Your story "Academic with link to sex abusers silent on role in drafting ACC rules" (News, August 29) was misleading in some important respects. The article suggests that Dr Felicity Goodyear-Smith was involved with the development of the ACC clinical pathway for sexual abuse claims. She was not. Goodyear-Smith had no role in the development of the pathway. The report she and two other researchers produced five years ago was an inconclusive study which compared treatment rates provided to ACC sexual abuse clients by psychologists, psychiatrists and counsellors. So it was not relevant to the development of the pathway.Copyright Fairfax New Zealand Ltd 2010
Yes, one of their recommendations was that there should be diagnosis before treatment, using an assessment tool called DSM-IV. Yes, that is what we've been doing. But we didn't do so because it was in their report. Far from it. We did it because it was internationally seen as best practice, because the courts in NZ had endorsed DSM-IV as an appropriate method and because no suitable alternative options have been put forward. Goodyear-Smith had no part in any of that.
The article also failed to mention the work that ACC is currently doing with the Sensitive Claims Advisory Group and others to ensure that, moving forward, we continue to provide the most appropriate services for our clients.
Denise Cosgrove
General manager, claims management ACC
http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/sunday-star-times-wellington-new-zealand/mi_8185/is_20100912/sexual-abuse/ai_n55232011/
Well I feel reassured, don't you?
ReplyDeleteSo let me get this straight, we've gone from:
1. FGS was in no way associated with ACC SCU and the Clinical Pathway is based on the Massey Guidelines; to,
2. oh yeah, we commissioned FGS a couple of times, no biggie, it was all handled really well considering we knew her conflict of interest and everything; to,
3. oh yeah, umm may be the DSM stuff wasn't in the Massey Guidelines, but it sure is internationally recognised as best practice.
Nothing about the "eight eminent psychiatrists caution[ing] ACC against introducing a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) diagnosis of mental injury as the threshold for victims of sex crimes to access support. "They said, 'Be very careful, this is not what it's used for, this is not what it's all about'," Rankin told the Sunday Star-Times. "They said: 'It doesn't indicate severity, it only indicates the presence of a condition and it doesn't in any way tell you what treatment is needed."'" (Sex-abuse cuts 'all about costs').
Oh yeah, I'm well assured that Denise is being up-front with us and telling us like it is... on ya Denise! Just to stop that niggling doubt, want to tell us which countries and studies indicate that this is best practice?
Take care,
CG
(now packing my sarcasm up and taking it on holiday)