Failed Medical Stats.

Oldernotwiser

MrsManda wrote: »

Two different systems for 2 different aims and I think people generally miss the difference which why so many people get turned down for ESA and get upset about it. (I'm not saying some assessors are not just generally useless, there must be some of that going on as well).

You're absolutely right on that. People often don't understand the difference between being too ill to do their normal type of work and too ill to work at all. I often wonder whether doctors understand the concept either.

Sixer

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

It's late and my figures may be wrong but I would look at the calculation this way.
33% of 65 is 21 and 40% of 21 is 8, so I would say that the figure should be 43% awarded ESA rather than 35%.

Sums were never my strong point! Actually, looking at it, I think we are both wrong. Some of the appeals will have been from people put in the work-related activity group thinking they should have been put in the support group. So I don't think we can extrapolate a figure.

We can say 13% of ALL initial DWP decisions were overturned at appeal. But that doesn't really mean much.

I could go back and look at the document again to see if the appeal figures are broken down - but I'm supposed to be working!

melbi_uk

skcollob wrote: »

But doesn't the ESA test look to see if the person is able to carry out some work focused functions? Should not the GP's be doing the same?

Of all of the people assessed for ESA, well over 52% were not found to be unfit for work.
How can a GP issue a sicknote without first believing that that person is unable to perform any work function due to an illness or disability.

I think the answer why so many are failing the assessment is that GP's are all to ready to give out sicknotes to all and sundry when requested to do so by the patient. GP's must and should take more of the responsibility in only issuing those certificates to those people that they are satisfied that they cannot perform any type of work function.

If that came about, then the stats would show a totally different picture.

This is what I think too! Perhaps if a person keeps going back for a sick note the GP should be obliged to send that person to see a specialist within the area of why the patient is ill.

Is it possible that a GP could be sued if he refused a sick note and that patient had an accident at work related to their illness??? Or are GP's becoming more and more disheartened with their roles and so losing interest, thus becoming the ultimate pen pusher???

Hastobe_Katt

Many, many jobs don't carry entitlement to SSP. For example, most carer's don't have any sick leave entitlement...even if they have a workplace injury. The only alternative for these individuals is to claim ESA. A sick note issued in these circumstance would be stating that the individual is not well enough to do their current job. This contrasts with ATOS who are using the WCA criteria to assess the individual's 'theroretical' capability to do any job.

melbi_uk

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

Many, many jobs don't carry entitlement to SSP. For example, most carer's don't have any sick leave entitlement...even if they have a workplace injury. The only alternative for these individuals is to claim ESA. A sick note issued in these circumstance would be stating that the individual is not well enough to do their current job. This contrasts with ATOS who are using the WCA criteria to assess the individual's 'theroretical' capability to do any job.

Indeed! And that is what we (or at least I) are forgetting.

A good post :T

rogerblack

skcollob wrote: »

But doesn't the ESA test look to see if the person is able to carry out some work focused functions? Should not the GP's be doing the same?

Of all of the people assessed for ESA, well over 52% were not found to be unfit for work.
How can a GP issue a sicknote without first believing that that person is unable to perform any work function due to an illness or disability.

The two are not quite the same thing.

You do not get ESA for being unable to work.
You get ESA for being assessed as unable to work, following either gaining 15 points on the 'work capability assessment', or matching one or more of the descriptors for placement in the support group, or on the grounds that it will endanger you or another person.

The doctor is largely incapable of doing the work capability assessment, for the simple reason that the guidelines are actually quite complex, especially when you take into account all of the guidance materials.

Even the forms are misleading.
For example - the ESA50 form (the first one you get sent) asks 'Can you walk at least 200 metres (about 220 yards) before you need to stop?'.

However, the actual test in the 'decision makers guide' is 'Cannot walk more than 200 metres on level ground without stopping or severe discomfort.'

So someone who struggles, and can manage to walk 200m with severe discomfort, and pausing, may well answer 'yes', not having seen the guidance.

Further to this, it's explained in different parts of the guidance to decision makers that someone who can do this only once should be treated as being unable to do it - they have to be able to do it with a reasonable frequency throughout the day.

Then what is 'severe discomfort' has seperate rulings about exactly what it is, and is not.

The current scheme is horribly complex, and expecting GPs to be able to accurately assess people according to all the guidance is impossible.

Many people are severely ill, or unemployable due to a disability that is not well described by the descriptors.

These people can only legitimately pass the exceptional circumstances test if they are at risk, or would put others at risk by working.

There is no exception for 'the current applicant is unable to work due to the test not coping with the applicants disability'.

Some groups are 'worthy' - and have through good lobbying, and being 'deserving' managed to put their arguments well.

For example, someone who is profoundly deaf is automatically treated as being unable to work.

If you put on your employers hat, it's quite easy to see that in some jobs, a profoundly deaf employee who can talk and lipread has a fairly minor handicap, compared to someone who has difficulty learning to do any task more complex than operating a washing machine, has difficuties understanding normal instructions, can't walk very well, and has epileptic fits at work once every couple of months.

The current test is rather broken.
(Above refers to current tests, new ones are slightly different)

Skinticket

rogerblack wrote: »

The two are not quite the same thing.


For example - the ESA50 form (the first one you get sent) asks 'Can you walk at least 200 metres (about 220 yards) before you need to stop?'.

However, the actual test in the 'decision makers guide' is 'Cannot walk more than 200 metres on level ground without stopping or severe discomfort.'

when i got my medical report back it said that i walked 70 metres perfectly fine, when i cannot even make it to the end of my drive without being in agonising pain for the rest of the day.

atos make it up as they go along. these "medicals" are a joke.
everyone has good and bad days with an illness/disability so for atos to assess someone as ok for work within a 20 minute "medical" beggars belief.

i went to the citizens advice regarding my appeal and they showed me a complete list of all the descriptors, and on it, it has a question that says " is unable to carry a light/empty cardboard box without the use of both hands " - 6 points.

i am unable to do this, i cannot even tie my shoe laces, they awarded me 9 points for problems with manual dexterity/my hands but didnt award me the 6 points for that descriptor that would have given me a pass?

it really is pathetic.

cit_k

MrsManda wrote: »

I entirely disagree. My ATOS assessor was thoughtful, helpful and used the system the best he could to reflect my health during the assessment. The idea that every single assessor always acts unethically is nonsense. If you believe your assessor was unethical then you can put a complaint to ATOS and report the assessor to the appropriate professional body.

To skcollob, yes some GPs with some patients will hand out sick notes for the sake of an easy life but sick notes in the most cases are solely related to the person's health and their current employment. If the patient is unable to work in their current employment then they get a sick note, in the majority of cases a GP is not going to tell a person they'll never go back to their job and should start looking for something else.

The purpose of the 'fit note' as opposed to the 'sick note' is to give the GP the option of stating that at the present time a patient is unable to fullfil their current role but would be able to do x y and z if possible. It's the X,Y and Z that the ESA assessment looks at - the ability to do 'any' work as opposed to the work you are currently doing.

Two different systems for 2 different aims and I think people generally miss the difference which why so many people get turned down for ESA and get upset about it. (I'm not saying some assessors are not just generally useless, there must be some of that going on as well).

I can gaurentee you the assessor did not ask you if you wanted a copy of the medical report before it was sent to the dwp - in order that you could correct any possible errors.

That failure which is common with ALL assessors is a serious breach of GMC and NMCW ethical guidance.

cit_k

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You're absolutely right on that. People often don't understand the difference between being too ill to do their normal type of work and too ill to work at all. I often wonder whether doctors understand the concept either.

But the fit note has two parts one for can work in their current occupation if changes are made and another part that simply states unfit for work.

not unfit for their current job unfit to work - must refrain from working...

Oldernotwiser

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

This contrasts with ATOS who are using the WCA criteria to assess the individual's 'theroretical' capability to do any job.

Why do you say it's a "theoretical" capability of doing another job? If a carer had to give up work because of a minor back injury (just as an example) there would be many other jobs s/he could do where lifting wasn't an issue.