IB failed medical, they are taking the mick big time!!!

serious_saver

dmg24 wrote: »

I wholly agree that those carrying out the assessments should have experience in the area which they are assessing, and that this does not always happen.

Your comparison between a psych and a physio is not a fair comparison, because neither at the levels described would make a suitable examiner. A psych is very unlikely to be carrying out an ATOS assessment, as they are unlikely to have recent experience in more generalist areas. Equally, a newly qualified physio is unlikely to be an examiner because they will not have sufficient experience.

I agree with you there but I was simply attempting to make the example as clear as possible. The same principle still applies. There is also something to be said for multilple assesments/second oppinons if there are multiple disabilies in play. People forget that one disability can often lead to another.

This is not a criticism of the people involved in the assessment system but of the system itself.

dmg24

serious_saver wrote: »

I agree with you there but I was simply attempting to make the example as clear as possible. The same principle still applies. There is also something to be said for multilple assesments/second oppinons if there are multiple disabilies in play. People forget that one disability can often lead to another.

This is not a criticism of the people involved in the assessment system but of the system itself.

The problem with the multiple assessments idea, although good in principle, is resources. This is where good supporting evidence comes into play - indeed, if everyone provided solid supporting evidence the role of ATOS could be significantly reduced. I think some element of customer/ third party education could go a long way to simplifying the system - customers in terms of what they need to provide, and Consultants/ GPs etc in terms of what information their reports should include.

One of my local parliamentary candidates was very interested in how the system could be simplified. Sadly the one that got elected is only interested in farming.

WhiteHorse

dmg24 wrote: »

The problem with the multiple assessments idea, although good in principle, is resources. This is where good supporting evidence comes into play - indeed, if everyone provided solid supporting evidence the role of ATOS could be significantly reduced. I think some element of customer/ third party education could go a long way to simplifying the system - customers in terms of what they need to provide, and Consultants/ GPs etc in terms of what information their reports should include.

Yes, agreed.

Some posters have been severely criticised for getting 'help' in filling in their forms. Yet, much of this simply relates to filling in the forms properly and with full and relevent information.

As you say, this would in itself go a long way to making things easier for all concerned.

Oldernotwiser

serious_saver wrote: »

I think that the health care professional doing the assessment should at least be working directly in the field to which the claimant is suffering. I think it would also help weed out those who are making inappropriate claims. A physio (unless they have undertaken significant additional training) can only make assumptions on a mental health claimant whereas a qualified psych can come to genuine conclusions based on their expert knowledge.

As I imagine that there will be several assessments done in one day, that would hardly be feasible. Having a Physio do one, someone with a MH background another and someone with a specialism in Rheumatology another wouldn't be practical or a sensible use of resources.

celinepatricia

so if more notice was taken of the medical evidence that could be provided it would make the process fairer and easier and maybe the backlog of appeals wouldnt be so huge!!

dmg24

celinepatricia wrote: »

so if more notice was taken of the medical evidence that could be provided it would make the process fairer and easier and maybe the backlog of appeals wouldnt be so huge!!

Yes, but note the highlighted phrase. In many claims evidence is either no provided at all, or is not relevant to determining the claim. This is where education could help - whilst the relevant medical professionals may be wholly supportive of a claim, they may not understand what is required in the decision making process. This is certainly not a criticism - it is not their job to know!

serious_saver

dmg24 wrote: »

Yes, but note the highlighted phrase. In many claims evidence is either no provided at all, or is not relevant to determining the claim. This is where education could help - whilst the relevant medical professionals may be wholly supportive of a claim, they may not understand what is required in the decision making process. This is certainly not a criticism - it is not their job to know!

I TOTALLY agree with you there. I know a couple of people who have had trouble getting blue badges (I know it's not quite them same) because there has been miscommunication on forms simply because the doctors haven't used quite the right words. Things like saying "bad pain when walking" instead of "severe pain when walking" etc. It can make all the difference. My mother actually had a problem with this and our lovely doctor just couldn't understand why it kept being rejected.

celinepatricia

Have I got this right.. The decision makers rely on the atos medical people who fill in the forms at the medical. the people at the medical dont have anything to do with the actual decision.

If this is correct it is no wonder that there are so many people complaining. If the atos medical people filled in the forms correctly and didnt make assumptions (as they did at my husbands medical) and blatantly lie (as they did at my husbands medical) we wouldnt have all this mess!! He is just one person, muliply this by thousands.. Im not saying all the atos medical people do this, but, it makes me wonder why some of them do, what are they getting out of it.

gratton20

The truth of the matter IMHO as far as psychiatric illness is concerned at least is that,

A) The government wants to save money

The mentally ill are not politically important (ie No votes in them!)

C) Mentally Ill are a soft target

D) ATOS staff, usually of a quality that would bar them from jobs at NHS hospitals - or even as prison docs!

E) Regular reviews of ATOS staff performance will show up those who dont fail the expected number of people, ergo .. the staff while not given targets to fail as such know the expectation well enough and they get well paid!

F) Therefore ... you are scr*wed!

Cynical? ... Yes but then I have seen it so often!

Oldernotwiser

gratton20 wrote: »

The mentally ill are not politically important (ie No votes in them!)

It's news to me that people who are mentally ill don't vote. Can you back that up ?