Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Atos are still doing (re)assessments despite what Gov and Press say..

Nah, you're assuming a level of organisation and ability that doesn't really exist - unless the individual doctor/advisor remembers you, it won't make any difference - in my experience it tended to result in 'Oh, there's that pain in the arse claimant, better double check it.' I used to work for DWP, left partly as a result of the complete ignoring of the first Harrington review.
 
iamwithnail said:
... I used to work for DWP, left partly as a result of the complete ignoring of the first Harrington review.
Click to expand...
I was just briefly reading up what the Harrington review was, saw lots of links to 2012 and calls 'take the urgent action' - has anything changed at all?
 
I see the usual myths are surfacing

1. all assessments are undertaken by clinicians, although not all of them are Medical Practitioners - there are Nurses, Physios , OTs and a few Paramedics

2. all assessors are fully registered with the appropriate regulators (GMC for Medical Practitioners, NMC for Nurses, HCPC for physio / OT / paramedic) and have a licence to practice . Nurses, Physios and OTs do health and ADL assessments from day 1 week one of their training and are probably more expert at this than Doctor, the picture with Paramedics is less clear - but as more and more of them have either done Uni pre-reg courses or been encouraged to do fully funded op up to dipHE or degree level from the IHCD course

2a. I don't know aobut ATOS but the Capita contract for the PIP assessors recruitment material states it will not process applications from anyone with any current Fitness to Practice sanction - which in some cases could be 4 years old and refer to a 6 year old incident. (possibly a knee jerk reaction to some of the bullshit that people have come out with in respect of the staff used by ATOS ? i could understand it if they said no to people whose FtP sanction prevented them from working unsupervised for a significant period but other FtP sanctions or CoPOrders would make little or no difference )

3. These assessments whether ESA or PIP do not attempt to challenge diagnosis and being found fit to work or placed i n the support group for for ESA has sweet fanny adams to do with diagnosis or the validity of it.

3a. fit to work does not necessarily mean fit to return to a previously held role - in the none benefits world of disability assessment / occupational health / access to work this seems to be well understood - it's also well understood by those who have had decent rehab / treatment ...

4. The level of shit stirring and party political bile ( forgetting that the changes were in motion before the 2010 GE) hasn't helped recruiting especially amopng those who might have wantred to move to avoid the hassle and abuse that frontline staff get day in day out anyway.
 
Chris.H.1961 said:
What I meant was why the F can't they accept the findings of your own GP/Specialist? They are the ones who know you best and how your illness/disability impacts on your life.

I fully accept some people play the system and need to be weeded out, just like 'some MPs fiddle their exs' but tarring everyone with the same brush is cruel.
Click to expand...

Most consultants don't know Jacques Faeces about how an illness or disability affects someone's daily life , thopse that do are relying on second and thrid hand information in MDT unless you are really lucky and like some ofthe specialist tertiary rehab units Patients have regualr case conferences with the MDT and their significant others .

What people tell their consultants and what a Nurse, Physio or OT ( or Doctor or Paramedic after extra additional training) will be able to find from a structured assessment is rather different.

in an ideal world the assessments would be a 2-3 day residential - given the assessment for top -up rehab admissions when i worked in a tertiary centre was a full day - and that was with patients we ( as a service) knew
 
"zippyRN, post: 13386134, member: 22307 "I see the usual myths are surfacing''

You may not agree with what's being discussed here, but there is nothing 'Mythical' about what I've said in this thread.

The so-called Health Care Professionals may have qualifications coming out of their ears, but they are nothing more than DWP approved data entry robots who's sole purpose has little if anything to do with how ill you are or how bad things are on a daily basis, and more to do with aiding and assisting the DWP in their endless quest to slash/stop your benefit.

Who would you say has a more intimate knowledge of how your illness/disability effects you? your GP/Consultant who you see regularly? or someone basing their findings on a single 20/30min observation?
 
And still the diagnodis fallacy persists.

1.These assessments are not about Diagnosis.

2. You and many others deliberately chose to mis understand and mis represent the purpose of the assessments.

3. Doctors are not superior to other HCPs, however those who chose to ignore this seem to belueve that Doctors are some how in charge of other HCPs.
 
friendofdorothy said:
I was just briefly reading up what the Harrington review was, saw lots of links to 2012 and calls 'take the urgent action' - has anything changed at all?
Click to expand...

Nah, not really. Friend of mine's working on the new version (Harrington's left now, after 3 reviews), and it's same old, same old.
 
zippyRN said:
And still the diagnodis fallacy persists.

1.These assessments are not about Diagnosis.

2. You and many others deliberately chose to mis understand and mis represent the purpose of the assessments.

3. Doctors are not superior to other HCPs, however those who chose to ignore this seem to belueve that Doctors are some how in charge of other HCPs.
Click to expand...

Just for the record;

1. I don't believe I or any of others have claimed the assessments are about a 'diagnosis'.

2. I don't believe I or anyone else has misunderstood or misrepresented anything.

3. I have never claimed Doctors/GP's/Consultants are superior to other HCP's. I said they were better placed to know how your illness/disability effects your life on a day by day basis. Big difference!!

If you wish to read a thread and make-believe there are things there that aren't, feel free.

Personally I think you should get a life
 
zippyRN said:
4. The level of shit stirring and party political bile ( forgetting that the changes were in motion before the 2010 GE) hasn't helped recruiting especially amopng those who might have wantred to move to avoid the hassle and abuse that frontline staff get day in day out anyway.
Click to expand...

Good. I'm currently helping a good friend challenge a DWP decision to remove his sickness benefit, following an ATOS assessment so flawed it would almost be funny if it weren't so sad. The assessor had neither relevant qualifications nor professional experience, and his report was littered with inaccuracies, unsupported assumptions and major issues not even addressed. It was completely worthless, and unsurprisingly the ensuing DWP decision was wrong. in my view he acted unethically and unprofessionally, and once the whole sorry farce is over I shall be writing to his professional body and seeking other (legal!) ways to cause him trouble if possible. These people are ruining lives: they deserve to face the consequences. Best of luck to the OP and everyone else seeking to challenge this vicious and failed assessment system.
 
Last edited:
Roadkill said:
Good. I'm currently helping a good friend challenge a DWP decision to remove his sickness benefit, following an ATOS assessment so flawed it would almost be funny if it weren't so sad. The assessor had neither relevant qualifications nor professional experience, and his report was littered with inaccuracies, unsupported assumptions and major issues not even addressed. It was completely worthless, and unsurprisingly the ensuing DWP decision was wrong. in my view he acted unethically and unprofessionally, and once the whole sorry farce is over I shall be writing to his professional body and seeking other (legal!) ways to cause him trouble if possible. These people are ruining lives: they deserve to face the consequences. Best of luck to the OP and everyone else seeking to challenge this vicious and failed assessment system.
Click to expand...

On what basis do you make your assertion that the assessor does not haver a relevant professional qualification ?

with their name and profession a of primary registration you can quite easilty check if they are registered and in the case of Nurses usually which Branch - although the new NMC register is less clear than the Old one and the UKCC and GNC before .

In the case of medical practitioners you can see if they hold a CCST or equivalent or are a Fully Qualified GP.

all the assessors have to undertake the specified training on the DA processes and system

In terms of experience what do you consider to be lacking ? or is this onece again a mis understanding of the purpose of the these assessments and application o f the diagnosis fallacy - these assessments are diagnosis independent - what your diagnosisactually is is completely irrelevant these assessments are about how any and all conditions you have affect ADLs or ability to undertake ANY work ( rather than your chosen work or a job you had before the conditions manifested)

inaccurate assessments area matter for appeal

practice which you can prove fell below the standards of the reasonable Practitioner would be grounds for a complaint to the relevant professional regulator.

but while people labour on with the diagnosis fallacy and the presumption that Doctors are better than others and an accurate assessment will only be achieved by someone who has specialised in your particular condition, there are going to be a lot of people gettign angry througfh not understanding the process because of boundaries they themselves have put up.

interestingly this is a behaviour which is seen in relation to change processes in all settings - just in other settings disposal or termination of the resistant individuals is far more acceptable ...
 
zippyRN said:
On what basis do you make your assertion that the assessor does not haver a relevant professional qualification ?

with their name and profession a of primary registration you can quite easilty check if they are registered and in the case of Nurses usually which Branch - although the new NMC register is less clear than the Old one and the UKCC and GNC before .

In the case of medical practitioners you can see if they hold a CCST or equivalent or are a Fully Qualified GP.

all the assessors have to undertake the specified training on the DA processes and system

In terms of experience what do you consider to be lacking ? or is this onece again a mis understanding of the purpose of the these assessments and application o f the diagnosis fallacy - these assessments are diagnosis independent - what your diagnosisactually is is completely irrelevant these assessments are about how any and all conditions you have affect ADLs or ability to undertake ANY work ( rather than your chosen work or a job you had before the conditions manifested)

inaccurate assessments area matter for appeal

practice which you can prove fell below the standards of the reasonable Practitioner would be grounds for a complaint to the relevant professional regulator.

but while people labour on with the diagnosis fallacy and the presumption that Doctors are better than others and an accurate assessment will only be achieved by someone who has specialised in your particular condition, there are going to be a lot of people gettign angry througfh not understanding the process because of boundaries they themselves have put up.

interestingly this is a behaviour which is seen in relation to change processes in all settings - just in other settings disposal or termination of the resistant individuals is far more acceptable ...
Click to expand...

Yawn, Yawn, Yawn....

1. The only one I can see who thinks people go to these assessments hoping to get a diagnosis of their illness is you.

2. Why, if as you claim, HCP's are just as - if not more - qualified than some Doctors to carry out these assessments have I been sent away during a WCA twice as there was no Doctor available to see me? Plenty of so-called HCP's yet none of them felt they could carry out a fair assessment.

((Have you ever been on the receiving end of a WCA by ATOS or another firm? Or do you, as I suspect, work for one of those firms carrying out the assessments?))

3. If you bother doing some research, a high percentage of ATOS assessments are/were so inaccurate they got/get overturned at appeal. That's why the GOV and DWP (a) changed the law and put numerous obsticles in the way to deter anyone wishing to appeal, and (b) when that failed to have the desired impact they decided ATOS - and thereby all of their HCP's - were clearly unfit for purpose. Hence the early termination of their contract.

Now please do me a favour and go annoy someone else. You are boring me.
 
Last edited:
zippyRN said:
In terms of experience what do you consider to be lacking ? or is this onece again a mis understanding of the purpose of the these assessments and application o f the diagnosis fallacy - these assessments are diagnosis independent - what your diagnosisactually is is completely irrelevant these assessments are about how any and all conditions you have affect ADLs or ability to undertake ANY work ( rather than your chosen work or a job you had before the conditions manifested)

...
Click to expand...

Just to set the record straight zippermouth..

''The face to face assessment is specifically designed to find out about how your illness or disability affects you in your everyday life''

A direct quote from the notes sheet 'About your face to face assessment' aka WCA AL1C that gets sent with your appointment letter
 
Well that was a pleasant surprise. Just had a look in my email inbox and have received a response from my MP.

He says he will take up with ATOS the mismanagement of my latest WCA, and asked if I'd claimed travel ex's.

My reply:

ATOS, as far as I know, will reimburse travel costs if applicable, but if you have to get a taxi you need a covering letter from your GP stating why walking or public transport is out of the question.

I only live about 800 yards from xxx, but am unable to walk anywhere near that distance without being breathless and in pain. And to be honest, the £3.50 taxi fare works out a lot cheaper than getting GP to write a letter.

My main 'gripe' is more about the DWP continuing to forward people for reassessment despite supposedly terminating ATOS contract because they are unfit for purpose.

How is it in any way just/fair for the GOV and DWP to allow a company they have no faith in whatsoever to continue assessing people? It clearly demonstrates the Tories hatred of the welfare state and their contempt for those of us who are part of it
 
zippyRN said:
On what basis do you make your assertion that the assessor does not haver a relevant professional qualification ?
Click to expand...

A physiotherapist is not qualified to make a judgement on mental health issues. Healthcare is a complex and specialised field: lumping all of its practitioners in together and expecting them to tackle all issues that come their way is like asking a professor of English literature to peer review a paper in particle physics.

all the assessors have to undertake the specified training on the DA processes and system
Click to expand...

A few days' training in the assessment system is not sufficient, even if the training is of high quality, which I very much doubt it is.

In terms of experience what do you consider to be lacking ? or is this onece again a mis understanding of the purpose of the these assessments and application o f the diagnosis fallacy - these assessments are diagnosis independent - what your diagnosisactually is is completely irrelevant these assessments are about how any and all conditions you have affect ADLs or ability to undertake ANY work ( rather than your chosen work or a job you had before the conditions manifested)
Click to expand...

I know that. The point is that the assessments do not - either in this case or many others - give an accurate reflection of how serious someone's condition is or what impact it has on their life and ability to work. Especially when they're conducted by someone whose professional expertise and qualifications are completely irrelevant, and especially when they're conducted as sloppily as this one.

inaccurate assessments area matter for appeal

practice which you can prove fell below the standards of the reasonable Practitioner would be grounds for a complaint to the relevant professional regulator.
Click to expand...

As I said before, the assessment was a farce and the report was not worth the paper it was written on. It was littered with errors. An appeal is currently going through, which I am confident we will win. Afterwards, I intend complaining to all of the relevant regulatory bodies about the total lack of professionalism shown by both the 'healthcare professional' and DWP staff, and sending full details of the case to all relevant campaigning organisations and to the newspapers.

but while people labour on with the diagnosis fallacy and the presumption that Doctors are better than others and an accurate assessment will only be achieved by someone who has specialised in your particular condition, there are going to be a lot of people gettign angry througfh not understanding the process because of boundaries they themselves have put up.

interestingly this is a behaviour which is seen in relation to change processes in all settings - just in other settings disposal or termination of the resistant individuals is far more acceptable ...
Click to expand...

I understand the process perfectly well, thank you. I'm angry because it's a system that, even when it works as intended, is not fit for purpose, and because the resulting reports on individuals' conditions have led to a string of decisions by the DWP that have caused very real hardship to vulnerable people.

*edit* You appear to be trying to defend the system. Why is this, I wonder?
 
Last edited:
anyway I'm waiting for my appointment now, having sent off the form. I'm not bricking it or anything because its a MH issue and given these people are kicking claimants out of wheelchairs and expecting people to work under chemo treatments :facepalm: then I've got no hope of a result, will swing it on the appeal though, something like 70& of cases were getting overturned on appeal a couple of years back. \useless cunts exist only to nick money that should be paying for peoples care.
 
DotCommunist said:
anyway I'm waiting for my appointment now, having sent off the form. I'm not bricking it or anything because its a MH issue and given these people are kicking claimants out of wheelchairs and expecting people to work under chemo treatments :facepalm: then I've got no hope of a result, will swing it on the appeal though, something like 70& of cases were getting overturned on appeal a couple of years back. \useless cunts exist only to nick money that should be paying for peoples care.
Click to expand...

This is true. The proportion of MH cases being overturned on appeal is sky high, and it's one reason why a court ruled last year that ATOS assessments disadvantage those with mental health conditions. Needless to say, the government is dragging the whole business with appeals for as long as it can, so nothing will change any time soon. It's another indication, though, that the system simply does not work.

One thing with appeals, though: don't expect them to happen quickly. We heard last week that you can expect to wait 27 weeks for an appeal hearing.
 
Just FYI - it's not 70% of cases getting overturned, it was 70% of cases that made it to final appeal that got overturned. By the time you take into account churn (people off-flow because they had a temporary condition and have gone back to JSA and it's just not worth it), ruling out early cases with no grounds for appeal (small percentage), and the sheer number of people who just give up because it's made so bloody difficult to get to an appeal, the rate's more like 30%. If you can stay the course (and remember it might take a year) you have a good chance of winning, but it's exhausting, and in the meantime you have to be compliant with the WRAG (presuming that's what you get put in) regime of looking for work, yadda, yadda. :(

Edit: Per Roadkill's comment - 27 weeks is, iirc, the median time to appeal.
 
DotCommunist said:
anyway I'm waiting for my appointment now, having sent off the form. I'm not bricking it or anything because its a MH issue and given these people are kicking claimants out of wheelchairs and expecting people to work under chemo treatments :facepalm: then I've got no hope of a result, will swing it on the appeal though, something like 70& of cases were getting overturned on appeal a couple of years back. \useless cunts exist only to nick money that should be paying for peoples care.
Click to expand...

Out of the 4 I've had so far I've felt apprehensive going to all of them.

Luckily I was okay 3 times and only had to appeal once while on IB, but unlike now - heard rumours of it taking 12months or more - it was all sorted out in a few months. This was before the bedroom tax so even though my money was cut I knew I was safe from the threat of getting into arrears and possible eviction.
 
iamwithnail very true, sadly. The number of hurdles that are thrown in the way of people trying to appeal, the conflicting information you get and the sheer length of time it takes to get an appeal hearing all mean that a lot of cases don't make it that far. Moreover, a lot of the sources of advice have been shut down or shrunk back. Round here, for example, the Citizens' Advice Bureau is so overstretched that people wait weeks, even months, for advice on benefit cases. In other words, what they've done is to set up a completely dysfunctional system for assessing the needs of the sick and vulnerable, and then made it as difficult as possible to challenge the nonsensical decisions that ensue. Welcome to Cameron's Britain!
 
cheers, I'm not going to let it stress me, cos thats not helping with existing shit etc.

I've been following these bastards for years (alongside other private companies infesting pub sec) So I'm well briefed on how shit they are
 
iamwithnail said:
Tbf, most of it was put in place under Labour, just more proof you can't slide a credit-card filled with debt between the main parties.
Click to expand...

This is true, but the Coalition has expanded the system massively, especially in terms of introducing reassessments. Just another example of a government taking up one of its predecessor's worst ideas and turning it into a major policy.
 
That's not quite true, particularly about the reassessments. This was all timetabled from the Welfare Reform Act 2007 (which the conservatives mostly voted for) - new flow first, then all of the existing IB cases would be migrated to ESA over time. The reassessments plan (I"m assuming you mean the reassessment of IB to ESA here, as ESA always had periodic reassessment built in) has been around for a long time, since before the legislation was passed. DWP's change requests to systems take ~3 years to go through in most cases, so there's an incredible lag. Here's a *review* of the Major Projects Authority review, which took place in Aug 2007, the MPA review was the previous year. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmworpen/1203i/1203we02.htm
 
iamwithnail said:
That's not quite true, particularly about the reassessments. This was all timetabled from the Welfare Reform Act 2007 (which the conservatives mostly voted for) - new flow first, then all of the existing IB cases would be migrated to ESA over time. The reassessments plan (I"m assuming you mean the reassessment of IB to ESA here, as ESA always had periodic reassessment built in) has been around for a long time, since before the legislation was passed. DWP's change requests to systems take ~3 years to go through in most cases, so there's an incredible lag. Here's a *review* of the Major Projects Authority review, which took place in Aug 2007, the MPA review was the previous year. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmworpen/1203i/1203we02.htm
Click to expand...

Oh aye, Labour were cunts about it too, and a lot of this comes from the previous government. That doesn't let the current bunch of scumbags off the hook, though, especially since it's under them that the appeals system has become so much worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
PIP, mental health and phone assessments
Replies
21
Views
997
Eric Jarvis
Eric Jarvis
bellaozzydog
Buying a freehold when you are a leaseholder
Replies
24
Views
665
metalguru
M
A
Do you have any 'house rules'? If so, what are they?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
215
Views
10K
BigMoaner
BigMoaner
Buddy Bradley
How worried are you about rising sea levels?
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
beesonthewhatnow
beesonthewhatnow
R
Have your say: you and your council
Replies
11
Views
702
Sue
S
Back
Top Bottom