The Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service has failed to deliver [Wakefield et al (2021) https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12268] and Scott 2021) https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12264] practice based evidence. In an attempted rebuttal of my Commentary [ Kellet et al (2021) https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12268 ] in the forthcoming British Journal of Clinical Psychology, IAPT fellow-travellers dig an even deeper hole, exposing even more conflicts of interest.
Under UK Government pressure, NHS England is to reconfigure its’ relationship with social care. It would be timely if the Government also insisted that NHS England put its house in order with regards to the provision of routine mental health services. As a first step it should insist that NHS England staff cannot be employed by an agency, such as IAPT, that they are responsible for auditing.
Further in 2016 the National Audit Office asked that IAPT be made responsible to an independent body the Care Quality Commission, but the Service has instead been allowed to continue to mark its’ own homework.
Kellett, S., Wakefield, S., Simmonds‐Buckley, M. and Delgadillo, J. (2021), The costs and benefits of practice‐based evidence: Correcting some misunderstandings about the 10‐year meta‐analysis of IAPT studies. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60: 42-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12268
Scott, M.J. (2021), Ensuring that the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme does what it says on the tin. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60: 38-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12264
Wakefield, S., Kellett, S., Simmonds‐Buckley, M., Stockton, D., Bradbury, A. and Delgadillo, J. (2021), Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) in the United Kingdom: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of 10‐years of practice‐based evidence. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60: 1-37 e12259. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12259
Dr Mike Scott