-who-and-their-plans.3803/page-4

When I posted here, I wasn't sure who was responsible for the letter and if anyone else had agreed to its being sent. Then I realised the Countess of Mar doesn't need anyone else to sign it off--she can send it on her own.

By 'they' I obviously meant 'Forward ME'. The impression given is that Forward ME is a group, hence why I referred to 'they'. Although, Forward ME seems to mean the Countess of Mar herself, for all intents and purposes.


Not invariably.

As I've already said, for some letters, submissions, responses, position statements etc. issued in the name of Forward-ME, drafts are circulated among the member org reps for their review and input and a consensus draft is worked towards. That is why it has been important for me to establish on what basis this letter was sent to me, especially as I provide advice and information to selected of the member orgs.

It doesn't matter that you can't share the letter you received, though, because you've basically told us all what it said anyway.

No, I haven't.

The specifics are largely irrelevant at this point.

To whom?

Although it would be good to hear from the CoM herself at some point.

In relation to what, specifically?
 
Last edited:

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
ICD-11 release:

WHO has yet to announce the launch date for the initial version of ICD-11 MMS.

On March 5, a WHO official mentioned June 20. I don't have a second source for this date and until WHO issues a news release, we should assume that at any time from June 01, the initial release will be launched.

As I've mentioned before, when the new edition is released, it won't have been completed. Some chapters may not included "Descriptions" texts. There are still over a 1000 unprocessed proposals that the MSAC has inherited responsibility for, the majority of which had been submitted after the deadline for review and potential incorporation into this initial 2018 release. These will be rolled forward.

Presentation to WHA for endorsement, originally planned for May 2018, has been postponed to May 2019, partly because of delays in completion and evaluation of field testing.

In April, the WHO Director-General reported:

"An implementation package comprising all materials necessary to support implementation of ICD-11 at country level will accompany the release in June 2018. It will contain training materials, implementation guidance, transition tables, translation tools, information about governance and maintenance, and different formats of ICD-11 for incorporation into existing health-reporting systems – for use of ICD-11 on paper, offline and online."

But it's unclear how many of the companion guidelines and stand alone publications will be sufficiently advanced to release as part of the June package, or whether some of these publications will be delayed until later this year, or until 2019 or 2020.

In April, external support was being recruited on a contract basis to assist in clearing the workload of preparing user guides and other tasks between June 2018 through to December 2018, as there is insufficient WHO manpower and resources. This suggests that there may be substantial omissions from the package released in June.

The revision of ICD-10 had an "iCAT" phase, an Alpha phase and a Beta. What is released in June should be considered a Gamma phase.


No immediate implementation:

The version of ICD-11 that will be published in June is for testing, evaluation and implementation according to countries' specific timelines and requirements. There will be no WHO mandatory date by which member states will be required to migrate from ICD-10 to the new edition. For a period, data will be collected using both editions and global transition will be prolonged and patchy.

Dr Christopher Chute (ICD-11 MSAC chair) has predicted it will likely take early implementers around 5 years to evaluate and prepare their countries' health systems for transition to ICD-11. So no countries will be ready to move onto ICD-11 for several years.


Dedicated ICD-11 thread:

Whatever date the new edition launches, this will generate additional work for me. Over the years, we've had various threads on this forum on the development of ICD-11.

Last week, I created a new thread specifically for updates on ICD-11 and other classification and terminology systems, and the forthcoming ICD-11 release. I shall be using this new thread to post launch announcements and links for key materials and documents and for highlighting content of particular relevance to us. There is already some update content on it.

I am not on the WHO's mailing list for embargoed news releases/press briefing materials and it will therefore take me a day or so to collate what material I would like to add to the thread, once the new edition is released - so please bear with me:

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...classification-and-terminology-systems.59088/

Updates on ICD-11 and other classification and terminology systems

----------------------------

I created this thread "MUS, PPS services and integration into NHS primary care - what's happening across the UK?" on January 11, 2017, and I am pleased that it is providing a useful resource, archive and platform for collation of information and concerns around the MUS, PPS and IAPT services currently being rolled out.

Thanks again to @lilpink and others for the forensic work being done on IAPT and the coding issues.

I have not forgotten that I am planning to contact NHS Direct for information on the three severity specifiers for Concept: CFS that are exclusive to the SNOMED CT UK National Extension.

I also plan to ask when
Concept SCTID: 887761000000101 Medically unexplained symptoms - again, a Concept term exclusive to the SNOMED CT UK National Extension, was first added to the UK Edition and who had submitted for its addition.

The International Edition includes:

SCTID: 702537003 | Medically unexplained symptom (finding) |


and

SCTID: 161904006 | Unexplained symptoms continue (finding) |

but not

SCTID: 887761000000101 | Medically unexplained symptoms (finding) |


I shall put this in hand, next week.

In the meantime, I have other content to prepare for the ICD-11 thread so I may not be around very much for a few days. If you have queries that cannot wait - shoot me a PM, as I won't be monitoring this thread very often.
 
Last edited:
Messages
15
From 2013:

NHS England: Pilot of Enhanced GP Management of Patients with Medically Unexplained Symptoms

NHS Barnet Clinical Commissioning Group

mus-pilot.png


Open full size flyer here:

https://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordp...lly-unexplained-sympthoms-kingsfund-may12.pdf

Note the use of the term “Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS)” despite the lack of a body of evidence to support the validity, reliability, safety and clinical utility of the application of the "BSD" construct in primary care.

Note also, the list of illnesses under the definition of “MUS”: Chronic Pain, Fibromyalgia, Somatic Anxiety/Depression, Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME), Post-viral Fatigue Syndrome.


Extracts:

May 2013

NHS England

PILOT OF ENHANCED GP MANAGEMENT OF PATIENTS WITH MEDICALLY UNEXPLAINED SYMPTOMS

NHS Barnet Clinical Commissioning Group

Background

Medically Unexplained Symptoms

Definition

The term ‘medically unexplained symptoms (MUS)’ are physical symptoms that cannot be explained by organic pathology, which distress or impair the functioning of the patient. Patients often present with physical symptoms that cannot be explained even after thorough investigation. Other terms used to describe this patient group include: Functional Somatic Syndrome (FSS), Illness Distress Symptoms (IDS), Idiopathic Physical Symptoms (IPS), Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS) and Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms (MUPS).

Symptoms and Diagnosis

Symptoms

Headache
Shortness of Breath, palpitations
Fatigue, weakness, dizziness
Pain in the back, muscles, joints, extremity pain, chest pain, numbness
Stomach problems, loose bowels, gas/bloating, constipation, abdominal pain
Sleep disturbance, difficulty concentrating, restlessness, slow thoughts
Loss of appetite, nausea, lump in throat
Weight change

Diagnosis

Chronic Pain
Fibromyalgia
Somatic Anxiety/Depression
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
Post-viral Fatigue Syndrome

PROJECT AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

• To pilot a commissioner initiated, enhanced GP management service for patients with MUS in primary care. Refer to Figure 1 for details.

• The pilot will be carried out at selected Barnet GP practices (approximately 15) managing a minimum of 10 patients with MUS over 12 months.

• To identify patients with MUS using an electronic risk stratification tool the ‘Nottingham Tool’ with a review of the generated list at a multidisciplinary (MDT) GP practice meeting for the final patient selection.

• To enhance post-graduate GP training by providing education and training workshops and focused work group meetings on the management of MUS.

• The project will also test the assertion that identification and management of MUS would result in savings to commissioning budgets.

PROJECT OUTCOMES AND BENEFITS

There are several benefits that could be realised from implementing this project. These are as follows:-

• Improved outcomes for patients with MUS, better patient experience

• Improved quality of life

• Improved GP-Patient relationship

• Reduced GP secondary and tertiary referrals

• Reduced unnecessary GP and hospital investigations and prescribing of medicines

• Reduced GP appointments and out of hours appointments to A&E or GP

CONCLUSIONS

There is a high prevalence of patients with medically unexplained symptoms presenting to primary and secondary care services. Patients with MUS are high healthcare service users having a major impact to our local health economy and health outcomes. GPs are well placed to manage MUS patients as this patient group are 50% more likely to attend primary care. We believe that our proposed enhanced management of care by the GP will result in both market and non-market benefits. This proposal has gained approval from the NHS Barnet CCG Primary Care Strategy and Implementation Board, QIPP Board and the NCL Programme Board for the 2013/14 financial year…

etc.
This is worrying and not just for people with ME. With the continued 'gate keeping' of referrals for medical tests and to specialists by GPs other medical conditions could easily be scooped up within this broad brush label. e.g. asthma, diabetes type 2, cardiac problems, cancer, neuropathy, multiple sclerosis ....

I don't know about our local services but will check this out.

Are there other interested patient groups who might campaign and monitor this together?
 

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
Following developments, last week, I note that the Forward-ME page for "Linked Organisations" has now been updated to remove the listing for Invest in ME:

Last week, the page had displayed the following:


The link for Invest in ME has been removed and the page lists the following:


http://www.forward-me.org.uk/LinkedOrganisations.htm

Linked Organisations and Associates
  • Countess of Mar (Chairman)
  • Carol Monaghan (MP) Vice Chairman
  • Dr Nigel Speight
  • Dr William Weir
  • Dr Nina Muirhead
These organisations all participate in the meetings convened by Forward-ME and their individual websites can be viewed using the links below.


----------------

So, since the development, last week, it has been acknowledged that Invest in ME have not been involved in Forward-ME since 2014.

And four individuals have been added as "Associates":

Carol Monaghan (MP) has been made Vice Chairman of Forward-ME

plus Dr Nigel Speight, Dr William Weir, and Dr Nina Muirhead.


Note that all four had been CCd into the Countess of Mar's "personal email" to me on May 7, which had also been Ccd to various org reps (21 recipients in addition to myself).

This evidently explains why these four individuals had been Ccd into the letter I received last Monday, though this was not clarified to me at the time.

I wonder what is the opinion of the Vice Chair and the three "Associates" of the tone, content and purpose of the letter sent to me on May 7, followed by a further letter on May 9?
 
Last edited:

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
In yesterday's Times print edition and online (sub or paywall):

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/therapy-can-cut-hospital-visits-by-75-9zkkhdczq

also:

http://practicebusiness.co.uk/menta...s-to-reduction-in-demand-for-gp-appointments/

Mental health ‘game-changer’ leads to reduction in demand for GP appointments

15th May 2018

"...The mental impact of physical problems can be even more widespread for people whose condition is undiagnosed, with seven in ten people experiencing medically unexplained symptoms, such as irritable bowel syndrome or chronic fatigue, also having depression or anxiety."


Here's the original on NHS England site:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2018/05/...leads-to-75-reduction-in-hospital-admissions/

Mental health “game-changer” care leads to 75 per cent reduction in hospital admissions

14 May 2018
 
Last edited:

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
Hi JellyLegs, and welcome to the forum. While reviewing this Pilot from May 2013, I see that when compiling terms for my "Alphabet Soup" graphic, I had overlooked:

"Illness Distress Symptoms (IDS)"

"Idiopathic Physical Symptoms (IPS)"


MUS, FSS, PPS, FDD, BDS, BSS, BDD, SSD, PES, PSDD, IDS, IPS...


diji6r2xyaefie6.jpg



*Source: PILOT OF ENHANCED GP MANAGEMENT OF PATIENTS WITH MEDICALLY UNEXPLAINED SYMPTOMS, NHS Barnet Clinical Commissioning Group, May 2013
https://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordp...lly-unexplained-sympthoms-kingsfund-may12.pdf
 
Messages
32
I see that when compiling terms for my "Alphabet Soup" graphic, I had overlooked:

"Illness Distress Symptoms (IDS)"

"Idiopathic Physical Symptoms (IPS)"

Maybe there should have been ICD-11 inclusion of a neologising disorder. Perhaps for inclusion under disorders due to addictive behaviours. Although I realise as I type that suggesting the term 'neologising disorder' could potentially mean I am suffering with neologising disorder..
 

anni66

mum to ME daughter
Messages
563
Location
scotland
In yesterday's Times print edition and online (sub or paywall):

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/therapy-can-cut-hospital-visits-by-75-9zkkhdczq

also:

http://practicebusiness.co.uk/menta...s-to-reduction-in-demand-for-gp-appointments/

Mental health ‘game-changer’ leads to reduction in demand for GP appointments

15th May 2018

"...The mental impact of physical problems can be even more widespread for people whose condition is undiagnosed, with seven in ten people experiencing medically unexplained symptoms, such as irritable bowel syndrome or chronic fatigue, also having depression or anxiety."


Here's the original on NHS England site:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2018/05/...leads-to-75-reduction-in-hospital-admissions/

Mental health “game-changer” care leads to 75 per cent reduction in hospital admissions

14 May 2018
Thank you again @Dx Revision Watch
It appears the stage is being set.
 

lilpink

Senior Member
Messages
988
Location
UK
On May 1st the Countess of Mar asked this Parliamentary question about the recovery rates of ME patients in the IAPT programme - https://www.parliament.uk/business/...nts/written-question/Lords/2018-05-01/HL7468/ . Lord O’Shaughnessy answered on the 15th May apparently indicating that the information was not available. Hm.


From this document- Integrated IAPT (IAPT-LTC) Frequently Asked Questions Integrated IAPT (IAPT-LTC) Frequently Asked Questions – Under section 6. IAPT-LTC Data - we see that recovery rates are calculated for ME patients on the MUS arm:


“Will the LTC and MUS measures be used to calculate recovery?

LTC measures are used to inform assessment and clinical decision making, and will not be used to calculate recovery. MUS measures can be used to calculate recovery, provided paired scores are available, the problem descriptor is coded as Somatization Disorder (F45.0) and the relevant MUS is selected in the Medically Unexplained Symptoms field.”


Perhaps this recovery information is not yet available but this phrase in the same document ‘I am part of Wave 1 or 2 and understand the results from the national evaluation will not be available before March 2018’, suggests that the national results may be available now. Also, in Section 4, we read:

“We will be monitoring services on the achievement of the commitments made through quarterly monitoring submissions. This includes number of patients seen, number of trainee therapists, co-location of therapists and numbers based in primary care, the integrated delivery of the pathways within physical health and the outcomes achieved by this cohort of patients.”

So it seems that outcomes are being monitored/recorded quarterly. Surely ‘recovery’ for MUS is one of the outcome measures, and the use of the ‘Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire’ for this purpose just for patients with ME/CFS should make it very easy to separate out the figures for recovery of ME/CFS patients from other MUS patients in the IAPT programme.


I therefore suspect that at least some information regarding the recovery rates for ME patients is available or it would require very little effort to obtain it. I wonder if there are any means by which the Countess of Mar could challenge this answer…..or would that be contrary to Parliamentary etiquette/protocol?
 

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
A POCKET GUIDE TO IAPT

(...)


Does this have anything to do with Simon Wessely?

Although Wessely appears to have kept somewhat under the radar with this one, it is highly probable that he was involved in the development of the JCPMH ‘Guidance for Commissioners of Services for People with Medically Unexplained Symptoms’ that was jointly produced by the Royal College of Psychiatry and the RCGP and that steers NHS commissioners down the IAPT path for MUS services. Wessely used to be rather enthusiastic about IAPT - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJJOB8-xXuM (from 4 mins) - and called it “the greatest revolution in British mental health in fifty years” - http://www.yhscn.nhs.uk/media/PDFs/mhdn/Mental%20Health/IAPT-LTC/1.%20YH%20IAPT-LTC%20Slides%20-%20October%202017.pdf , but more recently he has been critical of the concentration on ‘mental health awareness’ because apparently the system can’t cope - https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j4305 . Of course, ‘mental health awareness’ is key to the IAPT model. It’s unlikely though that Wessely’s criticism will extend to challenging the treatment of patients with ME/CFS or ‘MUS’ any time soon.


@lilpink

Might be worth inserting to the above section that Rona Moss-Morris, Professor of Psychology as Applied to Medicine, Kings College London, is the National Clinical Advisor to IAPT NHS England.

https://www.healthcareconferencesuk.co.uk/userfiles/1/Rona_Moss-Morris.pdf

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/depts/p...IMPARTS-2017-Competences-Rona-Moss-Morris.pdf

https://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/246...ide-.pdf/ac806084-4058-4a2f-89f9-17d04eff6a3b
 
Last edited:

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
https://www.parliament.uk/business/...nts/written-question/Lords/2018-05-01/HL7468/

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Written question - HL7468

Asked by The Countess of Mar
Asked on: 01 May 2018

Department of Health and Social Care
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

HL7468
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the recovery rates of patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis who have received treatment under the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme.


Answered by: Lord O'Shaughnessy
Answered on: 15 May 2018

This information is not available.