I've just read through the document that came out last month, Refocussing the Care Programme Approach.
I'll try to resist saying that it's simply 55 pages which are soft, strong and thoroughly absorbent so arguably has some utility. Ooops, I didn't. Ho hum.
The 36 pages of "Making the CPA work for you" had me frothing because firstly it's front page is for "service users" not "patients" and secondly it's got the trite byline on the front page :
"It is not about how you fit into services
It is about how services fit with you"
I have few folk on enhanced CPA. By few, I mean none. It's meaningless to their care so largely ignored. Okay, it's optional for older adults, so nobody hits me with a big stick, but this new guidance is aimed at one and all. What piqued me was the notion of who it's for and how they'll be helped.
To quote : "Individuals with a wide range of needs from a number of services, or who are most at risk, should recieve a higher level of care co-ordination support. From October 2008 the system of co-ordination and support for this group only will be called Care Programme Approach (CPA)."
Yes, they did underline "only" in the document.
Later on, ". . . the individuals needing the support of the (new) CPA should not be significantly different from those needing the support of enhanced CPA."
Erm, that's nobody, then.
Am I missing something here?
6 comments:
No. You're missing nothing. It sounds like high-grade ordure.
Reminds me of a story about Sir Thomas Beecham, the famous conductor.
"Have you played any Schoenberg recently, Sir Thomas?"
"No, but I've trodden in some"
Err - so is what the document says basically that CPA is being abolished for people on standard CPA and only now applies to those who would previously have been on enhanced CPA? If so that will help my own Trust meet the CPA targets it stunningly misses at the moment - they can just decide over half the people currently on CPA no longer need it. Brilliant. It's all about meeting government targets, after all - nothing to do with patients' needs.
I agree with your assessment, Jobbing doctor!
Picking something small out: I've yet to work out my feelings about the whether I should describe people who use psychiatric services as 'patients' or 'clients'/'service users'. I know that some people have very strong views on this matter.
What I'd really like to find is a word that makes people feel more inclined to show up to my appointments.
I have a copy of the patient's leaflet & must admit I was pretty much confused about it's content.All I could make of it was they didn't want to label anybody on an enhanced CPA,not sure why.This is what it says on the back of the leaflet:-
'It's not about removing care from people in need.
It is about removing some of the existing arguments about the different levels of CPA.
Removal of Standard CPA is intended to help reinforce that the CPA is a process which applies to everyone.
Those with more complicated needs & service arrangements will still be allocated a named care co-ordinator.
Everyone (with or without a care co-ordinator) should expect services to adhere to the principles & values of the CPA.
Even where you do not have someone called a care co-ordinator, each member of staff carries out this kind of function at a simpler level.'
In the end I have to say I am confused.
"Even where you do not have someone called a care co-ordinator, each member of staff carries out this kind of function at a simpler level."
But does a confused patient/service user/badshit insane person...know who is doing what?
whoops - can't even spell my daughter's favourite description of herself.
Have just sat in a meeting with a health care professional who Dr Crippen wouldn't even grace with the Q title, during which, to her credit, she didn't flinch when the words "mad", "looney" and "insane" were used freely along with the occasional s*&t and f&^k, I think I need to go and lie down for a while before I type anything else.
Post a Comment