Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Letters
Response to ‘Full, shared and hybrid paediatric care for cystic fibrosis (CF) in South and Mid Wales’
  1. Ian Bowler1,
  2. Marcus Pierrepoint1,
  3. Rachel Evans2
  1. 1Department of Child Health, Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, UK
  2. 2Department of Child Health, Singleton Hospital, Swansea, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ian Bowler, Department of Child Health, Royal Gwent Hospital, Cardiff Road, Newport, NP20 2UB, UK; ian.bowler{at}wales.nhs.uk

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

This title1 might suggest primary research but in practice this is a ‘snapshot audit’ of 1 year of data from a wide cross-section of patients receiving three models of care, and although the word does not appear, we have been informed that this study is declared to be an audit.

We are consultants from two of the largest cystic fibrosis (CF) clinics in Wales. We were provided with a draft of the paper but declined to be listed as contributors after pointing out its flaws, as have been highlighted by others.2 Since we do not agree with its conclusions, we had requested of the Archives of Disease in Childhood that any reference to a ‘South Wales CF Network’ should not appear.

The description of the models of care is disingenuous: the authors allude to ‘specialist team care’ provided at the centre with the implication that patients attending a shared care clinic never saw a dietician, physiotherapist, specialist nurse or a doctor with training in CF. But this is not the case: our clinics have experienced, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) led by consultants with specific training in CF, although we acknowledge that this may not be …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.