I got an email from the family whose daughter was being held hostage at Rogers: Their daughter came home last night. Against medical advice, but she's home.
Sounds like Rogers was still trying to bring the county in, right up to the last minute, but the family had done their homework and was able to challenge Rogers' assertions.
Now, of course, comes the truly hard part: re-feeding a 13-year-old with anorexia. But this is a wonderful example of how families that are empowered can accomplish near miracles--especially when they're motivated by love of their children.
To the family: You are awesome. As hard as re-feeding is, I found it infinitely preferable to be doing it myself, at home, rather than be far away, feeling helpless about whether my daughter lived or died. We're all rooting for you.
Showing posts with label Rogers Memorial Hospital. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rogers Memorial Hospital. Show all posts
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Why I don't recommend Rogers Memorial Hospital: Part II
Last year I wrote about the cognitive dissonance between the marketing materials produced by Rogers Memorial Hospital, in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, and its actual therapeutic programs and practices.
That post produced a letter from Rogers' CEO himself, complaining about my "airing my grievances in a public forum" rather than talking directly to him about them.
Dude, that's what blogging's all about. Besides, I can imagine how open he would have been to my criticisms. Yeah, right.
This time around, I'm not just writing about presentation. I'm writing about practice, therapeutic practice as it's being executed at Rogers. And it stinks.
It seems that Rogers has changed its practices around the use of feeding tubes for anorexic patients. In the past, feeding tubes were considered something of a measure of last resort, sometimes necessary to save a life but something to be avoided when possible.
Not anymore. And not only that: feeding tubes are being used to keep patients at Rogers when parents want to bring them home.
Case in point: A family whom I'll call the Smiths, whose young adolescent daughter was admitted to Rogers a few weeks ago. The family was told the girl must have a tube, and although they weren't in favor, the tube was administered. Fast forward 10 days or so. Rogers is telling the family the girl has made "little progress" and urgently needs admitting to its 30-day residential program. Family can get no information on why so little progress has been made, even with the tube. Family has been researching, and has decided they want to use family-based treatment, the Maudsley approach, to help their daughter. Family tells Rogers of their intentions and asks when daughter may be safely transported home.
Next thing family knows, their local county department of child protection services is threatening to remove their daughter from their custody if they take her home. Rogers continues to insist that daughter cannot be moved so long as she's on the tube. Family says most girls with their daughter are also on feeding tubes, which constitutes a large shift in treatment protocols at Rogers.
The girl is eating. She's terrified. She wants to go home. Her family wants to bring her home for FBT. Rogers, which claims that it incorporates some FBT in its therapeutic protocols, is playing dumb and insisting that FBT would constitute child abuse and that the girl cannot safely be sent home.
The therapists at Rogers are (or should be) familiar with the studies on FBT, which show that it is very successful for adolescents under 18 who have been sick for less than three years. (It's been successful for others, too, but there are no studies yet on those populations.)
Their actions in this case and others are deeply disingenuous. Feeding tubes are a necessary evil at times. But families should be the first line of treatment and support for adolescents--especially when the family is committed to the task of helping their child recover.
Shame on Rogers.
That post produced a letter from Rogers' CEO himself, complaining about my "airing my grievances in a public forum" rather than talking directly to him about them.
Dude, that's what blogging's all about. Besides, I can imagine how open he would have been to my criticisms. Yeah, right.
This time around, I'm not just writing about presentation. I'm writing about practice, therapeutic practice as it's being executed at Rogers. And it stinks.
It seems that Rogers has changed its practices around the use of feeding tubes for anorexic patients. In the past, feeding tubes were considered something of a measure of last resort, sometimes necessary to save a life but something to be avoided when possible.
Not anymore. And not only that: feeding tubes are being used to keep patients at Rogers when parents want to bring them home.
Case in point: A family whom I'll call the Smiths, whose young adolescent daughter was admitted to Rogers a few weeks ago. The family was told the girl must have a tube, and although they weren't in favor, the tube was administered. Fast forward 10 days or so. Rogers is telling the family the girl has made "little progress" and urgently needs admitting to its 30-day residential program. Family can get no information on why so little progress has been made, even with the tube. Family has been researching, and has decided they want to use family-based treatment, the Maudsley approach, to help their daughter. Family tells Rogers of their intentions and asks when daughter may be safely transported home.
Next thing family knows, their local county department of child protection services is threatening to remove their daughter from their custody if they take her home. Rogers continues to insist that daughter cannot be moved so long as she's on the tube. Family says most girls with their daughter are also on feeding tubes, which constitutes a large shift in treatment protocols at Rogers.
The girl is eating. She's terrified. She wants to go home. Her family wants to bring her home for FBT. Rogers, which claims that it incorporates some FBT in its therapeutic protocols, is playing dumb and insisting that FBT would constitute child abuse and that the girl cannot safely be sent home.
The therapists at Rogers are (or should be) familiar with the studies on FBT, which show that it is very successful for adolescents under 18 who have been sick for less than three years. (It's been successful for others, too, but there are no studies yet on those populations.)
Their actions in this case and others are deeply disingenuous. Feeding tubes are a necessary evil at times. But families should be the first line of treatment and support for adolescents--especially when the family is committed to the task of helping their child recover.
Shame on Rogers.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Hitting a nerve
Back in October I posted about some of the marketing brochures I collected at the NEDA conference. I singled out one from Rogers Memorial Hospital, partly because it was so egregious and partly because Rogers is the closest residential treatment center to my town, and it's the place my daughter likely would have gone had we chosen in-patient treatment for her.
I've been meaning to post the follow-up to that thread, which was that I got a letter from the COO of Rogers Memorial himself. Here for your edification are some quotes from the letter, along with my commentary.
Quote: Your comments and suggestions for improving our brochure have already been received by our marketing department and will weigh in our minds when we revise our eating disorder materials in the future.
Commentary: The point wasn't a critique of the brochure; I was discussing the program. Big difference. Revising the marketing materials isn't going to change your outcomes for the real live people who go to Rogers. Point well and truly missed.
Quote: We would appreciate the consideration of sending us such criticism directly, rather than taking your complaints immediately and directly to a public forum like your website.
Commentary: I'm sure you would. And I'm sure, had I called you with my "complaints," you would have taken them very seriously indeed.
Quote: Advocates for mental health must work together to achieve greater awareness and to break down the stigma that our society attaches to mental health disorders.
Commentary: I'm with you on that one . . . though I think my notion of advocacy is probably not the same as yours. To me, advocacy means empowering patients and their families with accurate and true information, true choices, and effective treatments.
Quote: Schedule a visit to our campus and really get to know our medical staff and administrators who have trained and practice Maudsley approaches and techniques when they are applicable.
Commentary: It's those last four little words that give it away: when they are applicable. Family-based treatment is the standard of care for adolescents. It should be the norm rather than the exception.
I know there are caring staff at Rogers Memorial. I challenge them to take a hard look at their treatment protocols for teens and evaluate them in the light of evidence-based research--then come up with a new vision. You have the potential to do a lot of good. I'd love to see you doing it.
I've been meaning to post the follow-up to that thread, which was that I got a letter from the COO of Rogers Memorial himself. Here for your edification are some quotes from the letter, along with my commentary.
Quote: Your comments and suggestions for improving our brochure have already been received by our marketing department and will weigh in our minds when we revise our eating disorder materials in the future.
Commentary: The point wasn't a critique of the brochure; I was discussing the program. Big difference. Revising the marketing materials isn't going to change your outcomes for the real live people who go to Rogers. Point well and truly missed.
Quote: We would appreciate the consideration of sending us such criticism directly, rather than taking your complaints immediately and directly to a public forum like your website.
Commentary: I'm sure you would. And I'm sure, had I called you with my "complaints," you would have taken them very seriously indeed.
Quote: Advocates for mental health must work together to achieve greater awareness and to break down the stigma that our society attaches to mental health disorders.
Commentary: I'm with you on that one . . . though I think my notion of advocacy is probably not the same as yours. To me, advocacy means empowering patients and their families with accurate and true information, true choices, and effective treatments.
Quote: Schedule a visit to our campus and really get to know our medical staff and administrators who have trained and practice Maudsley approaches and techniques when they are applicable.
Commentary: It's those last four little words that give it away: when they are applicable. Family-based treatment is the standard of care for adolescents. It should be the norm rather than the exception.
I know there are caring staff at Rogers Memorial. I challenge them to take a hard look at their treatment protocols for teens and evaluate them in the light of evidence-based research--then come up with a new vision. You have the potential to do a lot of good. I'd love to see you doing it.
Friday, October 05, 2007
If only they knew . . .
Over the last two days I've collected quite a bit of material from the many residential treatment centers that are exhibiting here at NEDA. I'm going to be writing about a few of them, starting with the brochure from Rogers Memorial Hospital in Oconomowoc.
If only the people who'd put this slick piece of marketing together knew how parents really reacted to it--or should. I already have an opinion about the programs at Rogers, but if I didn't, this would certainly sway me.
For starters, the image on the cover is of a girl. A young woman, really, maybe 14 or 15 years old. She's smiling, she's very pretty--and she's excruciatingly thin. It's hard to tell just how thin because she's wearing a hoodie over a shirt. But she's a lot thinner than I'd want any child of mine to be. Is she supposed to be recovered? In recovery? Newly arrived at Rogers? If this is a picture of the Rogers recovery, I'd run in the opposite direction. Fast.
Then there are the words that go with this image: "At Rogers Memorial, we utilize proven, evidence-based treatment components that give individuals with an eating disorder the best chance at recovery."
So far, so good. But there's more: "Our philosophy encourages self-empowerment, so that the individual's recoveryt is a result of his or her own success."
Uh-oh. If I'm a new parent I might think this sounds good. But everyone else will read this and know what it refers to: the tired, disproven notion that the individual must "choose" recovery.
Next come some quotes, presumably from Rogers patients, though they're not identified. Top of the list: "The treatment and therapies helped me realize it was my choice to get better." I say stop reading right there and throw the darn thing away. But if you insist on continuing, you'll find this one: "The art therapy was extremely helpful and provided another way for me to explore my eating disorder."
Explore your eating disorder? Honey, I don't want you to explore your eating disorder. I want you to RECOVER from it. Big difference. In fact we may be talking an oxymoron here.
Seen enough? No? Then turn the page for more on the Rogers approach: "Our treatment approach encourages self-empowerment. From admission to discharge and aftercare planning, individuals are involved in every step of the treatment process."
As the parent of a child who's recovered from an e.d., I can't think of anything worse than to have my child involved at every step of the way. As those of us who have been through this know, a child is INCAPABLE of "choosing" recovery, and when she's very very ill, such insistence will a) prolong the course of the disease, b) make treatment ineffective, c) exacerbate the child's already sky-high anxiety, and d) make veryone involved feel guilty as hell for not being able to "choose" recovery.
And here's the thing that gets me: This brochure is supposed to be marketing the program, making it sound irresistible to parents.
I'd say the Rogers folks haven't got a clue about what at least some parents want. And judging from this brochure, I'd say my confidence in their ability to help my child recover is pretty minimal.
That's it for tonight. I'll pick apart some more tomorrow.
If only the people who'd put this slick piece of marketing together knew how parents really reacted to it--or should. I already have an opinion about the programs at Rogers, but if I didn't, this would certainly sway me.
For starters, the image on the cover is of a girl. A young woman, really, maybe 14 or 15 years old. She's smiling, she's very pretty--and she's excruciatingly thin. It's hard to tell just how thin because she's wearing a hoodie over a shirt. But she's a lot thinner than I'd want any child of mine to be. Is she supposed to be recovered? In recovery? Newly arrived at Rogers? If this is a picture of the Rogers recovery, I'd run in the opposite direction. Fast.
Then there are the words that go with this image: "At Rogers Memorial, we utilize proven, evidence-based treatment components that give individuals with an eating disorder the best chance at recovery."
So far, so good. But there's more: "Our philosophy encourages self-empowerment, so that the individual's recoveryt is a result of his or her own success."
Uh-oh. If I'm a new parent I might think this sounds good. But everyone else will read this and know what it refers to: the tired, disproven notion that the individual must "choose" recovery.
Next come some quotes, presumably from Rogers patients, though they're not identified. Top of the list: "The treatment and therapies helped me realize it was my choice to get better." I say stop reading right there and throw the darn thing away. But if you insist on continuing, you'll find this one: "The art therapy was extremely helpful and provided another way for me to explore my eating disorder."
Explore your eating disorder? Honey, I don't want you to explore your eating disorder. I want you to RECOVER from it. Big difference. In fact we may be talking an oxymoron here.
Seen enough? No? Then turn the page for more on the Rogers approach: "Our treatment approach encourages self-empowerment. From admission to discharge and aftercare planning, individuals are involved in every step of the treatment process."
As the parent of a child who's recovered from an e.d., I can't think of anything worse than to have my child involved at every step of the way. As those of us who have been through this know, a child is INCAPABLE of "choosing" recovery, and when she's very very ill, such insistence will a) prolong the course of the disease, b) make treatment ineffective, c) exacerbate the child's already sky-high anxiety, and d) make veryone involved feel guilty as hell for not being able to "choose" recovery.
And here's the thing that gets me: This brochure is supposed to be marketing the program, making it sound irresistible to parents.
I'd say the Rogers folks haven't got a clue about what at least some parents want. And judging from this brochure, I'd say my confidence in their ability to help my child recover is pretty minimal.
That's it for tonight. I'll pick apart some more tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)