Skip to main content

The IAPT Fiasco – A Failure of Governance Over Talking Therapies

no one is available to answer, why over £4billion has been spent on the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service without independent evaluation. There should be a call to action when the best available evidence indicates that only the tip of the iceberg of IAPT client’s recover Which Government Minister is responsible? Does responsibility lie with Public Health England or NHS England? Are Clinical Commissiong Groups (CCG’s) simply acting under orders?

It is not good enough for the architects of the IAPT service to blandly assert it is a ‘world beater’.  There is no transparency with regards to decision making and implementation in IAPT. In the 3 years of cbtwatch no public powerholder has deigned to answer the concerns raised.  Media pressure did however evoke a response by IAPT’s, public advocates, Professors Clark and Salkovskis, who are hardly disinterested commentators, albeit that they are persuaders par excellence. Ministers, Public Health England and NHS England have maintained a deafening silence.

Interestingly the failure in transparency over IAPT resembles that of the handling of the pandemic. It is it seems impossible to discover who postponed testing.  There has been a parallel failure, over the last decade to publicly and independently test out recovery rates in IAPT.  My own findings are that the tip of the iceberg of service users get back to their usual selves.

We seem destined to go from one fiasco to another, but all it needs to avoid this scenario is honesty and care, it is fundamentally an ethical matter. This could start by taking the time to listen to what IAPT client’s are saying and to IAPT front line workers.

Dr Mike Scott


Mental Health Bewareness Week

the deeply unpopular sibling of Mental Health Awareness Week, who can be found muttering in the corner, that only the tip of the iceberg of those who receive routine Talking Therapy  recover, (see link,   Whilst his sibling proclaims a new dawn awaits us if Society would just provide more funds for the UK Government Improving Access to Psychological Treatment (IAPT) service, secondary care and MIND. This increased funding would she believes help in the colonisation of more and more areas of human suffering from Birth Trauma (see CBT Today May 2020) to long term conditions, with IAPT recovery rates of 50% already for depression and the anxiety disorders.

The focus of this year’s Mental Health Bewareness Week, might well be on the absence of any publicly funded independent evaluation of routine psychological treatment despite over £4billion of the taxpayer’s money being spent on IAPT. In the dire financial circumstances that the UK government finds itself in the questions for this week are:

  1. ‘What is the evidence that this money has been well spent?
  2. ‘If we consider a period before such expenditure, is there convincing evidence that the funding of IAPT for the last decade has constituted an added value?’
  3. ‘Is it appropriate to continue to fund agencies who have only ever marked their own homework?

Unfortunately the devotees of Mental Health Awareness Week are blissfully unaware that there is another story, of clients having been failed for the past decade with little prospect of getting a service that they would consider would return them to their normal (or best functioning).


Dr Mike Scott

Focus On The Chief Psychological Complaint And Miss The Boat


Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is an example of this – only a fifth of those with PTSD present with it as their principal problem, according to a just published paper by Kiefer et al (2020)  in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders. Most commonly PTSD sufferers present with depression, bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder as the principal diagnoses. These are so likely to absorb a clinicians attention that the PTSD does not get a look in. But it is likely to be one of the elephants in the room that sabotages therapeutic efforts. If working in IAPT the hapless clinician, post the lockdown, is likely to be hauled over the coals for not reaching recovery and/or feels incompetent.  The seeds of the problem is that IAPT clinicians are not trained to make reliable diagnoses. But unreliable diagnosis is not confined to IAPT, it is the norm, bolstered by the dominance of an unthinking anti-psychiatry stance amongst psychological therapists. The banner of ‘Formulation Rules’ is unfurled and brandished but without any evidence that it makes a real world difference to client’s lives. 

Whilst the starting point for all psychological therapies is the client’s chief complaint, in it’s distilling there is no limit to the range of information considered pertinent (no control for information variance), nor of the operational criteria for deciding whether a particular problem is simply a normal reaction to an abnormal situation or something more (no control for criterion variance). Appeal can be made to a clinician’s formulation, but there are likely as many formulations as clinicians. By default the formulation of the local powerholder, whether it be the supervisor, manager or clinician will likely hold sway. The client will rarely have the wherewithal to articulate their definition of the situation and certainly not to make it stick.

Consider a person referred with ?chronic fatigue syndrome, the psychological therapist will certainly find evidence to support this because a) they will rarely be aware of differing criteria for CFS and b) they will find a symptom to support the diagnosis such as fatigue. Here we have the operation of a confirmation bias seeking only information that supports the original hypothesis. Without considering what body of evidence would be needed to refute hypothesis e.g diagnostic entities such as depression that have some symptom overlap with disorders such as CFS and/or an as yet undiscovered entity that might explain the fatigue e.g the development of multiple sclerosis.

Communications to sources of referral are written in the form ‘it was agreed that course x would be best’ but as the client does not understand how course x, differs from courses y and z, much less why one course would be better than another in their circumstances, it is doublespeak for the Agency doing what it wants.

Having elicited what appears to be the chief complaint, almost anything can be deemed appropriate. Today I read a book [ The Well Gardened  Mind by Sue Stuart-Smith a psychiatrist] review on horticultural therapy, in which the reviewer asked  why such a therapy is not a standard treatment for anxiety and depression? Such an approach was regarded as an enlightened response to the plight of  ‘shell shocked’ soldiers returning from the First World War. The short answer to the question is that there is no evidence it returns people to their former selves i.e that it makes for recovery, as opposed to makes them feel better for a time.

How did we reach the point were de facto we have therapy without any boundaries? In my view it is a product of jettisoning the very notion of diagnosis and treatment. There is almost universal support amongst psychological therapists for an anti-psychiatrist stance see ‘Drop The Diagnosis! ‘ by Jo Watson (2019) and Dalgleish’s call for a hard trans diagnostic approach  and it is used to justify popular offerings such as Solution Focussed Therapy. But we are short of any independent evidence that the talking therapies without reliable diagnosis make a real world difference.

Dr Mike Scott

Moving The Goalposts So That The Cheapest Talking Therapy Option Always Wins

Managerial goals have been scored for the last decade by putting the focus on numbers, waiting lists and the brevity of therapeutic contact. Couple this with capitalising on:

a) the passage of time – people are likely to present at their worst

b) people’s desire to please the provider of any service face to face

c) people’s need to feel they haven’t wasted their time

This ‘capitalisation’ comes to pass by the client completing a psychometric test, such as the PHQ9, in front of the therapist. Enabling the Improving Access to Psychological Treatment (IAPT) provider to claim effectiveness to its NHS funders the local Clinical Commissioning Group. 

My own CCG, Liverpool, is top of the league in gullibility (should have kept to football). Last Autumn, Talk Liverpool claimed an 87% recovery rate. I protested in writing to the Chief Officer of the Liverpool LCG, that this is a preposterous claim, as it would mean that Liverpool Improving Access to Psychological Treatment  (Talk Liverpool) were well exceeding IAPT’s claimed national average rate of 40-50% and the recovery rates in randomised controlled trials. The Chief Officer of the LCG did not even have the courtesy to acknowledge my letter. The Liverpool Echo asked the CCG about the discrepancy in the recovery rates and their representative told them that it was a 40-50% recovery rate. It is difficult to belief that the LCG had not been influenced by the claimed recovery rate in funding Liverpool IAPT to the tune of £10 million this financial year. It is a fine line between extraordinary claims and fraud.

It is cunningly hidden from CCG’s that most clients are offered a ‘cost’ saving low intensity treatment, such as guided self-help, a group or computer assisted cognitive behaviour therapy, only a minority actually get a psychological therapy. CCG’s seem blissfully unaware that none of the randomised controlled trials (rct’s) of the utilised low intensity interventions go anywhere near meeting the requisites of the CONSORT checklist, in particular there is no blind independent evaluation and the researchers are investigating the effectiveness of their own developed materials.

Dr Mike Scott


In Practice, Off-The Shelf Solutions Silence IAPT Client’s Concerns

the Talking Therapist does the ‘talking’ not the client: 

Noreen was held at knife point in the corner shop in which she worked, she had flashbacks and nightmares of the incident. She was fearful of another armed robbery. Then she was a passenger in a car in which the driver lost control, became fearful of travelling by car and postponed her driving lessons. Noreen completed an Improving Access to Psychological Treatment (IAPT) telephone assessment in which she was scored 8 on the PHQ9 and 11 on the GAD7.  No diagnosis was proferred and the letter from IAPT to her GP said ‘agreed with us to be put on a waiting list for computer assisted CBT’. 3 months later she received a letter from IAPT saying she had been discharged because she had not activated her online therapy accoun.

1. No Listening Ear In IAPT – Noreen had multiple concerns: memories of the robbery, fear of car travel and several bereavements but there was no space for her to vocalise all these in her assessment. Instead she was offered an off the shelf solution computer assisted CBT but with no indication as to how this would remedy her concerns.

2. No Meaningful Agreement to Treatment In IAPT – IAPT makes a play of offering ‘customer choice’ but Noreen did not know what computer assisted CBT involved, much less what the evidence base was on it resolving her presenting complaints and how it compared in efficacy to other treatment options such as face to face CBT. In short IAPT does not offer informed choice, it offers tokenism with regards to customer choice.

3. No Meaningful Assessment in IAPT – Noreen was none the wiser about her difficulties after the telephone assessment and it is not at all surprising that she did not go onto engage in the computer assisted CBT

4. IAPT Blames The Client For Not Engaging In Treatment – the letter from IAPT to Noreen and her GP says ‘sorry you have not activated your…online therapy account….discharged’

5. IAPT Engages In Pseudo- Science  – reporting psychometric test results to GP’s, as if they have a meaning without reliable diagnosis. The social context of the client’s difficulties are deemed not worth reporting.

Low intensity interventions are off-the shelf solutions, their very availability makes them more likely to be deployed, despite their inappropriateness to the task in hand. Even brief attention to Noreen’s difficulties, would suggest a differential diagnoses of PTSD, a specific phobia about travelling by car and depression. If that was as far as the assessor got, and there is no indication that he got even that far, how on earth would this suggest the appropriateness of a course of computerised CBT!

Availability Heuristic The Off-the shelf low intensity interventions have created a new availability heuristic. Traditionally this term is used to describe the way in which the vividness of an experience e.g graphic memories of a serious accident give a mistaken impression of how likely it is [ see Daniel Kahneman Thinking Fast and Slow. Penguin Pres]. It seems that for the Psychological Wellbeing Practitioners who are the usual assessors of clients coming into an IAPT service have a particular familiarity with the low intensity interventions leading them to deploy them inappropriately. Further they may have a graphic memory of one client who did really well in low intensity CBT, oblivious that such a case is very much the exception. This use of the availability heuristic is heightened by the IAPT organisation declaring that low intensity interventions are to be the bread and butter of PWP’s.  Possible shortcomings of low intensity interventions are often glossed over by PWP’s on the grounds that if they don’t work the client can always be stepped up to high intensity, but such stepping up is rare about 10%.  There is a failure to acknowledge that a) if the first intervention does not work a client can become demoralised and dropout  and b) there is no independent evidence that a significant proportion of low intensity clients lose their diagnostic status as a result of this minimalist approach.

Noreen is yet another example of how IAPT fails clients and the problems are systemic, not confined to some PWP’s not adhering to best practice.


Dr Mike Scott

Duplicity In IAPT On MUS

my colleague Joan Crawford wrote the following letter to the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, it highlights that IAPT advises its’ clinicians not to use the term Medically Unexplained Symptoms (MUS). Her letter was rejected. But Prof Chalder, Improving Access to Psychological Treatments (IAPT) adviser on MUS and LTC’s (long term conditions) , regularly holds workshops using the MUS descriptor (see webcast for BABCP sponsored Workshop on June 8th 2020). Joan’s letter reads;


‘The systematic review into the use of language and relational issues during the patient-doctor interaction where there is medical uncertainty is welcome [1]. However, there are flaws in the methodology and underlying assumptions within this paper that require closer examination.

Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) were not clearly defined. A broad, assumptive approach was used which included: chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and irritable bowel syndrome, without justification or criticism. These are all separately listed World Health Organisation medical conditions [2]. Using MUS gives an illusion of medical respectability, which is ambiguous if not misleading. At no point was there recognition of controversy of the MUS approach or any engagement with extensive alternative literatures. While many routine tests may fail to find a specific underlying disease, it is misleading to assume; therefore, that no objective abnormalities can be identified.

In the UK, chronic pain (explained or unexplained by routine assessment), including fibromyalgia, is managed within the NHS via pain management programmes. This is under the rubric of The British Pain Society guidelines [3]. Such an approach teaches patients the central sensitisation and dysregulation model of chronic pain. This science-based model encourages patients to pace, plan and prioritise tasks to maximise activity; set appropriate goals; minimise flare ups and to live well despite being in pain. At no point does the evidence suggest that their pain is medically unexplained, quite the opposite. Patients adapt well to this model. They improve their self-efficacy, reduce distress along with decreasing presentation at their GPs unnecessarily as they have the confidence to decide how to best manage themselves.

Taking the MUS approach has the potential to de-validate patients’ symptoms as described in this paper [1]. Patients can erroneously be given the impression during the medical encounter, consciously or otherwise, that their symptoms and suffering are not of worth; that they are derived

from within themselves via a self-generated, autopoietic mechanism [4], which they have the power to overcome. For example, “MUS arise when benign bodily sensations, such as those resulting from normal variation, emotional disturbance or minor pathology, are selectively attended to and misinterpreted as evidence of illness [4]; the resulting changes in behaviour (e.g. reduced activity) and physiology (e.g. increased autonomic arousal) then create a vicious cycle that maintains symptom reporting.” [5]. The apparent rarity of misdiagnosis is often cited as good reason to proceed with a MUS approach. Of note, Newton [6] reviewed 375 patients attending a CFS clinic in England and found that 40% of patients did not to have CFS. Caution is required.

What evidence does the practitioner have that their option is sound other than their own belief? Should the patient not return, does the doctor then conclude that the patient has been cured of a false belief? Or has the patient abandoned hope that their practitioner can help them? Deary’s cognitive behavioural model [5] is potentially self-blaming and shaming which can silence patients discouraging them from further medical interaction and emotional and social support. Patients’ can experience disbelief about their symptoms as an assault on their sense of self. This causes harm and unnecessary suffering. This can have tragic consequences for patients and their families.

Openly sharing the speculative MUS model in the clinical context would allow the patient to decide if it has face validity. Worryingly in the UK, IAPT clinicians are encouraged to not use the term MUS [7]. This is duplicitous. Obfuscation here is dishonest and unethical [8]. It is encouraging to note that, “healthcare providers are cautious when raising psychosomatic attributions” [1] as the evidence base for such is flimsy. The absence of good quality evidence-based objective, real world changes for psychological or behavioural interventions for MUS was omitted and therefore not subject to critical analysis [9]. The paper does approach the importance of the psychosocial context; however, it fails to critically analyse the social and emotional consequences for the patient.

It is unfortunate that some doctors continue to have negative experiences. This may well be true for those who are not up to date in their knowledge. When current information is shared with patients, they are enlightened and appreciative of clinician’s honesty and skills.

There is a sense from this paper that clinicians should continue fear encounters with patients. Perhaps there is nothing to dread from such consultations if one approaches this with a sense of humility [8] and a science-based model and positive mindset. There needs to be honesty in the clinical and therapeutic environment. This needs to hold the tension with uncertainty, without the ethically dubiously, “subtle persuasive conduct” [1] imposing a blaming and shaming model on the patient due to lack of clinician resilience or knowledge [8]. Share the model openly [4,5] and allow the patients to vote with their feet. Those who find it meaningful will stay. The key here may be to build healthcare providers’ resilience to cope with and tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity.

[1] I. Stortenbeker, W. Stommel, S. van Dulmen, P. Lucassen, E. Das, T. I. Olde Hartman, J. Psychosom. Res. 132 (2020).
[2] World Health Organisation, International Statistical Classification of Diseases.

[3] The British Pain Society, Guidelines for Pain Management Programmes for Adults (2013).
[4] V. Deary, T. Chalder, M. Sharpe, The cognitive behavioural model of medically unexplained symptoms, Clin. Psych. Rev. 27 (2007) 781–797.
[5] R. Brown, Explaining the unexplained, The Psychologist, 26 (12) (2013) 868-872.
[6] J.L. Newton, H. Mabillard, A. Scott, A. Hoad, G. Spickett. The Newcastle NHS Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Service: not all fatigue is the same, J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 40 (2010) 304–307.
[7] NHS IAPT Medically Unexplained Symptoms/Functional Symptoms – Positive Practice Guide, (2014).

[8] D. O’Leary, Ethical management of diagnostic uncertainty: Response to open peer commentaries on, “Why bioethics should be concerned with medically unexplained symptoms,” Am J. Bioethics. 18 (8) (2018) W6-W11.
[9] K. Geraghty, M. Scott, Treating medically unexplained symptoms via improving access to psychological therapy (IAPT): major limitations identified, BMC Psychol, 8 (13) (2020).’

Well argued Joan

Dr Mike Scott

‘Overall, How Satisfied Were You With Your Talking Therapy?’

on a scale 0-10, with 0 indicating ‘Not at all satisfied’ and 10 meaning ‘Very satisfied’. GP’s asking such a question of Improving Access To Psychological Treatments (IAPT) clients would be in a position to to advise local Clinical Commissioning Groups of the results of their audit. There could then also be comparison of results across CCGs. The same audit question could also be asked of the clientele of private providers and secondary care. Newspapers and the media could ask the same question of IAPT clients. It could also be a project for  intercalating medical students.

Admittedly this brief audit is not as good as an independent publicly funded inquiry into the proportion of IAPT clients that lose their diagnostic status with treatment. But such an inquiry is extremely unlikely because of vested interests, despite the spending of £4billlion of the taxpayers’s money on IAPT. Support for IAPT is eminence based not evidenced based.

Richard Layard, a prime mover in IAPT illustrates this eminence base in the following extract  from his recent book ‘Can We Be Happier? Evidence and Ethics’ (2020) Penguin:

‘The book I wrote on Happiness (2005) clearly struck a chord and was translated into nineteen other languages. But I wanted to apply it in practice, so I asked Ed Miliband if I could write a paper on mental health for Gordon Brown. Instead it became a paper for the No. 10 Policy Unit. It was written with help from my wife and presented at a Cabinet Office seminar in January 2005. The key figure at that seminar was David Clark. One of the world’s leading clinical psychologists, David is also an incredible persuader and organizer, who since then has devoted his life to creating the Improving Access To Psychological Treatment’ 

and in Towards a Mental =Health System That Works London: Routledge (2017)  I wrote

Seligman (2011) also quotes a conversation with Lord Layard (a House of Lords Peer) in which the latter told him that in order for an enterprise to get government backing it was not necessary to prove unequivocally that something worked (in this instance Positive psychology) for it to be adopted, as this watermark was almost never achieved, but that a combination of sufficient evidence and political will was enough. Seligman reports that he was much encouraged by this advice. However, I will argue later that this lowering of the bar of the burden of proof has led to the UK Government’s continuing endorsement of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Programme fuelled by the prime movers behind the inception of IAPT, Layard and Clark (2014).

But ethics involves honesty, where is the honesty in not mandating an independent evaluation of a service that you have been instrumental in?


Dr Mike Scott


Declining IAPT – Clients Reject The Service

Rejection of the Improving Access to Psychological Treatments (IAPT) service continues to be the norm. Yet it has been funded to the tune of £4 billion without any independent demonstration that it has better recovery rates than its’ predecessors.

Nearly a decade ago, Richards and Borglin examined the pathway of over 7000 Improving access to Psychological Treatments (IAPT) clients – of those referred, 27.3% did not materialise for an assessment. Of those assessed 26.8% did not go further. Of those attending treatment 29.5% completed only one session. Of those initially referred  the rate of non completion of treatment was 62.5%. [Were ‘completion’ was defined by IAPT as attending 2 or more sessions]. This pattern of engagement is identical to that found in my 2018 study    there are no signs of improvement, see the Table from my paper ‘IAPT – The Need For Radical Reform’

IAPT’s engagement and retention of clients (n=90).


1. 23.6% of clients either did not initiate contact with IAPT (an opt-in arrangement) or IAPT were unable to contact them to arrange an assessment
2. 13.3% attended only an initial assessment
3. The mean number of treatment sessions attended was 5.5 with a median of 4.0 sessions, with missing data on one client

4. 39.3% attended 2 or less treatment sessions 5. 57.3% attended less than 6 treatment sessions 6. 23.6% attended 6–8 treatment sessions
7. 80.9% attended 8 treatment sessions or less 8. 4.5% attended 20 more treatment sessions

If such rates of ‘decline’ of treatment had been present in the randomised controlled trials  of the efficacy of CBT, then the latter would have been summarily dismissed.  There would have been no NICE guidance advocating CBT for depression and the anxiety disorders. In the IAPT service the average number sessions attended by those who engage in treatment is 6, this would be regarded as a sub-therapeutic dose of treatment in any of the rcts for CBT. No trial of CBT has ever been conducted with the average dosage delivered in IAPT. It strains all credibility to believe IAPT’s claim that it has achieved the 50% recovery rate that is common place in the rcts of CBT.

IAPT ignores the haemorrhaging and deftly switches the public focus to waiting times and numbers seen. The advantage of such key indicators is that it can always be claimed that with more funding waiting times will reduce and numbers seen increase and so the Titanic continues at speed. The crucial question that is avoided is ‘do waiting times matter in a context in which most decline to engage or complete treatment?’.

An unholy alliance between NHS England and IAPT has meant that the latter’s definition of the key indicators of success has been allowed to hold sway. The public are the victims of a failed duty of care.


Dr Mike Scott

Talking Therapies – ‘What Works For Whom?’

this is the title of a book by Roth and Fonagy (2005) published by Guilford Press. The authors answer this question with a focus on disorders. Their conclusions inform the NICE Guidelines.


By contrast the contributors to ‘Drop the Disorder!’ edited by Jo Watson (2019) recommend jettisoning disorder in favour of formulation. However there has been no determination of ‘what works for whom?’  where the focus is formulation. Indeed it is impossible to do this as formulations are inherently unique/idiosyncratic theories about an individual. It is an attempt to personalise treatment without first acknowledging that the person is likely a member of some category or categories. Ironically it is personalised medicine without first getting into the right ball-park.  For the past decade the IAPT (Improving Access to Psychological Treatments) service has been an undercover exemplar of this, paying lip service to the NICE Guidelines. If IAPT had truly done ‘what it says on the tin’, it would have ‘improved’ upon on Roth and Fonagy’s work. But it has signally failed to make any contribution to the question they raised. . 

Dalgleish et al (2020) in their just published paper a Transdiagnostic. Approach to Mental Health Problems advocate a ‘hard transdiagnostic’ approach, similarly wishing to totally jettison the diagnostic nomenclature of DSM-5. But this hard trans diagnostic approach is so bewildering in its’ complexity, it would serve only to totally muddle practitioners. There is no evidence that trans diagnostic approaches add value. To date studies have only been conducted by the developers of the trans diagnostic approaches, leading to likely allegiance bias.  There are no effectiveness studies in real world settings with independent evaluators.

Dr Mike Scott

‘Drop the Disorder!’ – IAPT Have Already Done This and It Hasn’t Worked

‘Drop the Disorder!’ is a just published book edited by Jo Watson published by PCCS, but the contributors totally avoid any mention of the Improving Access to Psychological Treatments (IAPT) service. The latter assert that they do not make a diagnosis.  My independent assessment of IAPT has shown that only the tip of the iceberg recover

What is interesting in this book is that none of the contributors have come up with a framework that has allowed them to evaluate the IAPT service. Their frameworks are so nebulous, choose between Power, Threat, Meaning  or an exaggerated importance being given to formulation, that there is no risk of application to any service any time soon. Clients are the casualties of this approach.

I was just trying to imagine an Expert Witness arguing for the reliability of the application of one of these frameworks to that of a person he had to assess, the Expert Witness for the other side would have a field day, with legal reps putting their head in their hands. 

When the notion of ‘disorder’ is dropped, so too is loss of diagnostic status as an outcome measure. Without a person no longer being an instance of a disorder how can one approach determining whether the person is back to their old selves/best functioning?

This is not to say that every diagnostic label is meaningful, there is an excellent chapter in the book on schizophrenia by John Read and he cogently argues that this is not a reliable diagnostic entity. He suggests that we are better served by terms such as hallucinations and delusions. Similarly there are doubts as to whether chronic fatigue syndrome/ME are meaningful diagnostic entities. But across depression and the anxiety disorders (including PTSD) the diagnostic criteria have served us well leading to different protocols for different disorders.

Unfortunately in routine practise diagnostic criteria are not applied with rigour using standardised diagnostic interviews, which also allow for the identification of comorbid disorders (that will usually also need to be treated.)  

The authors suggest that in their communications clinicians should always put diagnostic entities like OCD in quotation marks. I can see this becoming the new political correctness. I will comment on any such missive that the quotation marks simply indicate unreliable assessment.

Dr Mike Scott

%d bloggers like this: