"I read this book recently [below].
I am approaching fifty. With age-related sight changes I find that my arms need to be longer!. So if I have misread “and a bit” please do forgive me:
This book reminded my of a protocol issued by an NHS Board that I once worked for:
As a doctor who tries his best to follow evidence-based medicine, I argued against this dictate. I found that, neither my NHS Board nor indeed that NHS Scotland shared my concerns:
With the recent publication of the Care Standards for Older People, the Chair of Healthcare Improvement Scotland confirmed:
It would appear to me that this “screening instrument” has been re-labelled.
The 4AT has been developed and promoted as:
Recently the 4AT has recently been re-labelled as:
The authors 4AT describe its key features:
(1) “brevity” (takes less than 2 minutes”), and
(2) that “no special training is required”
I should confirm that I use rating scales with patients as part of my daily professional life.
However I would never start out with a rating scale. To me, that would seem most disrespectful.
Rating scales (‘tools’ or ‘instruments’ as so recently re-termed) can add to wider medical understanding. This is why, despite my awareness of any intrinsic shortcomings, that I continue to feel that they can be helpful.
The 4AT, an “assessment test”, is based on “brevity” and the requirement for “no special training”.
The 4AT test, however labelled: can it continue to ignore Wilson Jungner?"
“OPAC tools are working” on Hole Ousia