Argus (aka CTCT) 2016 Medical Questionnaire

[TIB]

now its not that I wonder why the wind blew on the moon

or that Mountain bikers can't breathe unless they have 800mm bars

and that tri-athletes can hold their breath for 180 km on a bike.....

 

but in ten years time your medical aid refuses to pay for a heart operation

because you have admitted you suffer from cramps

and the heart is a muscle and you should have known better....

 

I will not humor the lads threatening me with disqualification

[joevan]

The waiver and indemnity section on the original entries covers this, since Mediclinic is listed!

Still looks like a student survey for a thesis. Did not even have to give this much information to the bank when taking out a mortgage bond!!!!!!!!

 

Waiver and Indemnity

You expressly agree that we may collect, use and share your personal information on the basis and with the people as described below.

When you create a profile and enter an event, we ask for information. This includes demographic information and information about your health. Your health information includes information about your medical aid and previous medical conditions.

You, or the person who has entered you, are only source where we get your information from. The information shall be used for the purpose of communicating with you about other events we are involved in and to send you promotional material from the sponsors of the event you participate in.

You agree that we may share your personal information with the Pedal Power Association, the event organisers of events you enter and further necessary parties in order to run the event. We may give your medical information to any emergency or health professional attending to you on event day for purposes of giving you medical treatment and care. We will not give your information to anyone else unless you have expressly consented thereto.

[TALUS]

Until they state how they got ethical approval for collection of data for what is clearly a research project they are risking a complaint to the Medical Council against the race Medical Director. I will not fill this in. I will sign a medical acceptance of risk /consent form.

Oh wait - we already did....

[joevan]

Until they state how they got ethical approval for collection of data for what is clearly a research project they are risking a complaint to the Medical Council against the race Medical Director. I will not fill this in. I will sign a medical acceptance of risk /consent form.

Oh wait - we already did....

As far as I am concerned, the indemnity I signed agrees that they can share the data I provided on registration, nowhere did I agree to provide unlimited further data after they have already been paid!

To now threaten to cancel my entry after payment is bull!

I agree this looks like a research project. If I refuse to complete it will they refund my entry fee? That is the question.

Also started the questionnaire this afternoon but stopped because of all the ridiculous "follow-up" questions.

[Dragu]

They are updating the website now - let's see what happens

[Pulse]

As everyone is so negative about this, I'll give some background (before I get flamed, I am not saying that I support or do not support this).

 

This has been running as a voluntary process for a couple of years now. The info is being gathered by and for the medical director (mainly), and for research purposes. Research linked to someone that was at UCT SSISA, ans has now moved to UP.

Ethical clearence from the MRC.

They use this info, with race day medical incident reports to develop prediction models for future events.

E.g. 1/108 participants will end op in the medical facilities with significant complications. Female tend to crash, with ~ 1/70 needing medical attention.

Current standards for preparticipation medicals leaves much to be desired. It currently only predics a very small percentage of deaths or severe complications. Part of the study looks at finding better correlations, to develop a more detailed prediction model to aid in better screening.

It is linked to medical screening facilities at the expo etc.

Because of the decrease in serious medical complications and deaths that they have achieved on the volintary samples over the last couple of years, it was deemed desirable to make it compulsory.

They typically risk stratify based on the questionnaire, and then contact you directly to suggest a full medical etc (not compulsory).

The exact same procedure has also been implemented for the 2oceans.

This used to run through a secure site linked to UCT before, but with the prinary investigator moving, I guess they are having some hosting issues.

 

I will try and post more info from a computer later, as I suck at typing on my phone.

 

The project has made significant improvements in screening, the way the events are managed, back up services, understanding of complications, minor ailments linkes to sport etc.

 

Again, don't kill the messanger here, I'm simply giving some info

[Boerklong]

& the question which really ticks me off the most is the cramp question...

 

Clearly whoever formulated those so call questionnaires are not that clued-up on cycling at all...

 

Ive cramped once. So I answered yes. When I saw what followed I just went back and answered no.

[Bianchisti]

one question asks, "Do you experience cramps on the bike?", simple "yes/no" so yes I do cramp, mark it, up pops another 20 sub-questions! So no, I dont cramp on the bike anymore...

hahaa

 

Same here. never ever experienced cramps.

[Capricorn]

As everyone is so negative about this, I'll give some background (before I get flamed, I am not saying that I support or do not support this).

 

This has been running as a voluntary process for a couple of years now. The info is being gathered by and for the medical director (mainly), and for research purposes. Research linked to someone that was at UCT SSISA, ans has now moved to UP.

Ethical clearence from the MRC.

They use this info, with race day medical incident reports to develop prediction models for future events.

E.g. 1/108 participants will end op in the medical facilities with significant complications. Female tend to crash, with ~ 1/70 needing medical attention.

Current standards for preparticipation medicals leaves much to be desired. It currently only predics a very small percentage of deaths or severe complications. Part of the study looks at finding better correlations, to develop a more detailed prediction model to aid in better screening.

It is linked to medical screening facilities at the expo etc.

Because of the decrease in serious medical complications and deaths that they have achieved on the volintary samples over the last couple of years, it was deemed desirable to make it compulsory.

They typically risk stratify based on the questionnaire, and then contact you directly to suggest a full medical etc (not compulsory).

The exact same procedure has also been implemented for the 2oceans.

This used to run through a secure site linked to UCT before, but with the prinary investigator moving, I guess they are having some hosting issues.

 

I will try and post more info from a computer later, as I suck at typing on my phone.

 

The project has made significant improvements in screening, the way the events are managed, back up services, understanding of complications, minor ailments linkes to sport etc.

 

Again, don't kill the messanger here, I'm simply giving some info

 

so who here on bikehub has ever been contacted for a full medical, or banned from the race because of this 'risk profile' the questionaire is supposed to generate?

 

Do other similar events also have this risk profiling of their entrants? If it's so medically effective, will they too be required to follow this sort of information gathering?

ANd if it was so darn important, why was it not done upfront? Why are these questions then not part of the entrant's standard medical profile? This seems more like an afterthought.

 

The questionaire clearly states that the entrant acknowledges that the info gathered may not provide benefit to him or her. This is ambiguous, and smacks of information gathering of convenience for purposes other than the event itself, which then brings its mandatory requirement into question. If this was voluntary, i think many would do it just to satisfy the need to be of some value. To make it mandatory after entry into the event has been awarded,smacks of something unrelated to cycling, despite Pulse's attempt at explanation.

[walkerr]

As everyone is so negative about this, I'll give some background (before I get flamed, I am not saying that I support or do not support this).

 

This has been running as a voluntary process for a couple of years now. The info is being gathered by and for the medical director (mainly), and for research purposes. Research linked to someone that was at UCT SSISA, ans has now moved to UP.

Ethical clearence from the MRC.

They use this info, with race day medical incident reports to develop prediction models for future events.

E.g. 1/108 participants will end op in the medical facilities with significant complications. Female tend to crash, with ~ 1/70 needing medical attention.

Current standards for preparticipation medicals leaves much to be desired. It currently only predics a very small percentage of deaths or severe complications. Part of the study looks at finding better correlations, to develop a more detailed prediction model to aid in better screening.

It is linked to medical screening facilities at the expo etc.

Because of the decrease in serious medical complications and deaths that they have achieved on the volintary samples over the last couple of years, it was deemed desirable to make it compulsory.

They typically risk stratify based on the questionnaire, and then contact you directly to suggest a full medical etc (not compulsory).

The exact same procedure has also been implemented for the 2oceans.

This used to run through a secure site linked to UCT before, but with the prinary investigator moving, I guess they are having some hosting issues.

 

I will try and post more info from a computer later, as I suck at typing on my phone.

 

The project has made significant improvements in screening, the way the events are managed, back up services, understanding of complications, minor ailments linkes to sport etc.

 

Again, don't kill the messanger here, I'm simply giving some info

 

Not flaming you - you present a balanced view here.

 

My issue with the process is the compulsory nature. If I go for health, life, medical insurance etc I'd expect some level of compulsory screening. But for a sports event, where a waiver is signed, IMO it should stay voluntary. Those who wish to be screened can be, and many will I'm sure. But for those who choose to keep such details private between themselves and their own medical advisors it should not.

 

The 36One for example this year asked a bare minimum of questions, and got my GP to sign a form saying in his view I was fit to take part, That's a much more extreme event than Argus (albeit with many fewer riders). Anyone taking part knows and accepts there is risk.

 

Like I say, not flaming your response - if there's value in the Mediclinic study, great. But keep it voluntary so we can choose whether or not to be part of it.

[DJR]

...............My issue with the process is the compulsory nature. ................

Purely from a research point of view it is desirable that everybody participate. Otherwise those with no or few health issues are more likely to fill in the questionnaire and those with serious health issues not (or the other way around), giving a skewed result. Imagine the medics doing their preparations according to a flawed study! Not good.

 

Personally, I think a study of actual medical issues that happened during the race over the past decade or so, will be a much better base for a study. The information will be much more accurate to start with.

[Pulse]

Walkerr - I absolutely agree with you. Biggest difference I guess is the type of participant you get.

Serious medical issues are higher in these events than something like Comrades. The idea is to see which pre-existing conditions/questions best correlate with complications during the event.

 

DJR - As part of the same work they track actual medical complications during/post event.

[Shebeen]

If you want people to fill in your questionnaire, don't make it compulsory but give away free stuff.

 

Everyone knows that. As well as designing it like a three year old will get the participants to act accordingly.

[Pulse]

Capricorn - As far as I understand you would not be prevented from participating if you have increased risk, but you will be advised to get full medical clearance.

 

They have been able to decrease sudden cardiac deaths, but for other serious complications they still need lots more work.

 

Definately not an afterthough, have been running at various events on a voluntary basis, but will become compulsory in more events.

 

As much as 70% of participants in the 2Oceans with recent flu and systemic symptoms still optes to take part, in spite being advised not to... This study then also tracks those you see what happens to them.

 

If your questionnaire places you at risk, you will be contacted for further investigations.

[DJR]

..................As much as 70% of participants in the 2Oceans with recent flu and systemic symptoms still optes to take part, in spite being advised not to... ............

Scary that

[shaper]

Pulse

 

Just a question, as part of registration, you have to confirm and update your medical details as well as confirm your medical aid if applicable.  All the info is there as part of registration... so why not just take that info rather than force people to do something which they consider over and above person intrusion... especially with regard to the way they have worded and requested this information.  i.e compulsory else you may not be allowed to cycle.