Drugs have side effects. Heck, even placebo has side effects.
Some arise almost instantly (the one sticking in my mind was when, as a House Officer, I injected an IV penicillin on a weekend on-call to a surgical patient, who then went grey and collapsed). Some more typically arise after longer term use (especially in mental health, e.g. with lithium knackering kidneys/thyroid/parathyroid and antgipsychotics causing the movement disorder of tardive dyskinesia which lasts forever, even/especially when the offending drug is stopped). Some are serious (like neuroleptic malignant syndrome which unfortunately I've seen twice, now).
This has instilled a healthy scepticism of drugs. I like them, if they're used appropriately. But they're not a free lunch. Rational prescribing practice has to be central to use of medication.
But what about me? The Northern Doctor has posted about how busy life is in GP land at this time of year. He's a better man the me, hacking it in Primary Care. His last paragraph comments on the proportion of health care professionals who've used the 'flu vaccine.
Got me thinking. What're the bad medicines I've taken? A relatively short list, since I've not been to see my current GP ever (and last saw a GP some 20 years ago) on the premise that many doctors like to meddle/do stuff/fix things/intervene so are best avoided unless necessary. I delude myself into believing that not seeing a GP is fine because I can suss out myself if/when I need medical attention and, if that ever happens, that's when I'll darken their doors. But I know in my heart of hearts that mostly doctors are awful at looking after themselves.
Anyway, it means my exposure to prescribed medication has been modest. The last time I had a 'flu jab was when I worked in General Practice and, after that jab, I felt awful. It wasn't as bad as 'flu, I'm sure. But it was worse than any cold I'd ever had. So, for me, it seemed that the 'flu jab an a medication to take when well, to reduce risk of a possible infection, wasn't a smart idea for me. If I had health problems so the risk/benefit was different I'd think again, but for now, for me, it's nto something I'm keen on.
Rabies jabs were worse. I was abroad in a third world country, fiddling around in patients brains and spinal cords, so needed rabies jabs before going. They hurt. A lot. And made me feel really grotty.
The worst medication I've ever taken has been an antimalarial. I'm almost never nauseous/vomitting but my wife and I were so sick on them we were hurling up daily. Urgh. Felt so wretched on them we had to stop taking them, which made us much more paranoid about netting and safety so overall worked out well enough for us.
All this no doubt has coloured my conceptions of a medication's risk, benefit and role, which is why I'm wont to stop medication more often than I am to start it.
PS : Zealots in "proper" English, do tell . . . should a full stop go before or after the brackets in the opening sentences of the second paragraph?
I could write (with comments like this.)
Or, I could write (with comments like this).
Tuesday, 30 December 2008
Monday, 29 December 2008
Absence
They say that absence makes the heart go fonder. I don't know which "they" said this, and in all my cardiology lectures at med school I can't recall anything 'bout separation from meaningful folk being good for it, but it's said a lot so it must be true.
I've seen a couple of folk of late who've been with relatives over the Christmas period, having not seen them for a year.
On meeting up, one year on, it struck the family how their parent seemed less able to concentrate, a bit slower in their thinking and a bit worse in their memory.
To a one, they're all normal.
We know that as we get older (Primary Ageing) that memory does get worse, when assessed objectively using different scales and rating instruments. This intuitively makes sense, too. As we're older, memory gets a bit ropy, okay, I'll buy that, it fits with what we all see and kind of makes sense. This is different to a disease process affecting brain structure and function (Secondary Ageing) when, in dementia, the brain literally physically shrinks as bits of it are lost, so brain function gets worse.
It can be hard to tell the two apart. Memory is getting worse, is it just old age or is it a neurodegenerative disorder needing assessment and interventions? Sometimes a lot of investigation, radiological and radionucleotide imaging is needed along with longditudinal data over time before it's valid to say it's normal ageing or Mild Cognitive Impairement rather than saying it's definitely dementia.
The key difference between Primary Ageing and Secondary Ageing changes, though, is one of impact. In normal ageing, although neuropsychiatric testing shows memory getting worse, function is preserved. You can still find your way to the shops and back. When in the shops, you can still remember most of what you went for. When paying, if short changed from a £20 note, you'll notice.
We have less than perfect memory all the time. A friend who's a school teacher says normal kids, with perfectly young and healthy brains, have appalling memories. Lunches forgotten, pencil cases left, PE stuff not taken home and washed, coats and cardigans left on chairs. She has loads of stuff every day that evidence how the childrens' poor concentration, attention span and memory result in forgetfulness.
Yet they're normal.
Too, when my wife asks me to go to the shops for one thing, I'm usually fine. If she asks for a dozen, I'll make a list. If she asks for 5 or 6 things, I'll remember most of them most of the time but often will forget something. My memory's not bad, but I forget things.
We can edit out this background forgetfulness when seeing our family. It's easy to identify memory's not great, but harder to frame it as not great long term and a little bit worse, not great long term and worse with impact meaning they're not coping, not great long term and a lot worse recently and so on.
Which interested me, since it's odd how we look at things, then what we see (or what we see as important) isn't based wholly on the reality of what's before us.
Families spotted their parents' memories changed and sought help for them, which was all wholly appropriate. What was heartening was that their parents' memories were changing through physiological Primary Ageing but none of the folk of late have had clinical, neuropsychiatric or radiological evidence to support a diagnosis of dementia. Now that's a reason for seasonal good cheer!
I've seen a couple of folk of late who've been with relatives over the Christmas period, having not seen them for a year.
On meeting up, one year on, it struck the family how their parent seemed less able to concentrate, a bit slower in their thinking and a bit worse in their memory.
To a one, they're all normal.
We know that as we get older (Primary Ageing) that memory does get worse, when assessed objectively using different scales and rating instruments. This intuitively makes sense, too. As we're older, memory gets a bit ropy, okay, I'll buy that, it fits with what we all see and kind of makes sense. This is different to a disease process affecting brain structure and function (Secondary Ageing) when, in dementia, the brain literally physically shrinks as bits of it are lost, so brain function gets worse.
It can be hard to tell the two apart. Memory is getting worse, is it just old age or is it a neurodegenerative disorder needing assessment and interventions? Sometimes a lot of investigation, radiological and radionucleotide imaging is needed along with longditudinal data over time before it's valid to say it's normal ageing or Mild Cognitive Impairement rather than saying it's definitely dementia.
The key difference between Primary Ageing and Secondary Ageing changes, though, is one of impact. In normal ageing, although neuropsychiatric testing shows memory getting worse, function is preserved. You can still find your way to the shops and back. When in the shops, you can still remember most of what you went for. When paying, if short changed from a £20 note, you'll notice.
We have less than perfect memory all the time. A friend who's a school teacher says normal kids, with perfectly young and healthy brains, have appalling memories. Lunches forgotten, pencil cases left, PE stuff not taken home and washed, coats and cardigans left on chairs. She has loads of stuff every day that evidence how the childrens' poor concentration, attention span and memory result in forgetfulness.
Yet they're normal.
Too, when my wife asks me to go to the shops for one thing, I'm usually fine. If she asks for a dozen, I'll make a list. If she asks for 5 or 6 things, I'll remember most of them most of the time but often will forget something. My memory's not bad, but I forget things.
We can edit out this background forgetfulness when seeing our family. It's easy to identify memory's not great, but harder to frame it as not great long term and a little bit worse, not great long term and worse with impact meaning they're not coping, not great long term and a lot worse recently and so on.
Which interested me, since it's odd how we look at things, then what we see (or what we see as important) isn't based wholly on the reality of what's before us.
Families spotted their parents' memories changed and sought help for them, which was all wholly appropriate. What was heartening was that their parents' memories were changing through physiological Primary Ageing but none of the folk of late have had clinical, neuropsychiatric or radiological evidence to support a diagnosis of dementia. Now that's a reason for seasonal good cheer!
Epiphany
Christmas snuck up on me, this year.
I know, I know, it's still on December 25th this year so I could still have planned for it all in good time, but I didn't. Somehow it was upon me rather more swiftly than planned (erm, because it wasn't planned) so has all been a bit of a flurry. Ho hum. Or ho ho ho.
It's been healthy blogging for a year then taking some time out, but now I'm bored so it's time to start waffling on again, as is my wont. Thank you kindly for the comments and emails, which were surprisingly positive.
Just a brief aside. As folks will have gathered, I'm more than happy to be challenged on clinical opinions, indeed it's welcomed. What I think is a reasonable plan of action someone else may quibble with, the discourse that ensues is helpful and either helps me feel that my view is rational and sound, or that it isn't and helps me shift. When to give ECT, how long to be on an antidepressant for, what section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 should be used for, at what age to formally diagnose personality disorder, when to use a Supervised Community Treatment order . . . I'm happy to have offered views and chew the cud 'til the cows come home. What unsettled me wasn't when what I was saying was being challenged, but how I said things was being challenged.
Tricky one, that.
It's something I'm not easily going to change. Also, even if I stopped just posting on whim, and thought through and edited stuff, no matter how assiduously I tried I'd still cause affront to someone, somewhere, some of the time. One author of another blog rightly pointed out that a goodly number of their readers are patients (so things need to be framed in a suitably benign and universal way, presumably because patients are too fragile to exist in the really real world) which gave me food for thought. It'd be wrong for me to be saying things on other sites that could be taken as unhelpful.
I'm not a politician. I'm often wrong. Thus, I've never aspired to be "politically correct."
Medical blogs and medical student blogs I frequent seem to be liberal minded and haven't had issue with how things are said, so it seems sound to largely confine myself to such waters. And what better place to start than my own icy waters of Lake Cocytus . . .
. . . time to start blogging again.
I know, I know, it's still on December 25th this year so I could still have planned for it all in good time, but I didn't. Somehow it was upon me rather more swiftly than planned (erm, because it wasn't planned) so has all been a bit of a flurry. Ho hum. Or ho ho ho.
It's been healthy blogging for a year then taking some time out, but now I'm bored so it's time to start waffling on again, as is my wont. Thank you kindly for the comments and emails, which were surprisingly positive.
Just a brief aside. As folks will have gathered, I'm more than happy to be challenged on clinical opinions, indeed it's welcomed. What I think is a reasonable plan of action someone else may quibble with, the discourse that ensues is helpful and either helps me feel that my view is rational and sound, or that it isn't and helps me shift. When to give ECT, how long to be on an antidepressant for, what section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 should be used for, at what age to formally diagnose personality disorder, when to use a Supervised Community Treatment order . . . I'm happy to have offered views and chew the cud 'til the cows come home. What unsettled me wasn't when what I was saying was being challenged, but how I said things was being challenged.
Tricky one, that.
It's something I'm not easily going to change. Also, even if I stopped just posting on whim, and thought through and edited stuff, no matter how assiduously I tried I'd still cause affront to someone, somewhere, some of the time. One author of another blog rightly pointed out that a goodly number of their readers are patients (so things need to be framed in a suitably benign and universal way, presumably because patients are too fragile to exist in the really real world) which gave me food for thought. It'd be wrong for me to be saying things on other sites that could be taken as unhelpful.
I'm not a politician. I'm often wrong. Thus, I've never aspired to be "politically correct."
Medical blogs and medical student blogs I frequent seem to be liberal minded and haven't had issue with how things are said, so it seems sound to largely confine myself to such waters. And what better place to start than my own icy waters of Lake Cocytus . . .
. . . time to start blogging again.
Thursday, 30 October 2008
Hiatus
After a run of poor communication on my part 'pon various blogs, it's got me rattled.
T'interweb is a great resource but happen my banter on mental health matters, without explanation or context, is too easily misconstrued. Or maybe it's just that I'm better at talking things through rather than writing things down.
Happy to chatter through emails with folk who've got my address.
Anyways, time for a blogging break and a bit of reflective practice.
Safe roads, one and all!
T'interweb is a great resource but happen my banter on mental health matters, without explanation or context, is too easily misconstrued. Or maybe it's just that I'm better at talking things through rather than writing things down.
Happy to chatter through emails with folk who've got my address.
Anyways, time for a blogging break and a bit of reflective practice.
Safe roads, one and all!
Insight
Over the last few months I've had a rather significant number of folk who've had insight but haven't wanted it.
Several people with dementia have been on treatment for this which has maintained their thinking, memory, concentration and function for a goodly length of time.
As time's marched on, their deficits have progressed. They know they're losing their memory. They know they're losing their attention span. They know they're losing their orientation. They know they're losing their organisational skills. They know their decisions are less considered. They know their function is deteriorating (e.g. no longer being able to dress themselves since they can't manage shirt/blouse buttons). They know they're losing weight since they don't appreciate feelings of hunger/satiety so much now. They know their mood's got worse, being pretty glum and anxious. They know they can't recognise friends they see less frequently now.
Their dementia is progressing. They know.
This insight causes feelings of disquiet, of anxiety, of frustration, of dismay.
This has resulted in a slew of folk wishing to stop their medication, since it was holding them in an unhelpful place, where they had memory problems yet had insight and couldn't forget the woe. The burden was unpleasant. They sought to be relieved of that, to be allowed to forget.
To a one, they've all faired better from stopping their medication. Of course, their cognition and Mini Mental State Examination scores are significantly worse, but they're all, all much more relaxed and less distraught. The knowing is less.
Just sometimes, the loss of memory can be a blessing.
Several people with dementia have been on treatment for this which has maintained their thinking, memory, concentration and function for a goodly length of time.
As time's marched on, their deficits have progressed. They know they're losing their memory. They know they're losing their attention span. They know they're losing their orientation. They know they're losing their organisational skills. They know their decisions are less considered. They know their function is deteriorating (e.g. no longer being able to dress themselves since they can't manage shirt/blouse buttons). They know they're losing weight since they don't appreciate feelings of hunger/satiety so much now. They know their mood's got worse, being pretty glum and anxious. They know they can't recognise friends they see less frequently now.
Their dementia is progressing. They know.
This insight causes feelings of disquiet, of anxiety, of frustration, of dismay.
This has resulted in a slew of folk wishing to stop their medication, since it was holding them in an unhelpful place, where they had memory problems yet had insight and couldn't forget the woe. The burden was unpleasant. They sought to be relieved of that, to be allowed to forget.
To a one, they've all faired better from stopping their medication. Of course, their cognition and Mini Mental State Examination scores are significantly worse, but they're all, all much more relaxed and less distraught. The knowing is less.
Just sometimes, the loss of memory can be a blessing.
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
The tail wags the dog?
Having established that all those doctors are evil, wicked, tyrannical baby eating terrorists who drop gum, talk loudly in cinemas, fail to prevent earthquakes, park in disabled spaces, caused global warming and, through their salaries, have caused a global financial disaster and credit crunch, I set out to see just how ghastly these 'orrible medical folk are.
In November 2006 the BMJ published details of a MORI poll showing what 2000 random adults thought of different professions :
- 92 per cent of the public trust doctors to tell the truth. This is higher than the rating for any other professional group included in the poll.
- teachers 88 per cent
- professors 80 per cent
- judges 75 per cent
- clergymen/priests 75 per cent
- politicians and government ministers 20 per cent
"Doctors will be incredibly heartened to hear that they continue to earn their patients’ trust. These figures once again demonstrate the importance of the doctor-patient relationship and patients will find this trust of enormous value when they attempt to navigate the many changes affecting their health care."
Hats off to the BBC who reported this, but also reported the bottom of the poll which before today I'd not been aware of :
- Business leaders, 31% of the public trust the, they're actively not trusted by 56%
- Politicians Trust, 20% of the public trust the, they're actively not trusted by 72%
- Journalists Trust, 19% of the public trust the, they're actively not trusted by 72%
Interesting.
MORI do the poll every year and the BMA share results this year, which are good :
- Doctors, 90% of the public said they trusted them to tell the truth
- Teachers, 86% of the public said they trusted them to tell the truth
- Professors, 78% of the public said they trusted them to tell the truth
- Judges, 78% of the public said they trusted them to tell the truth
- Clergymen/priests, 73% of the public said they trusted them to tell the truth
- Politicians, 18% of the public said they trusted them to tell the truth
In 2003 MORI conducted a separate survey of politicians’ attitudes to doctors. It found that three quarters of MPs (74 per cent) believe doctors are patient-focused, as opposed to self-centred (18 per cent). Most MPs have a positive view of doctors working in the NHS. They see them as committed (92 per cent), hard-working (87 per cent), and vocationally driven (74 per cent). As well as believing they work effectively (82 per cent) the majority view doctors as helpful (83 per cent). Almost as many MPs as members of the public trust doctors to tell the truth (89 per cent compared to 92 per cent).
Interesting.
Right then. Doctors think they're concientious and have their patients' best interests at heart and know what's best for their patients. MPs agree. Lord Darzi and the DoH reckon we should have a "clinically driven" service. The public reckon politicians and business and journalists can't be trusted but doctors can.
Pretty clear to me who should be deciding how health care's implemented and delivered then, isn't it?
In November 2006 the BMJ published details of a MORI poll showing what 2000 random adults thought of different professions :
- 92 per cent of the public trust doctors to tell the truth. This is higher than the rating for any other professional group included in the poll.
- teachers 88 per cent
- professors 80 per cent
- judges 75 per cent
- clergymen/priests 75 per cent
- politicians and government ministers 20 per cent
"Doctors will be incredibly heartened to hear that they continue to earn their patients’ trust. These figures once again demonstrate the importance of the doctor-patient relationship and patients will find this trust of enormous value when they attempt to navigate the many changes affecting their health care."
Hats off to the BBC who reported this, but also reported the bottom of the poll which before today I'd not been aware of :
- Business leaders, 31% of the public trust the, they're actively not trusted by 56%
- Politicians Trust, 20% of the public trust the, they're actively not trusted by 72%
- Journalists Trust, 19% of the public trust the, they're actively not trusted by 72%
Interesting.
MORI do the poll every year and the BMA share results this year, which are good :
- Doctors, 90% of the public said they trusted them to tell the truth
- Teachers, 86% of the public said they trusted them to tell the truth
- Professors, 78% of the public said they trusted them to tell the truth
- Judges, 78% of the public said they trusted them to tell the truth
- Clergymen/priests, 73% of the public said they trusted them to tell the truth
- Politicians, 18% of the public said they trusted them to tell the truth
In 2003 MORI conducted a separate survey of politicians’ attitudes to doctors. It found that three quarters of MPs (74 per cent) believe doctors are patient-focused, as opposed to self-centred (18 per cent). Most MPs have a positive view of doctors working in the NHS. They see them as committed (92 per cent), hard-working (87 per cent), and vocationally driven (74 per cent). As well as believing they work effectively (82 per cent) the majority view doctors as helpful (83 per cent). Almost as many MPs as members of the public trust doctors to tell the truth (89 per cent compared to 92 per cent).
Interesting.
Right then. Doctors think they're concientious and have their patients' best interests at heart and know what's best for their patients. MPs agree. Lord Darzi and the DoH reckon we should have a "clinically driven" service. The public reckon politicians and business and journalists can't be trusted but doctors can.
Pretty clear to me who should be deciding how health care's implemented and delivered then, isn't it?
Friday, 17 October 2008
Pay
My nursing colleagues are underpaid. I know this. I don't see medical colleagues as over paid. Compared to peers, some psychologists seem overpaid for the work they do. OTs seem better paid than nurses, for what they do (since nurses do more, see more patients, put in more hours, carry more responsibility and have more to achieve). But this kind of "they get too much money" isn't a helpful position to hold.
I don't often read The Times, but after clicking a link on Jobbing Doctor's site I started rummaging around The Times online, by mistake.
It has annoyed me. The Times says that CEOs typically earn £212,910 and, ". . . are the head of the business . . . will answer to a board of directors."
Useful information, okay. Leadership but accountability, a fair comment to account for their salary and balance this with this comment of the framework they work within.
They move on to City Brokers, average pay is £94,293. "The City broker is usually portrayed by the media as a scary man screaming and gesticulating manically. They are in fact qualified professionals who buy and sell shares on behalf of investors. To become one, a person is required to pass the Certificate in Securities from the Securities and Investment Institute."
Great! Challenging stigma and negative media portrayal, they frame the broker as a qualified and professional responsible soul.
Then they move on to doctors. Average earnings £81,744. A group who've been savaged by the Government for reluctantly accepting the deal the Government imposed upon the profession. So it goes.
What is The Times view on this? Like City Brokers, do they redress this negative portrayal with some sensible perspective or comment?
"The salary of doctors has been high up the political agenda lately after the Government introduced new contracts that many outside observers regarded as overly generous."
Many see it as overly generous.
Maybe I should give up and just join the massed throngs and throw rotten tomatoes too. Bastard doctors.
I don't often read The Times, but after clicking a link on Jobbing Doctor's site I started rummaging around The Times online, by mistake.
It has annoyed me. The Times says that CEOs typically earn £212,910 and, ". . . are the head of the business . . . will answer to a board of directors."
Useful information, okay. Leadership but accountability, a fair comment to account for their salary and balance this with this comment of the framework they work within.
They move on to City Brokers, average pay is £94,293. "The City broker is usually portrayed by the media as a scary man screaming and gesticulating manically. They are in fact qualified professionals who buy and sell shares on behalf of investors. To become one, a person is required to pass the Certificate in Securities from the Securities and Investment Institute."
Great! Challenging stigma and negative media portrayal, they frame the broker as a qualified and professional responsible soul.
Then they move on to doctors. Average earnings £81,744. A group who've been savaged by the Government for reluctantly accepting the deal the Government imposed upon the profession. So it goes.
What is The Times view on this? Like City Brokers, do they redress this negative portrayal with some sensible perspective or comment?
"The salary of doctors has been high up the political agenda lately after the Government introduced new contracts that many outside observers regarded as overly generous."
Many see it as overly generous.
Maybe I should give up and just join the massed throngs and throw rotten tomatoes too. Bastard doctors.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Distress
One of my nursing colleagues was discussing with me how she'd seen a lady in a care home who was distraught. The lady would often shout out, incoherently. When family were with her, she was settled and fine.
The nurse worked with the home to understand why the behaviour was arising and if there was unmet need.
She worked with the care home to look at if she was hungry or thirsty or needing assistance in mobilising or toileting, addressing practical elements of care.
The nurse sorted out analgesia for her, four times a day, over one week, to see if pain was causing her distress. It wasn't, so she suggest stopping the analgesia and things were neither better nor worse.
She arranged with District Nurses to have blood tests undertaken to exclude common causes of delirium.
She visited when the lady was distraught and told me, "Her blood pressure and respiratory rate and pulse were all normal."
In order to ensure the patient was communicating and not anxious, she'd thought to look for signs of autonomic overactivity consistent with an anxiety state, checking pulse etc.
I'd never have thought of doing that.
Some people are so clever. Very impressed.
The nurse worked with the home to understand why the behaviour was arising and if there was unmet need.
She worked with the care home to look at if she was hungry or thirsty or needing assistance in mobilising or toileting, addressing practical elements of care.
The nurse sorted out analgesia for her, four times a day, over one week, to see if pain was causing her distress. It wasn't, so she suggest stopping the analgesia and things were neither better nor worse.
She arranged with District Nurses to have blood tests undertaken to exclude common causes of delirium.
She visited when the lady was distraught and told me, "Her blood pressure and respiratory rate and pulse were all normal."
In order to ensure the patient was communicating and not anxious, she'd thought to look for signs of autonomic overactivity consistent with an anxiety state, checking pulse etc.
I'd never have thought of doing that.
Some people are so clever. Very impressed.
Saturday, 11 October 2008
Equality
The Jobbing Doctor has been musing over 50 folk who've been said to shape the NHS in recent times. I thought I'd share my thoughts of a woman. Fear not, I'm not about to wax lyrical 'bout affairs of the heart. Mental health I do, agony aunt I do not. But to flirt (ha!) with affairs of the heart for one moment, if I wasn't married and Nadine Schofield didn't have a partner, I could whisk her up and hug her.
Why?
Well, she says all the right things that get me excited.
She's passionate about older adults getting exceptionally good care. She's not just feeling strongly about it, she's vocal and active in effecting change too, with tangible results for the better. She challenges, without compromising and capitulating at every turn, yet without being stroppy and unreasonable and unrealistic. Over the last couple years we've crossed paths at a number of conferences and I've always been stunningly impressed by her. She speaks enthusiastically and with has real insight . . . a woman who can present well and who's got sensible, salient, contentious and vital content to deliver. Vital in the true sense of the word (i.e. in maintaining vital signs, reducing mortality) rather than in a management "this is what I think is awfully important this month" sort of vital.
She collaboratively developed the Lets Respect campaign which is just starting to gain prominence in some acute Trusts as more of us bang on about it. Particularly those doing a lot of liaison psychiatry for them. John Holmes should also get an honourable mention here, promoting older adults mental health needs within a mental health Foundation Trust that's providing liaison psychiatry input to another Foundation Trust that's historically had a somewhat modest mental health agenda.
What's been pertinent of late are her views that services hould be equal. Fine, that makes sense, is hard to argue against and sounds fair. Nadine's point is that we need to develop services that are appropriate, which means that equal does not mean the same.
To explain, if younger adults have a service to deliver mental health care if they present to A&E, then older adults should, too. If younger adults have services to support them in crisis, then older adults should too. Of note, this doesn't mean that younger and older adults all get the same service.
Why not?
Because just as "equal" does not mean "the same" so "the same" is not "equal."
Say I change my practice such that I could honestly say that I give the same service to all my patients. Every single patient is seen in the same location. Every single patient is given the same amount of time. Every single patient is seen by me. Is this an equal and a fair service? If everyone has to be seen in out-patient clinic and folk can't get there, that's not fair. It's an un-equal service already. Everyone's seen for the same duration, but what of the people who need more time to grasp and explore and understand? I see everyone so there's Consultant input into all care, but I'm British and speak English. So everyone gets an equal, same service, but if managers were to prvocatively say you choose not to speak or understand English then though you're getting the same service regrettably you'll not understand a thing, so is it a fair service? Not good, huh? Giving the same service to everyone isn't patient centred and doesn't address individuals needs.
This is why I like her awfully compelling argument that services should be equal so whatever your age or ethnicity or social class or gender or whatever you get the right care for your needs. Which through necessity means that services will have to be different in order to optimally meet needs, since different groups will have different clinical needs. Patients I work with typically have very different mental health problems, physical health problems and social adversity compared to child & adolescent or learning difficulty or forensic or general adult or rehabilitation psychiatry patient populations.
Thus, older adult services should be discreet and different from other mental health provision.
The DoH mantra of "cradle to grave" psychiatry and "needs based" services (so if you're depressed at 16, 46 or 86 you get the same team sorting out your mood problems) is flawed.
Thank goodness there're sensible and effective folk like Nadine telling them so.
Why?
Well, she says all the right things that get me excited.
She's passionate about older adults getting exceptionally good care. She's not just feeling strongly about it, she's vocal and active in effecting change too, with tangible results for the better. She challenges, without compromising and capitulating at every turn, yet without being stroppy and unreasonable and unrealistic. Over the last couple years we've crossed paths at a number of conferences and I've always been stunningly impressed by her. She speaks enthusiastically and with has real insight . . . a woman who can present well and who's got sensible, salient, contentious and vital content to deliver. Vital in the true sense of the word (i.e. in maintaining vital signs, reducing mortality) rather than in a management "this is what I think is awfully important this month" sort of vital.
She collaboratively developed the Lets Respect campaign which is just starting to gain prominence in some acute Trusts as more of us bang on about it. Particularly those doing a lot of liaison psychiatry for them. John Holmes should also get an honourable mention here, promoting older adults mental health needs within a mental health Foundation Trust that's providing liaison psychiatry input to another Foundation Trust that's historically had a somewhat modest mental health agenda.
What's been pertinent of late are her views that services hould be equal. Fine, that makes sense, is hard to argue against and sounds fair. Nadine's point is that we need to develop services that are appropriate, which means that equal does not mean the same.
To explain, if younger adults have a service to deliver mental health care if they present to A&E, then older adults should, too. If younger adults have services to support them in crisis, then older adults should too. Of note, this doesn't mean that younger and older adults all get the same service.
Why not?
Because just as "equal" does not mean "the same" so "the same" is not "equal."
Say I change my practice such that I could honestly say that I give the same service to all my patients. Every single patient is seen in the same location. Every single patient is given the same amount of time. Every single patient is seen by me. Is this an equal and a fair service? If everyone has to be seen in out-patient clinic and folk can't get there, that's not fair. It's an un-equal service already. Everyone's seen for the same duration, but what of the people who need more time to grasp and explore and understand? I see everyone so there's Consultant input into all care, but I'm British and speak English. So everyone gets an equal, same service, but if managers were to prvocatively say you choose not to speak or understand English then though you're getting the same service regrettably you'll not understand a thing, so is it a fair service? Not good, huh? Giving the same service to everyone isn't patient centred and doesn't address individuals needs.
This is why I like her awfully compelling argument that services should be equal so whatever your age or ethnicity or social class or gender or whatever you get the right care for your needs. Which through necessity means that services will have to be different in order to optimally meet needs, since different groups will have different clinical needs. Patients I work with typically have very different mental health problems, physical health problems and social adversity compared to child & adolescent or learning difficulty or forensic or general adult or rehabilitation psychiatry patient populations.
Thus, older adult services should be discreet and different from other mental health provision.
The DoH mantra of "cradle to grave" psychiatry and "needs based" services (so if you're depressed at 16, 46 or 86 you get the same team sorting out your mood problems) is flawed.
Thank goodness there're sensible and effective folk like Nadine telling them so.
Friday, 10 October 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)