CAM `competences' - UK govt consultation

[Asolepius]

Here folks are the official fairy tales that the government is telling us. After a lot of criticism last year the National Occupational Standards for CAM are up for review. The intention appears to be to invite comment from CAM practitioners, but I see no reason why people with a few grey cells could not participate. The documents are here. Have a look round the Skills for Health site and be amazed at how many words can say nothing at all. For example here is the standard for homeopathy. Does it say anything about efficacy?

This needs quick action as the consultation closes end of March. But I am not overly optimistic that anyone will take any notice. Negative responses to the MHRA's consultation on labelling regulations for homeopathy were ignored. Nevertheless, I am always mindful of Edmund Burke (see my sig line).

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If I were a Naturopath I would be outraged that the Homeopaths were working outside their area of competency by (apparently) prescribing Herbal Medicines!!!!

What the **** have herbal medicines got to do with homeoquackery?

This is more than insane.

 

[blutoski]

If I were a Naturopath I would be outraged that the Homeopaths were working outside their area of competency by (apparently) prescribing Herbal Medicines!!!!

What the **** have herbal medicines got to do with homeoquackery?

This is more than insane.

I've always understood that homeopathy is a type of naturopathy. At least historically, they've diluted extracts of herbs.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I've always understood that homeopathy is a type of naturopathy. At least historically, they've diluted extracts of herbs.

Sigh.

Homeopathy is not Naturopathy. They are based on two completely different paradigms.

Homeopathy^WP

Naturopathy^WP

As I said in my previous post. If I was a Naturopath, I would be horrified to think Homeopaths were prescribing outside their area of competence by treating with anything other than distilled water.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

This is rather curious.

About this workforce competence

This unit describes standards for planning, implementing, monitoring and reviewing homeopathic treatment. It includes: prescribing remedies for individuals through the evaluation of symptoms and the symptom picture, the identification and differentiation between potential remedies, the selection of homeopathic treatment of a particular potency, dose and mode, and dispensing homeopathic remedies.

...

HM2.2 Evaluate the effectiveness of the herbal medicine treatment

You will need to: (1) discuss the outcomes of the overall treatment and management plan and its effectiveness in a manner, level and pace suited to the client (2) encourage the client to evaluate their herbal medicine treatment and suggest possible modifications (3) encourage clients to take responsibility for their own health, effective functioning and well-being (4) advise the client where herbal medicine is unsuitable and enable them to seek other healthcare where appropriate (5) make appropriate adjustments to the treatment to meet the client?s changing needs (6) obtain the client?s consent to pass on confidential information where appropriate (7) negotiate the duration and frequency of subsequent treatment sessions with the client (8) interact with any companion(s) of the client in ways that are appropriate to the needs of the client and to your needs Scope: 1 Outcomes: a) improvement of the client?s health, effective functioning and well-being b) maintenance and stability c) palliation d) deterioration in the client?s health, effective functioning and well-being 2 Evaluation includes: a) client?s experience of the treatment and management plan b) extent to which the treatment and management plan has met the needs of the client c) the client?s broader needs d) your experience and the client?s experience of using the dispensary e) other factors which may have affected the effectiveness of the treatment and management plan

 

[Mojo]

The idea of "homeopathic competence" is a bit odd, in view of the standard excuse for it not working in trials, neatly summarised here:

I do not know what the situation is, but if she saw a competent homeopath then the only reason homeopathy did not work is because the remedy chosen was not the correct remedy for her.

 

[Mojo]

Does it say anything about efficacy?

The HM2 document does have a section on "review[ing] the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment with individuals". It mostly seems to involve asking how they feel.

It has a nice bit about "action following the review":

a) allow previous remedy more time to work
b) identical repeat prescription
c) prescribe different potency, dose, form, or method of administration of same remedy
d) give placebo
e) further evaluation and new prescription
f) discontinue treatment
g) advise to seek alternative or supplementary investigation or treatment
h) antidote the remedy

Of course, once they include d), then a), b), c), e), and h) are redundant.