Categories
Compliance

Obligation to recognise ME/CFS patient housebound or carer status

These compliance documents are live pre-released drafts that are specifically not structured for scientific audiences. Specific scientific referencing can be provided in consulting contexts, not limited to practice management, claims management, underwriting or litigation for professionals or organisations.

Copyright and redistribution rights are governed by our terms of site usage. Communication of factual or typographical errata or other suggestions is welcome. This content was originally contained here (external link), has been split into separate compliance sections on our website and is in need of significant ongoing update.

A journalistic summary of these documents for lay audiences will soon be published.


House bound status

Not accounting for the housebound or bed bound status of a patient when determining treatment or eligibility of a patient can add to or substantiate claims of liability, for resultant harm and financial loss, and/or for discrimination claims.

It is extremely common that practitioners / their practices fall foul of these obligations, generating unnecessary mutual consequences. Examples of common of obligations can include refusal of home vaccination and disallowing access to cervical smear tests. Evidence is of primary care services allowing decades to pass without tests, due to disregard for housebound status (determined by discrimination and/or lack of education, which leads to a legally demonstrable knowledge gap.

Carer status

Not accounting for the de facto role of a carer when determining care, treatment or eligibility of a patient or their carer can add to or substantiate claims of liability (versus consequences from eligibility of carers in vaccinations schemes, for example). The structure of state in the UK and other jurisdictions often means that carers are not officially identified in social security or social care terms. It must be noted that this insufficient poverty does not imply independence or a lack of carer in medically relevant terms.

Critically, any liability would not be versus the carer themselves (i.e. not associative discrimination or other such liability to the carer). Liability would be versus the patient, due to any consequences to the patient from ignoring the role of the patient’s carer on non-clinical and economic grounds (based on the medical irrelevance of benefits/social services’ economic thresholds).