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
I'm not sure that patients are allowed now to attend APPG. I think I read that somewhere.

Apologies for no yellow box. I got to grips with it about a month ago but have reforgotten it. Will tackle it again using responses when I have a bit of brain.

You are right.

It used to be the case that it was run as a group open to members of the public. Then the Officers at the time voted to change the policy over members of the public attending.

Thanks, Binkie4, I had forgotten that under this group's policy it is MPs and invited only.
 
Last edited:

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
From Sonya Chowdhury:

The meeting is not cancelled; it is a [members and MPs] meeting to consider inquiry evidence and is being chaired by Daniel Zeichner MP as the Inquiry Chair. Hope that clarifies the position

Sonya Chowdhury
Chief Executive, Action for M.E.

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

From Katie NcMahon

Thanks for your email.

There has been some confusion around the APPG meeting, so I want to make sure we're on the same page.

The meeting is not cancelled, but it is a parliamentarians only meeting, in line with the plan for the inquiry which has been set out by the Chair of the inquiry, Daniel Zeichner MP.

Unfortunately, our communication got confused along the line and invites were also sent out to the charity partners of the APPG.

Therefore the recent cancellation notice was for the charity partners. All charity partners were informed earlier of this amendment to the meeting having had direct contact from Clare Ogden, our Head of Comms and Policy at Action for M.E.

I hope that's clear - please let me know of there are any further actions required still, or if I've misunderstood your email in any way. I apologise again for the confusion this has caused.

Kind regards

Katie
 
Last edited:

trishrhymes

Senior Member
Messages
2,158
Sorry but I have to disagree. I'm fed up of letters and petitions. The brazenness of, for the want of a much better word, the 'establishment' was very evident during the PACE FoI rejections and was seen by me, first hand, at the tribunal.

The English are far too polite sometimes. Having said that, I'll repeat my apology for disagreeing.

Feel free to disagree. I disagree with myself really!

I wrote the suggestion that we ask the Countess of Mar to write to 'people with power' more out of anger and desperation than with any expectation that such a letter would make any difference.

However eloquent and fact based our pleas are in this situation, nothing is going to shift until

a) the NICE guidelines are completely re-written and science based

b) there's a definitive biomedical test for ME, and

c) there's a biomedical cure.

Sadly that moment seems a long way off.

Returning to your disagreement with me, @AR68 , do you have any suggestions of a way forward. Can you see any way we can get the powers that be to stop this biopsychosocial religion taking over the world?
 

Keela Too

Sally Burch
Messages
900
Location
N.Ireland
From Sonya Chawdhury:

The meeting is not cancelled; it is a [members and MPs] meeting to consider inquiry evidence and is being chaired by Daniel Zeichner MP as the Inquiry Chair. Hope that clarifies the position

Sonya Chowdhury
Chief Executive, Action for M.E.

How frustrating and confusing! I've now emailed my MP again to let him know it is going ahead! Might be too late now for him to get there - maybe with luck he didn't get my earlier email letting him know it was cancelled!
 

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
...However eloquent and fact based our pleas are in this situation, nothing is going to shift until

a) the NICE guidelines are completely re-written and science based

b) there's a definitive biomedical test for ME, and

c) there's a biomedical cure.

Sadly that moment seems a long way off..


The rolling out of integrated IAPT for MUS and in some areas, CFS, isn't a cat that is likely to get stuffed back into the bag - at least not under this government - unless the promised funding doesn't materialize or commissioners encounter difficulties with recruitment, training courses or retaining therapists.

Until a), b) and c) have been reached, I can't see any way forward other than firm and repeated rejection of any referrals for management approaches that patients don't wish to undertake.

But what also concerns me is whether and to what extent GPs' previously held perceptions of this illness and their perceptions of patients' medical, occupational and care needs may be negatively influenced by the rolling out in their areas of IAPT services, whether their patients are consenting to accepting referrals or not.

We've already witnessed one report on these forums where a previously supportive GP appears to have recently undergone an inexplicable volte-face (ME, CFS = psychological) in an area of the country where integrated IAPT for Long Term Conditions and "Medically Unexplained/ Functional Symptoms" is being rolled out.
 
Last edited:

Invisible Woman

Senior Member
Messages
1,267
unless the promised funding doesn't materialize

Well, given the great fanfare re increased funding for mental health services in the news in the last week or so - that ship has sailed (sorry - couldn't resist the ship reference).

Of, course most folk think it's to improve and increase services for people with genuine primary and serious mental health conditions. The type that leave the sufferer likely to be homeless, friendless and involved in violent situations where the mental health sufferer is normally the victim.

The public think this money is going to save lives. Instead it's a cynical spend to justify funding cuts and will actually cause health risks to at least some patients.
 

Binkie4

Senior Member
Messages
644
I didn't re-email my MP because I wasn't confident that we had all the information at that point, then I was out for an hour ( most unusual), and since he had only committed to half the meeting because of a prior commitment to the Home Affairs Select Committee, I was not sure it was worth it when I got back.

As you say @Dx Revision Watch, most unfortunate.

If we are trying a push to involve our MPs, is there a case for a dedicated secretariat?. If the work is divided between 2 charities ( AfME and MEA), there seems a greater chance of things going amiss eg yesterday, CS seemed to believe the meeting cancelled while Sonia knew it was going ahead. Just a thought.
 

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
I didn't re-email my MP because I wasn't confident that we had all the information at that point, then I was out for an hour ( most unusual), and since he had only committed to half the meeting because of a prior commitment to the Home Affairs Select Committee, I was not sure it was worth it when I got back.

As you say @Dx Revision Watch, most unfortunate.

If we are trying a push to involve our MPs, is there a case for a dedicated secretariat?. If the work is divided between 2 charities ( AfME and MEA), there seems a greater chance of things going amiss eg yesterday, CS seemed to believe the meeting cancelled while Sonia knew it was going ahead. Just a thought.

On this occasion, an incorrect or confusing message had been sent out by an AfME member of staff who acts as Minute-taker.

The charity reps are not themselves members of the APPG on ME. I think you would find neither rep willing to give up the role of joint Secretariat to the APPG on ME. It would also mean that if a single Secretariat were unable to attend, there would be no Secretariat present at the meeting other than the minute-taker.

At the September 2016 meeting, the Secretariat was:

Secretariat:
Sonya Chowdhury, Action for M.E.
Katie McMahon, Action for M.E. (minute-taker)
Dr Charles Shepherd, ME Association
 

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
Well, given the great fanfare re increased funding for mental health services in the news in the last week or so - that ship has sailed (sorry - couldn't resist the ship reference).

Yes, well, we've seen promises before:

http://www.economist.com/news/brita...igns-small-cheque-mental-illness-last-getting

"...In 2011-12, for the first time in a decade, funding for mental health fell, says the King’s Fund, another think-tank. Even though the NHS mandated that such funding should increase in 2015-16 alongside increases for acute care, about 40% of mental-health trusts continue to experience year-on-year cuts to their budgets."
 

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
Pilot study: Analysis of the impact of ’Integrated IAPT’ services co-located in and integrated with physical health services, focused on people with anxiety/depression in the context of LTCs and/or MUS.

"Some findings from the pilot will be collated and used to provide evidence about whether the pilot is successful. The main output of the study is a final report which will be submitted to NHS England in early 2018. A less formal interim report in October 2017 will contain lessons learned and interim findings."


https://rocrsubmissions.ic.nhs.uk/_layouts/rocrsubmissions/ExternalMetadata.aspx?id=R01273


Long Term Conditions Pilot for Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT)


blank.gif
Date record last modified: 03/01/2017 11:08:49 |

Unique Number R01273

Description The Five Year Forward View for Mental Health set out a number of specific recommendations aimed at better integrating mental healthcare within physical healthcare pathways and vice-versa, including increasing the access to integrated evidence-based psychological therapies for people with anxiety/depression in the context of long-term physical health problems and persistent and distressing medically unexplained symptoms. Such integration is known to improve people’s experience of care and the outcomes they achieve and to deliver efficiencies in terms of healthcare utilisation.

Some recommendations were based on evidence of mental health interventions delivering savings elsewhere in the system and the associated implementation programmes have been planned and will be funded accordingly.

To promote the sustainable implementation of these programmes beyond the initial period of central funding, a strong business case showing cost savings in NHS is needed.

To help in creating this business case we are looking to commission a study measuring how people’s use of health and social care services changes as a result of accessing these mental health interventions and what the impact is on the particular physical health problem (e.g. diabetes, COPD).

We seek to commission an analysis of the impact of ’Integrated IAPT’ services co-located in and integrated with physical health services, focused on people with anxiety/depression in the context of LTCs and/or MUS. These will be delivered in primary care and outpatient settings with savings expected in secondary care and primary care.

This pilot exercise is linked to the existing IAPT data set standard, and will determine whether the programmes continue to be funded.

22 IAPT providers are being supported as Integrated IAPT Early Implementers in 2016/17 and 2017/18.

BAAS Reference No ISB 1520 (existing IAPT standard)
Reference
Status Submitted to BAAS
FT Collection Type VOLUNTARY
Collection Type VOLUNTARY
Frequency Monthly
Collection Method Extract from existing NHS systems, Database extract, Other
Local or National Collection National
National / Official statistic National
Method used to store the data Data is stored in an IL 4 environment.
Organisations
Owner Name and Contact Details Stephanie Gebert
stephanie.gebert@nhs.net
Owning Department Community and Mental Health team
Owning Organisation NHS Digital
Requesting Organisation NHS Digital
Source Organisations (Number of orgs) Care Foundation Trust (2) , Acute Foundation Trust (1) , Independent and Voluntary Sector (9) , Mental Health Foundation Trust (8) , Mental Health Non Foundation Trust (3) , Social Enterprises (1)

Publication details
Publication methods Requests for data from external bodies for analysis and/or publication purposes will be subject to NHS Digital's Data Access Request Service (DARS), and appropriate approval from bodies such as the Data Access Advisory Group (DAAG). Some findings from the pilot will be collated and used to provide evidence about whether the pilot is successful. The main output of the study is a final report which will be submitted to NHS England in early 2018. A less formal interim report in October 2017 will contain lessons learned and interim findings.

Publication Links
To be decided.
Dates
End date 31/03/2018
Start date 01/01/2017
Costs and Benefits
Other Costs £15,500.00
Total Costs £214,770.00
Keywords
Keywords Integrated IAPT, Mental Health, Psychological Therapies


"This pilot exercise is linked to the existing IAPT data set standard, and will determine whether the programmes continue to be funded."


Perhaps the findings will show that the programmes are not effective in terms of cost savings or impact on long-term physical health problems and "persistent and distressing medically unexplained symptoms."

Then the 50% of the UK population that is already being trained to deliver CBT to the remaining 50% can be deployed to deliver the government's next pet cost saving therapy...
 
Last edited:

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42015025520

Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS): primary care intervention

Joanna Leaviss, Glenys Parry, Matt Stevenson, Andrew Booth, Alison Scope, Sarah Davis, Shije Ren, Anthea Sutton, Peter White, Rona Moss-Morris, Marta Buszewicz

Review question(s)
What is the clinical, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of behavioural modification interventions for Medically Unexplained Symptoms in primary care or community-based settings?

Condition or domain being studied

The term ‘MUS’ is used to cover a wide range of symptoms which cannot be clearly explained by a general medical condition, even after a thorough examination and any relevant investigations. Henningsen et al (2005) describe three main types of MUS: pain in different locations, for example headache, back pain, non-cardiac chest pain (NCCP); functional disturbance of organ systems; and complaints of fatigue or exhaustion. The term MUS may be applied to patients presenting with single symptoms, multiple symptoms, or clusters of symptoms that are related to one another and are specific to a certain organ system or medical specialty, for example chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), or fibromyalgia. The latter are usually referred to as functional somatic syndromes (FSS) (Wessely et al., 1999). Patients presenting with MUS may vary in terms of reported severity i.e. number of symptoms, functional disability or quality of life, and duration of symptoms.

Participants/ population
Studies of populations meeting the diagnostic criteria for MUS, MUPS, and somatoform disorders will be included. Diagnosis of MUS or MUPS may be either by validated instrument (e.g PHQ-15, SOMS, BSI) or clinician judgement. Diagnosis will not be restricted by duration, (apart from chronic pain where duration should be > 3 months), or severity e.g. number of symptoms. Patients with single symptoms will be included. Populations with FSS will be included, e.g. IBS, CFS, fibromyalgia. For somatoform disorders, diagnosis should be made by formal clinical interview and should meet criteria according to DSM IV or V, or ICD 9 or 10. Somatoform disorders will include somatisation disorder, somatoform disorders, pain disorders, persistent physical symptoms, bodily distress syndrome, bodily distress disorder, functional somatic syndrome, medically unexplained syndrome. Populations should include adults aged 18 years or over.

Intervention(s), exposure(s)

Behavioural modification interventions. We will include interventions that aim to modify behaviour. These include CBT, behaviour therapy, and GET. Where the intervention is not explicitly named as a behavioural modification intervention i.e. one of the above, we will adopt a broad definition of behavioural change interventions, and will include any intervention where i) at least one primary outcome is a functional or behavioural change measure or ii) the stated explicit aim of the intervention is to change behaviour. Interventions may therefore include but will not be exclusive to a range of psychotherapies, for example CBT, behavioural therapy, psychodynamic therapy, mindfulness, reattribution therapy. Interventions may also include other physical therapies, but only where behaviour change is a specified primary outcome or treatment mechanism. Interventions with multiple components will be included where one of the components can be considered a behavioural modification technique as defined by the above criteria. Individual and group interventions will be treated as separate interventions.

etc

Anticipated or actual start date
01 September 2015

Anticipated completion date
28 February 2017


Via @postersandme

 

Molly98

Senior Member
Messages
576
http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42015025520

Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS): primary care intervention

Joanna Leaviss, Glenys Parry, Matt Stevenson, Andrew Booth, Alison Scope, Sarah Davis, Shije Ren, Anthea Sutton, Peter White, Rona Moss-Morris, Marta Buszewicz

Review question(s)
What is the clinical, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of behavioural modification interventions for Medically Unexplained Symptoms in primary care or community-based settings?

Condition or domain being studied

The term ‘MUS’ is used to cover a wide range of symptoms which cannot be clearly explained by a general medical condition, even after a thorough examination and any relevant investigations. Henningsen et al (2005) describe three main types of MUS: pain in different locations, for example headache, back pain, non-cardiac chest pain (NCCP); functional disturbance of organ systems; and complaints of fatigue or exhaustion. The term MUS may be applied to patients presenting with single symptoms, multiple symptoms, or clusters of symptoms that are related to one another and are specific to a certain organ system or medical specialty, for example chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), or fibromyalgia. The latter are usually referred to as functional somatic syndromes (FSS) (Wessely et al., 1999). Patients presenting with MUS may vary in terms of reported severity i.e. number of symptoms, functional disability or quality of life, and duration of symptoms.

Participants/ population
Studies of populations meeting the diagnostic criteria for MUS, MUPS, and somatoform disorders will be included. Diagnosis of MUS or MUPS may be either by validated instrument (e.g PHQ-15, SOMS, BSI) or clinician judgement. Diagnosis will not be restricted by duration, (apart from chronic pain where duration should be > 3 months), or severity e.g. number of symptoms. Patients with single symptoms will be included. Populations with FSS will be included, e.g. IBS, CFS, fibromyalgia. For somatoform disorders, diagnosis should be made by formal clinical interview and should meet criteria according to DSM IV or V, or ICD 9 or 10. Somatoform disorders will include somatisation disorder, somatoform disorders, pain disorders, persistent physical symptoms, bodily distress syndrome, bodily distress disorder, functional somatic syndrome, medically unexplained syndrome. Populations should include adults aged 18 years or over.

Intervention(s), exposure(s)

Behavioural modification interventions. We will include interventions that aim to modify behaviour. These include CBT, behaviour therapy, and GET. Where the intervention is not explicitly named as a behavioural modification intervention i.e. one of the above, we will adopt a broad definition of behavioural change interventions, and will include any intervention where i) at least one primary outcome is a functional or behavioural change measure or ii) the stated explicit aim of the intervention is to change behaviour. Interventions may therefore include but will not be exclusive to a range of psychotherapies, for example CBT, behavioural therapy, psychodynamic therapy, mindfulness, reattribution therapy. Interventions may also include other physical therapies, but only where behaviour change is a specified primary outcome or treatment mechanism. Interventions with multiple components will be included where one of the components can be considered a behavioural modification technique as defined by the above criteria. Individual and group interventions will be treated as separate interventions.

etc

Anticipated or actual start date
01 September 2015

Anticipated completion date
28 February 2017


Via @postersandme

It seems like they will never rest until the have spread their propaganda far and wide, brainwashed every medical practitioner and forced us into submission and compliance. 'Dissemination plans', god how long before it turns into "termination plans" for those of us who refuse their ideas about our bodies. This is very sinister and evil it really is.

I reckon if you compared this plan to the plans of the missionaries and colonialists who spread their poison and imperialist ideas around the world it would be almost identical.
 

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
"Empirical testing of such interventions in LTC and MUS remains at an early stage of development."
So why are you currently implementing them in clinics across the land as a core health program, without adequate evidence of their clinical benefit and safety, let alone broader economic benefit, especially in times of desperately cash strapped health services?
 

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
https://www.england.nhs.uk/mentalhealth/adults/iapt/mus/

Consensus Statement


A consensus statement has been developed by national clinical leaders setting out the key characteristics of integrated IAPT services. NHS England is working to support new services.

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2015.pdf

Position Statement PS02/2015

Providing evidence-based psychological therapies
to people with long-term conditions and/or medically
unexplained symptoms


December 2015

Royal College of Psychiatrists,1
Royal College of General Practitioners,
British Psychological Society and
Royal College of Physicians

1. Approved by the Policy and Public Affairs Committee of the Royal College of Psychiatrists as Position
Statement PS02/2015, November 2015

People who have mental health problems in the context of long-term
physical health conditions (e.g. diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer) and people who are troubled by
symptoms inadequately explained by their medical condition (sometimes
called persistent physical symptoms or medically unexplained symptoms) are
poorly served by existing services. In particular, there is an urgent need to
provide them with more integrated physical and psychological healthcare to
improve their quality of life and reduce costs to the National Health Service
(NHS) and the wider system.

The Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme has
already established some key principles for the delivery of treatment, below.
NICE-recommended therapies should be delivered by properly trained
practitioners.

Practitioners should receive regular (weekly) case supervision and be
managed as a team, led by appropriate experts.

IT systems that support supervision as well as outcome monitoring
should be used.

All patients should have their outcomes recorded and service-level
outcomes should be published.

Treatment should be delivered in the most cost-efficient manner,
including stepped care when appropriate.​

Proposal

Two additional considerations apply for physical and psychological treatments
for long-term conditions and medically unexplained symptoms, centring on
the setting and integration with existing services.

Physical and mental healthcare provision should be co-located.

Mental healthcare provision should be integrated into existing medical
pathways and services – either primary or secondary care services
(e.g. oncology, community mental health teams, liaison psychiatry/
psychology services).​

These considerations address the following requirements: (a) patient
preference for receiving physical and mental healthcare in the same
setting; (b) availability of expertise for the provision of physical and mental
healthcare and symptom management in the medical setting; (c) continuity
of care; (d) multidisciplinary team working and sharing; (e) removing
stigma; and (f) improving access.

Conclusion

We agree that care should be provided in a way that enables patients to
access the right care, in the right place and at the right time and is costeffective
and clinically effective. With this in mind, the Royal College of
Psychiatrists, Royal College of General Practitioners, British Psychological
Society and Royal College of Physicians are working together to promote
joined-up patient care. This is because integrated approaches have been
shown not only to improve patient outcomes but also to help drive efficiency
in healthcare.

Disclaimer
This guidance (as updated from time to time) is for use by members of the endorsing organisations. It sets out guidance, principles and specific recommendations that, in the view of these organisations, should be followed by their members. None the less, members remain responsible for regulating their own conduct in relation to the subject matter of the guidance. Accordingly, to the extent permitted by applicable law, the endorsing organisations exclude all liability of any kind arising as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the member either following or failing to follow the guidance.


http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk

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

Competence Framework


https://www.ucl.ac.uk/pals/research...ople_with_Persistent_Physical_Health_Problems

Psychological Interventions with People with Persistent Physical Health Problems
Welcome to the competence framework for psychological interventions for people with persistent physical health conditions. This site gives open access to the framework, as well as background documentation that explains how to use the framework.
etc

A brief description of the framework
The framework describes the various activities which need to be brought together in order to carry out effective clinical work for people with persistent physical health conditions. It is not intended to prescribe what a clinician should do: it makes suggestions about best practice in the light of our current knowledge of the effectiveness of approaches and interventions.

The framework locates competences across seven “domains”, each of which represents a broad area of practice. This helps users to see how the various activities associated with work in this area fit together.

It is important to read the background documentation, as this will help you to understand the principles underlying the construction of the framework and implement it to best effect. Although its primary audience will be clinicians, clinical managers and commissioners of services, service users will also find it useful. A document written specifically for service users will appear on this site shortly.

Access Background Document Here

A competence framework for psychological interventions with
people with persistent physical health conditions

Anthony D. Roth and Stephen Pilling
Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, UCL

Expert Reference Group (ERG)
The work was overseen by an Expert Reference Group whose invaluable advice, editorial comments and collegial approach contributed enormously to the development of the work. The ERG comprised:

Dr Pauline Adair, Professor Paul Bennett, Dr Chris Bundy, Dr Angela Busuttil, Professor Trudie Chalder, Dr Alex Clarke, Dr David Craig, Dr Vincent Deary, Dr Diane Dixon, Professor Christopher Dowrick, Dr Arek Hassey, Professor Elspeth Guthrie, Dr Jo Iddon, Professor Lance McCraken, Professor Rona Moss-Morris, Dr Katherine Rimes, Marie Claire Shankland, Dr Jon Stone, Dr Vivien Swanson, Judy Thomson, Professor Alison Wearden, Dr Abigail Wroe

( https://www.ucl.ac.uk/pals/research...l_Health_Problems/Physical_Background_Doc.pdf )

How to access and download the competences
There are two ways of accessing the competences:

1. You can download them from the map of competences. This shows the ‘architecture’ of the framework - the ways in which the competences relate to each other. The map displays seven domains of competence, and the activities associated with each domain. Placing the cursor over any of the boxes in the map links you to the competences, so to see the competences associated with a specific activity, just click on the relevant box


2. If you want to see all the competences in the first five domains of the map you can get “one click’ access here:

 
Last edited:

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/pals/research...l_Health_Problems/Physical_Background_Doc.pdf

Page 6

Scope of the competence framework

Clients to whom the framework applies

The framework applies to clients who present to healthcare systems with persistent physical health conditions, and where there are indications that a psychological intervention may help them to manage their condition more effectively.

Conventionally clinicians have placed these patients into one of two groups:

a) those with ‘Long Term Conditions’ (LTC), where there is a known physical problem with which patients are contending (for example, cardiac disease or diabetes)

b) those with ‘Medically Unexplained Symptoms (MUS) where currently there is no known physical cause for the symptoms they are experiencing (for example, chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia)

This distinction is unsatisfactory for several (well-rehearsed) reasons. ‘MUS’, is a portmanteau term that encompasses a very diverse set of presentations linked only by the absence of a known pathological cause for the patient’s symptoms. More critically, the term ‘unexplained’ can be misinterpreted as indicating that patients with MUS do not have ‘real’ physical symptoms, and that their condition is ‘all in the mind’.

This sort of thinking reflects the assumption that it is possible to make a clear distinction between mind and body, so that patients either present with a ‘real’ physical problem, or are somehow misrepresenting psychological problems as physical. This is both unhelpful and – more to the point – inaccurate, because there is increasing evidence of the autopoietic1 inter-relationship between physical and psychological states, and indeed, between physical states and the social environment (Deary, Chalder and Sharpe, 2007).

1 ‘autopoietic’ refers to a system capable of reproducing and maintaining itself.

Unfortunately it is all too easy for healthcare workers and patients to fall into the trap of ‘either-or’ thinking, and this can result in professionals relating differently to patients from each group - more positively to those with an LTC, but less sympathetically to those with MUS. It is probably no accident that many patients whose condition is labelled as MUS report feeling devalued and discounted by their encounters with the healthcare system, despite the fact that their symptoms can lead to considerable distress and disability.

In response to these concerns there have been several attempts to revise nomenclature in this area (e.g. Picariello, Ali, Moss-Morris & Chalder (in press))*, not only on conceptual grounds but also because the issues that confront and challenge people with ‘LTC’ or ‘MUS’ are often very similar. Unfortunately these efforts have not resulted in terminology that has been widely accepted. Since most policy documents continue to use these terms, they are – reluctantly – retained in this competence framework, so as to ensure that there is no confusion about the people to whom this work might apply.

Ed: The most popular terms for medically unexplained symptoms: The views of CFS patients Federica Picariello, Sheila Ali, Rona Moss-Morris,Trudie Chalder
https://keats.kcl.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/1208848/mod_folder/content/0/Popular%20term.pdf

However, it is worth observing that a number of conditions labelled as MUS have received their own diagnostic labels, and where this is the case this document refers to these directly (for example, Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, or Irritable Bowel Syndrome).


Page 20

An outline of the framework

Core professional competences for work with
people with persistent physical health problems
 
Last edited:

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
Giving the Protocol doc a standalone post:

http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projectsOld/hta/142608

Publication date: September 2015
Start date: September 2017

HTA - 14/26/08: Medically unexplained symptoms(MUS): primary care intervention

Protocol document

http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/150181/PRO-14-26-08.pdf

Study Design
An evidence synthesis with decision analytic modelling following a systematic review of available quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness and acceptability of primary care or community-based behaviour modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms.

Research Aim
This project will evaluate the clinical, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of behavioural modification interventions for Medically Unexplained Symptoms in primary care or community-based settings. The purpose of the project is to provide a comprehensive systematic review of both quantitative and qualitative studies, using rigorous methods for reviewing, evidence synthesis and cost-effectiveness modelling to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these interventions etc.
 
Back