Thursday 11 May 2023
Regular checks
Diabetics forced to 'go it alone' as 7,000 excess deaths linked to condition, says charity
Diabetes UK says less than half of people with the condition in England received all eight of their required checks in 2021-22, meaning 1.9 million did not receive the care they need...
The condition is monitored by regular checks, known as care processes, around eight times a year to prevent serious complications.
Maybe it's just bureaucrats or journalists, but Mrs H passed this over to me with a chuckle at the language used - regular checks, known as care processes.
Diabetes is a serious condition, a family member has it and managing the condition can be somewhat technical and maybe this is a small point. Yet if regular checks are known as care processes, why not stick with the familiar - regular checks? Everyone knows what regular checks are, but care processes could be anything - could be mostly paperwork.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Ah but 'regular checks' implies taking action while 'care processes' will also include doing nothing if it suits circumstances (including staffing levels, other paid checks, car parking and the state of the tide in the London Basin).
I'm a diabetic but I certainly don't get 8 regular checks a year. Maybe my 'case' is reviewed more frequently but I never get to know.
DJ - the family member I mentioned has regular reviews although I'm not sure about the frequency. He has one of those monitoring devices on his arm which transmits blood glucose info to an app on his phone which seems to work quite well.
Probably some group claiming to represent the interests of diabetics (Insulinate Britain?) thought it sounded demeaning. As if people living with different levels of blood glucose need checking up on.
Sam - maybe labelling people as ill will soon become demeaning. You won't be able to see your GP in case the experience is demeaning.
You gotta distinguish Type I from Type II. (Though some docs opine that there are really five types.)
My GP says I have Type II and wants to check me once a year. My cardiologist dismisses it as "your mythical diabetes". I can become non-diabetic just by returning to NZ because their arbitrary threshold is different from our arbitrary threshold.
The threshold probably ought to be age-related but it isn't. Race-related too. (Sex related? Dunno.)
The whole thing - at least for Type IIs - is a mess. There's lots of money that could be saved if ... but it's the NHS and nobody is interested in saving money.
There are other reasons to be suspicious e.g.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/endocrinology/diabetes/39492
http://www.cardiobrief.org/2012/10/04/uk-study-casts-doubts-on-value-of-type-2-diabetes-screening/
dearieme - the family member I mentioned has been told he has a version which is neither type 1 nor type 2 which I suppose shows a reluctance to oversimplify via a name. All the same, he needs insulin and manages it as type 1.
Senora O'Blene has been Type 1 for well over fifty years, and has managed magnificently.
Things have changed dramatically since she was diagnosed, and back then, the syringes were huge glass and steel affairs, which needed sterilising every day or so, and testing was via a colour chart in a test tube!
It's a bit easier these days, what with pens and gluco-test machines, but she decided that to go the final way to a machine Sellotaped to herself was probably never going to happen...
The upside was that her dad, who had a pub, was the first landlord to introduce almost carb-free Holsten Pils Lager, and that became the money-spinner of the county!
Scrobs - years ago there was talk of an automatic gadget to be placed under the skin of the arm, but I don't know what happened to that idea.
There are a few systems in the market, but S.O'B decides to do the job herself, and is comfortable with that!
I think for children, these systems must be a Godsend!
Post a Comment