User login
The fourth trimester: Achieving improved postpartum care
The field of ob.gyn. has long focused significantly more attention on the prenatal period – on determining the optimal frequency of ultrasound examinations, for instance, and on screening for diabetes and other conditions – than on women’s health and well-being after delivery.
The traditional 6-week postpartum visit has too often been a quick and cursory visit, with new mothers typically navigating the preceding postpartum transitions on their own.
The need to redefine postpartum care was a central message of Haywood Brown, MD, who in 2017 served as the president of the America College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dr. Brown established a task force whose work resulted in important guidance for taking a more comprehensive and patient-centered approach to postpartum care.1
Improved care in the “fourth trimester,” as it has come to be known, is comprehensive and includes ensuring that our patients have a solid transition to health care beyond the pregnancy. We also hope that it will help us to reduce maternal mortality, given that more than half of pregnancy-related deaths occur after delivery.
Timing and frequency of contact
Historically, we’ve had a single 6-week postpartum visit, with little or no maternal support or patient contact before this visit unless the patient reported a complication. In the new paradigm, as described in the ACOG committee opinion on optimizing postpartum care, maternal care should be an ongoing process.1
so that any questions or concerns may be addressed and support can be provided.
This should be followed by individualized, ongoing care until a comprehensive postpartum visit covering physical, social, and psychological well-being is conducted by 12 weeks after birth – anytime between 4 and 12 weeks.
By stressing the importance of postpartum care during prenatal visits – and by talking about some of its key elements such as mental health, breastfeeding, and chronic disease management – we can let our patients know that postpartum care is not just an afterthought, but that it involves planning backed by evidence and expert opinion. Currently, as many as 40% of women do not attend a postpartum visit; early discussion, it is hoped, will increase attendance.
Certain high-risk groups should be seen or screened earlier than 3 weeks post partum. For instance, women who have hypertensive disorders of pregnancy should be evaluated no later than 7-10 days post partum, and women with severe hypertension should be seen within 72 hours, according to ACOG.
Early blood pressure checks – and follow-up as necessary – are critical for reducing the risk of postpartum stroke and other complications. I advocate uniformly checking blood pressure within several days after hospital discharge for all women who have hypertension at the end of their pregnancy.
Other high-risk conditions requiring early follow-up include diabetes and autoimmune conditions such as lupus, multiple sclerosis, and psoriasis that may flare in the postpartum period. Women with a history of postpartum depression similarly may benefit from early contact; they are at higher risk of having depression again, and there are clearly effective treatments, both medication and psychotherapy based.
In between the initial early contact (by 7-10 days post partum or by 3 weeks post partum) and the comprehensive visit between 4 and 12 weeks, the need for and timing of patient contact can be individualized. Some women will need only a brief contact and a visit at 8-10 weeks, while others will need much more. Our goal, as in all of medicine, is to provide individualized, patient-centered care.
Methods of contact
With the exception of the final comprehensive visit, postpartum care need not occur in person. Some conditions require an early office visit, but in general, as ACOG states, the usefulness of an in-person visit should be weighed against the burden of traveling to and attending that visit.
For many women, in-person visits are difficult, and we must be creative in utilizing telemedicine and phone support, text messaging, and app-based support. Having practiced during this pandemic, we are better positioned than ever before to make it relatively easy for new mothers to obtain ongoing postpartum care.
Notably, research is demonstrating that the use of technology may allow us to provide improved care and monitoring of hypertension in the postpartum period. For example, a randomized trial published in 2018 of over 200 women with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy found that text-based surveillance with home blood pressure monitoring was more effective than usual in-person blood pressure checks in meeting clinical guidelines for postpartum monitoring.2
Women in the texting group were significantly more likely to have a single blood pressure obtained in the first 10 days post partum than women in the office group.
Postpartum care is also not a completely physician-driven endeavor. Much of what is needed to help women successfully navigate the fourth trimester can be provided by certified nurse midwives, advanced practice nurses, and other members of our maternal care teams.
Components of postpartum care
The postpartum care plan should be comprehensive, and having a checklist to guide one through initial and comprehensive visits may be helpful. The ACOG committee opinion categorizes the components of postpartum care into seven domains: mood and emotional well-being; infant care and feeding; sexuality, contraception, and birth spacing; sleep and fatigue; physical recovery from birth; chronic disease management; and health maintenance.1
The importance of screening for depression and anxiety cannot be emphasized enough. Perinatal depression is highly prevalent: It affects as many as one in seven women and can result in adverse short- and long-term effects on both the mother and child.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has offered guidance for years, most recently in 2019 with its recommendations that clinicians refer pregnant and postpartum women who are at increased risk for depression to counseling interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy and interpersonal therapy.3 There is evidence that some form of treatment for women who screen positive reduces the risk of perinatal depression.
Additionally, there is emerging evidence that postpartum PTSD may be as prevalent as postpartum depression.4 As ACOG points out, trauma is “in the eye of the beholder,” and an estimated 3%-16% of women have PTSD related to a traumatic birth experience. Complications like shoulder dystocia or postpartum hemorrhage, in which delivery processes rapidly change course, can be experienced as traumatic by women even though they and their infants are healthy. The risk of posttraumatic stress should be on our radar screen.
Interpregnancy intervals similarly are not discussed enough. We do not commonly talk to patients about how pregnancy and breastfeeding are nutritionally depleting and how it takes time to replenish these stores – yet birth spacing is so important.
Compared with interpregnancy intervals of at least 18 months, intervals shorter than 6 months were associated in a meta-analysis with increased risks of preterm birth, low birth weight, and small for gestational age.5 Optimal birth spacing is one of the few low-cost interventions available for reducing pregnancy complications in the future.
Finally, that chronic disease management is a domain of postpartum care warrants emphasis. We must work to ensure that patients have a solid plan of care in place for their diabetes, hypertension, lupus, or other chronic conditions. This includes who will provide that ongoing care, as well as when medical management should be restarted.
Some women are aware of the importance of timely care – of not waiting for 12 months, for instance, to see an internist or specialist – but others are not.
Again, certain health conditions such as multiple sclerosis and RA necessitate follow-up within a couple weeks after delivery so that medications can be restarted or dose adjustments made. The need for early postpartum follow-up can be discussed during prenatal visits, along with anticipatory guidance about breastfeeding, the signs and symptoms of perinatal depression and anxiety, and other components of the fourth trimester.
Dr. Macones has no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;131(5):e140-50.
2. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Apr 27;27(11):871-7.
3. JAMA. 2019 Feb 12;321(6):580-7.
4. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014 Jul;34:389-401.JAMA. 2006 Apr 19;295(15):1809-23.
The field of ob.gyn. has long focused significantly more attention on the prenatal period – on determining the optimal frequency of ultrasound examinations, for instance, and on screening for diabetes and other conditions – than on women’s health and well-being after delivery.
The traditional 6-week postpartum visit has too often been a quick and cursory visit, with new mothers typically navigating the preceding postpartum transitions on their own.
The need to redefine postpartum care was a central message of Haywood Brown, MD, who in 2017 served as the president of the America College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dr. Brown established a task force whose work resulted in important guidance for taking a more comprehensive and patient-centered approach to postpartum care.1
Improved care in the “fourth trimester,” as it has come to be known, is comprehensive and includes ensuring that our patients have a solid transition to health care beyond the pregnancy. We also hope that it will help us to reduce maternal mortality, given that more than half of pregnancy-related deaths occur after delivery.
Timing and frequency of contact
Historically, we’ve had a single 6-week postpartum visit, with little or no maternal support or patient contact before this visit unless the patient reported a complication. In the new paradigm, as described in the ACOG committee opinion on optimizing postpartum care, maternal care should be an ongoing process.1
so that any questions or concerns may be addressed and support can be provided.
This should be followed by individualized, ongoing care until a comprehensive postpartum visit covering physical, social, and psychological well-being is conducted by 12 weeks after birth – anytime between 4 and 12 weeks.
By stressing the importance of postpartum care during prenatal visits – and by talking about some of its key elements such as mental health, breastfeeding, and chronic disease management – we can let our patients know that postpartum care is not just an afterthought, but that it involves planning backed by evidence and expert opinion. Currently, as many as 40% of women do not attend a postpartum visit; early discussion, it is hoped, will increase attendance.
Certain high-risk groups should be seen or screened earlier than 3 weeks post partum. For instance, women who have hypertensive disorders of pregnancy should be evaluated no later than 7-10 days post partum, and women with severe hypertension should be seen within 72 hours, according to ACOG.
Early blood pressure checks – and follow-up as necessary – are critical for reducing the risk of postpartum stroke and other complications. I advocate uniformly checking blood pressure within several days after hospital discharge for all women who have hypertension at the end of their pregnancy.
Other high-risk conditions requiring early follow-up include diabetes and autoimmune conditions such as lupus, multiple sclerosis, and psoriasis that may flare in the postpartum period. Women with a history of postpartum depression similarly may benefit from early contact; they are at higher risk of having depression again, and there are clearly effective treatments, both medication and psychotherapy based.
In between the initial early contact (by 7-10 days post partum or by 3 weeks post partum) and the comprehensive visit between 4 and 12 weeks, the need for and timing of patient contact can be individualized. Some women will need only a brief contact and a visit at 8-10 weeks, while others will need much more. Our goal, as in all of medicine, is to provide individualized, patient-centered care.
Methods of contact
With the exception of the final comprehensive visit, postpartum care need not occur in person. Some conditions require an early office visit, but in general, as ACOG states, the usefulness of an in-person visit should be weighed against the burden of traveling to and attending that visit.
For many women, in-person visits are difficult, and we must be creative in utilizing telemedicine and phone support, text messaging, and app-based support. Having practiced during this pandemic, we are better positioned than ever before to make it relatively easy for new mothers to obtain ongoing postpartum care.
Notably, research is demonstrating that the use of technology may allow us to provide improved care and monitoring of hypertension in the postpartum period. For example, a randomized trial published in 2018 of over 200 women with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy found that text-based surveillance with home blood pressure monitoring was more effective than usual in-person blood pressure checks in meeting clinical guidelines for postpartum monitoring.2
Women in the texting group were significantly more likely to have a single blood pressure obtained in the first 10 days post partum than women in the office group.
Postpartum care is also not a completely physician-driven endeavor. Much of what is needed to help women successfully navigate the fourth trimester can be provided by certified nurse midwives, advanced practice nurses, and other members of our maternal care teams.
Components of postpartum care
The postpartum care plan should be comprehensive, and having a checklist to guide one through initial and comprehensive visits may be helpful. The ACOG committee opinion categorizes the components of postpartum care into seven domains: mood and emotional well-being; infant care and feeding; sexuality, contraception, and birth spacing; sleep and fatigue; physical recovery from birth; chronic disease management; and health maintenance.1
The importance of screening for depression and anxiety cannot be emphasized enough. Perinatal depression is highly prevalent: It affects as many as one in seven women and can result in adverse short- and long-term effects on both the mother and child.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has offered guidance for years, most recently in 2019 with its recommendations that clinicians refer pregnant and postpartum women who are at increased risk for depression to counseling interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy and interpersonal therapy.3 There is evidence that some form of treatment for women who screen positive reduces the risk of perinatal depression.
Additionally, there is emerging evidence that postpartum PTSD may be as prevalent as postpartum depression.4 As ACOG points out, trauma is “in the eye of the beholder,” and an estimated 3%-16% of women have PTSD related to a traumatic birth experience. Complications like shoulder dystocia or postpartum hemorrhage, in which delivery processes rapidly change course, can be experienced as traumatic by women even though they and their infants are healthy. The risk of posttraumatic stress should be on our radar screen.
Interpregnancy intervals similarly are not discussed enough. We do not commonly talk to patients about how pregnancy and breastfeeding are nutritionally depleting and how it takes time to replenish these stores – yet birth spacing is so important.
Compared with interpregnancy intervals of at least 18 months, intervals shorter than 6 months were associated in a meta-analysis with increased risks of preterm birth, low birth weight, and small for gestational age.5 Optimal birth spacing is one of the few low-cost interventions available for reducing pregnancy complications in the future.
Finally, that chronic disease management is a domain of postpartum care warrants emphasis. We must work to ensure that patients have a solid plan of care in place for their diabetes, hypertension, lupus, or other chronic conditions. This includes who will provide that ongoing care, as well as when medical management should be restarted.
Some women are aware of the importance of timely care – of not waiting for 12 months, for instance, to see an internist or specialist – but others are not.
Again, certain health conditions such as multiple sclerosis and RA necessitate follow-up within a couple weeks after delivery so that medications can be restarted or dose adjustments made. The need for early postpartum follow-up can be discussed during prenatal visits, along with anticipatory guidance about breastfeeding, the signs and symptoms of perinatal depression and anxiety, and other components of the fourth trimester.
Dr. Macones has no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;131(5):e140-50.
2. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Apr 27;27(11):871-7.
3. JAMA. 2019 Feb 12;321(6):580-7.
4. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014 Jul;34:389-401.JAMA. 2006 Apr 19;295(15):1809-23.
The field of ob.gyn. has long focused significantly more attention on the prenatal period – on determining the optimal frequency of ultrasound examinations, for instance, and on screening for diabetes and other conditions – than on women’s health and well-being after delivery.
The traditional 6-week postpartum visit has too often been a quick and cursory visit, with new mothers typically navigating the preceding postpartum transitions on their own.
The need to redefine postpartum care was a central message of Haywood Brown, MD, who in 2017 served as the president of the America College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dr. Brown established a task force whose work resulted in important guidance for taking a more comprehensive and patient-centered approach to postpartum care.1
Improved care in the “fourth trimester,” as it has come to be known, is comprehensive and includes ensuring that our patients have a solid transition to health care beyond the pregnancy. We also hope that it will help us to reduce maternal mortality, given that more than half of pregnancy-related deaths occur after delivery.
Timing and frequency of contact
Historically, we’ve had a single 6-week postpartum visit, with little or no maternal support or patient contact before this visit unless the patient reported a complication. In the new paradigm, as described in the ACOG committee opinion on optimizing postpartum care, maternal care should be an ongoing process.1
so that any questions or concerns may be addressed and support can be provided.
This should be followed by individualized, ongoing care until a comprehensive postpartum visit covering physical, social, and psychological well-being is conducted by 12 weeks after birth – anytime between 4 and 12 weeks.
By stressing the importance of postpartum care during prenatal visits – and by talking about some of its key elements such as mental health, breastfeeding, and chronic disease management – we can let our patients know that postpartum care is not just an afterthought, but that it involves planning backed by evidence and expert opinion. Currently, as many as 40% of women do not attend a postpartum visit; early discussion, it is hoped, will increase attendance.
Certain high-risk groups should be seen or screened earlier than 3 weeks post partum. For instance, women who have hypertensive disorders of pregnancy should be evaluated no later than 7-10 days post partum, and women with severe hypertension should be seen within 72 hours, according to ACOG.
Early blood pressure checks – and follow-up as necessary – are critical for reducing the risk of postpartum stroke and other complications. I advocate uniformly checking blood pressure within several days after hospital discharge for all women who have hypertension at the end of their pregnancy.
Other high-risk conditions requiring early follow-up include diabetes and autoimmune conditions such as lupus, multiple sclerosis, and psoriasis that may flare in the postpartum period. Women with a history of postpartum depression similarly may benefit from early contact; they are at higher risk of having depression again, and there are clearly effective treatments, both medication and psychotherapy based.
In between the initial early contact (by 7-10 days post partum or by 3 weeks post partum) and the comprehensive visit between 4 and 12 weeks, the need for and timing of patient contact can be individualized. Some women will need only a brief contact and a visit at 8-10 weeks, while others will need much more. Our goal, as in all of medicine, is to provide individualized, patient-centered care.
Methods of contact
With the exception of the final comprehensive visit, postpartum care need not occur in person. Some conditions require an early office visit, but in general, as ACOG states, the usefulness of an in-person visit should be weighed against the burden of traveling to and attending that visit.
For many women, in-person visits are difficult, and we must be creative in utilizing telemedicine and phone support, text messaging, and app-based support. Having practiced during this pandemic, we are better positioned than ever before to make it relatively easy for new mothers to obtain ongoing postpartum care.
Notably, research is demonstrating that the use of technology may allow us to provide improved care and monitoring of hypertension in the postpartum period. For example, a randomized trial published in 2018 of over 200 women with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy found that text-based surveillance with home blood pressure monitoring was more effective than usual in-person blood pressure checks in meeting clinical guidelines for postpartum monitoring.2
Women in the texting group were significantly more likely to have a single blood pressure obtained in the first 10 days post partum than women in the office group.
Postpartum care is also not a completely physician-driven endeavor. Much of what is needed to help women successfully navigate the fourth trimester can be provided by certified nurse midwives, advanced practice nurses, and other members of our maternal care teams.
Components of postpartum care
The postpartum care plan should be comprehensive, and having a checklist to guide one through initial and comprehensive visits may be helpful. The ACOG committee opinion categorizes the components of postpartum care into seven domains: mood and emotional well-being; infant care and feeding; sexuality, contraception, and birth spacing; sleep and fatigue; physical recovery from birth; chronic disease management; and health maintenance.1
The importance of screening for depression and anxiety cannot be emphasized enough. Perinatal depression is highly prevalent: It affects as many as one in seven women and can result in adverse short- and long-term effects on both the mother and child.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has offered guidance for years, most recently in 2019 with its recommendations that clinicians refer pregnant and postpartum women who are at increased risk for depression to counseling interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy and interpersonal therapy.3 There is evidence that some form of treatment for women who screen positive reduces the risk of perinatal depression.
Additionally, there is emerging evidence that postpartum PTSD may be as prevalent as postpartum depression.4 As ACOG points out, trauma is “in the eye of the beholder,” and an estimated 3%-16% of women have PTSD related to a traumatic birth experience. Complications like shoulder dystocia or postpartum hemorrhage, in which delivery processes rapidly change course, can be experienced as traumatic by women even though they and their infants are healthy. The risk of posttraumatic stress should be on our radar screen.
Interpregnancy intervals similarly are not discussed enough. We do not commonly talk to patients about how pregnancy and breastfeeding are nutritionally depleting and how it takes time to replenish these stores – yet birth spacing is so important.
Compared with interpregnancy intervals of at least 18 months, intervals shorter than 6 months were associated in a meta-analysis with increased risks of preterm birth, low birth weight, and small for gestational age.5 Optimal birth spacing is one of the few low-cost interventions available for reducing pregnancy complications in the future.
Finally, that chronic disease management is a domain of postpartum care warrants emphasis. We must work to ensure that patients have a solid plan of care in place for their diabetes, hypertension, lupus, or other chronic conditions. This includes who will provide that ongoing care, as well as when medical management should be restarted.
Some women are aware of the importance of timely care – of not waiting for 12 months, for instance, to see an internist or specialist – but others are not.
Again, certain health conditions such as multiple sclerosis and RA necessitate follow-up within a couple weeks after delivery so that medications can be restarted or dose adjustments made. The need for early postpartum follow-up can be discussed during prenatal visits, along with anticipatory guidance about breastfeeding, the signs and symptoms of perinatal depression and anxiety, and other components of the fourth trimester.
Dr. Macones has no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;131(5):e140-50.
2. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Apr 27;27(11):871-7.
3. JAMA. 2019 Feb 12;321(6):580-7.
4. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014 Jul;34:389-401.JAMA. 2006 Apr 19;295(15):1809-23.
The fourth trimester
As we approach the end of this year, one of the most surreal times in human history, we will look back on the many things we taught ourselves, the many things we took for granted, the many things we were grateful for, the many things we missed, and the many things we plan to do once we can do things again. Among the many things 2020 taught us to appreciate was the very real manifestation of the old adage, “prevention is the best medicine.” To prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, we wore masks, we sanitized everything, we avoided crowds, we traded in-person meetings for virtual meetings, we learned how to homeschool our children, and we delayed seeing relatives and friends.
Ob.gyns. in small and large practices around the world had the tremendous challenge of balancing necessary in-person prenatal care services with keeping their patients and babies safe. Labor and delivery units had even greater demands to keep women and neonates free of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Practices quickly put into place new treatment protocols and new management strategies to maintain the health of their staff while ensuring a high quality of care.
While we have focused much of our attention on greater precautions during pregnancy and childbirth, an important component of care is the immediate postpartum period – colloquially referred to as the “fourth trimester” – which remains critical to maintaining physical and mental health and well-being.
Despite concerns regarding COVID-19 safety, we should continue monitoring our patients during these crucial first weeks after childbirth. This year of social isolation, financial strain, and incredible uncertainty has created additional stress in many women’s lives. The usual support that some women would receive from family members, friends, and other mothers in the early days post partum may not be available. The pandemic also has further highlighted inequities in access to health care for vulnerable groups. In addition, restrictions have increased the incidence of intimate partner violence as many women and children have needed to shelter with their abusers. Perhaps now more than any time previously, ob.gyns. must be attuned to their patients’ needs and be ready to provide compassionate and sensitive care.
In this final month of the year, we have invited George A. Macones, MD, professor and chair of the department of women’s health at the University of Texas, Austin, to address the importance of care in the final “trimester” of pregnancy – the first 3 months post partum.
Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at obnews@mdedge.com.
*This version has been updated to correct an erroneous byline, photo, and bio.
As we approach the end of this year, one of the most surreal times in human history, we will look back on the many things we taught ourselves, the many things we took for granted, the many things we were grateful for, the many things we missed, and the many things we plan to do once we can do things again. Among the many things 2020 taught us to appreciate was the very real manifestation of the old adage, “prevention is the best medicine.” To prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, we wore masks, we sanitized everything, we avoided crowds, we traded in-person meetings for virtual meetings, we learned how to homeschool our children, and we delayed seeing relatives and friends.
Ob.gyns. in small and large practices around the world had the tremendous challenge of balancing necessary in-person prenatal care services with keeping their patients and babies safe. Labor and delivery units had even greater demands to keep women and neonates free of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Practices quickly put into place new treatment protocols and new management strategies to maintain the health of their staff while ensuring a high quality of care.
While we have focused much of our attention on greater precautions during pregnancy and childbirth, an important component of care is the immediate postpartum period – colloquially referred to as the “fourth trimester” – which remains critical to maintaining physical and mental health and well-being.
Despite concerns regarding COVID-19 safety, we should continue monitoring our patients during these crucial first weeks after childbirth. This year of social isolation, financial strain, and incredible uncertainty has created additional stress in many women’s lives. The usual support that some women would receive from family members, friends, and other mothers in the early days post partum may not be available. The pandemic also has further highlighted inequities in access to health care for vulnerable groups. In addition, restrictions have increased the incidence of intimate partner violence as many women and children have needed to shelter with their abusers. Perhaps now more than any time previously, ob.gyns. must be attuned to their patients’ needs and be ready to provide compassionate and sensitive care.
In this final month of the year, we have invited George A. Macones, MD, professor and chair of the department of women’s health at the University of Texas, Austin, to address the importance of care in the final “trimester” of pregnancy – the first 3 months post partum.
Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at obnews@mdedge.com.
*This version has been updated to correct an erroneous byline, photo, and bio.
As we approach the end of this year, one of the most surreal times in human history, we will look back on the many things we taught ourselves, the many things we took for granted, the many things we were grateful for, the many things we missed, and the many things we plan to do once we can do things again. Among the many things 2020 taught us to appreciate was the very real manifestation of the old adage, “prevention is the best medicine.” To prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, we wore masks, we sanitized everything, we avoided crowds, we traded in-person meetings for virtual meetings, we learned how to homeschool our children, and we delayed seeing relatives and friends.
Ob.gyns. in small and large practices around the world had the tremendous challenge of balancing necessary in-person prenatal care services with keeping their patients and babies safe. Labor and delivery units had even greater demands to keep women and neonates free of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Practices quickly put into place new treatment protocols and new management strategies to maintain the health of their staff while ensuring a high quality of care.
While we have focused much of our attention on greater precautions during pregnancy and childbirth, an important component of care is the immediate postpartum period – colloquially referred to as the “fourth trimester” – which remains critical to maintaining physical and mental health and well-being.
Despite concerns regarding COVID-19 safety, we should continue monitoring our patients during these crucial first weeks after childbirth. This year of social isolation, financial strain, and incredible uncertainty has created additional stress in many women’s lives. The usual support that some women would receive from family members, friends, and other mothers in the early days post partum may not be available. The pandemic also has further highlighted inequities in access to health care for vulnerable groups. In addition, restrictions have increased the incidence of intimate partner violence as many women and children have needed to shelter with their abusers. Perhaps now more than any time previously, ob.gyns. must be attuned to their patients’ needs and be ready to provide compassionate and sensitive care.
In this final month of the year, we have invited George A. Macones, MD, professor and chair of the department of women’s health at the University of Texas, Austin, to address the importance of care in the final “trimester” of pregnancy – the first 3 months post partum.
Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at obnews@mdedge.com.
*This version has been updated to correct an erroneous byline, photo, and bio.
Virtual residency/fellowship interviews: The good, the bad, and the future
As a psychiatry resident in the age of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many of my educational experiences have undergone adjustments. Now, as I interview for a fellowship, I see firsthand that recruitment activities have not been spared from shifting paradigms levied by the pandemic. To adhere to social distancing guidelines and limit trainee interpersonal exposure, the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training recommended that all psychiatry residency interviews be conducted virtually for 2020/2021.1 Trainees and programs alike are embarking on a new frontier of virtual interviews, and it is important that we evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of this approach. Because uncertainty abounds regarding when a sense of normalcy might eventually return to psychiatry residency and fellowship recruitment activities, I also provide recommendations to interviewers and interviewees who may navigate virtual recruitment in the future.
Advantages of virtual interviews
An immediately significant advantage of virtual interviews is the lack of travel, which for some applicants can be cost-prohibitive. The costs of airfare, rental vehicles, and lodging in multiple cities can add up, sometimes requiring students to budget interview travel into already-high student loans. In some cases, applicants may have limited days to interview, which makes the flexibility afforded by the lack of travel advantageous. Furthermore, navigating new locations can add to preexisting interview stress. Without travel, applicants can consider a broader set of programs and accept more interviews.
Another advantage is that virtual interviews allow interviewees latitude to shift the interview’s “frame.” Rather than sitting in an interviewer’s office, interviewees can choose a more comfortable environment for themselves, imparting a “home-field advantage” that may put them at ease. During my fellowship interviews, controlling the room temperature, using a familiar chair, and wearing comfortable shoes helped to reduce the anxiety inherent to interviewing.
Disadvantages of virtual interviews
Any new or unfamiliar experience can impart challenges. For example, applicants and interviewers must adjust to and observe different sets of etiquette during virtual interviews. These include muting microphones to avoid talking over each other, maintaining consistent eye contact, avoiding multitasking, and following up to avoid miscommunication.
Another potential problem is that virtual interviews can dampen an applicant’s ability to appreciate a program’s culture. Observing informal interactions between trainees and faculty is often as important as the formal interviews in ascertaining which programs have a supportive culture. Because my virtual fellowship interviews have generally been limited to formal one-on-one interviews, assessing program culture has become more challenging. Conversely, programs may find it difficult to grasp an applicant’s temperament and interaction style.
Virtual interviewing, while undeniably convenient in many regards, may fall prey to its own convenience. There can be disparities in the quantity, duration, and frequency of interviews. For me, the number of and time allotted for interviews has varied widely, ranging from 2.5 to 8 hours. The amount of allotted break time has also differed, with some programs providing longer breaks between interviews (30 to 60 minutes) and others offering shorter (5 to 10 minutes) or no breaks. Minimal breaks may fatigue applicants, while longer breaks may seem like wasted time. While virtual interviews may require no physical travel between offices, breaks are a necessity that should be implemented thoughtfully.
Finally, a troublesome challenge I encountered surprisingly often was unreliable internet service and other technical difficulties. Several times, my interviewers’ (or my) screen froze or shut off due to connectivity issues. This is an obstacle unique to virtual interviews that requires both a backup plan as well as patience and calm to navigate during an already taxing situation.
Continue to: What's next?
What’s next?
As applicants and programs adjust to the realities of virtual interviewing, this is likely an unfamiliar experience for all. While the benefits and shortcomings must be considered together, I, along with many of my peers,2 continue to prefer traditional in-person interviews. As the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic makes in-person interviews difficult, applicants and programs must embrace the experience of virtual interviews. However, a good understanding of the advantages and disadvantages are instrumental in preempting prospective challenges. Based on my recent experiences with virtual fellowship interviews, I have created some recommendations for applicants and psychiatry programs participating in virtual recruitment (Table).
After the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, it is conceivable that the advantages of virtual interviewing may justify its continued use. For example, applicants may be able to apply to geographically diverse programs without travel expenses. Currently, there is a paucity of evidence regarding virtual interviews specifically in psychiatry training programs, but the experiences of both applicants and psychiatry programs during this atypical time will allow us to improve the process going forward, and evaluate its utility well after COVID-19 recedes.
1. Arbuckle M, Kerlek A, Kovach J, et al. Consensus statement from the Association of Directors of Medical Student Education in Psychiatry (ADMSEP) and the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training (AADPRT) on the 2020-21 Residency Application Cycle. https://www.aadprt.org/application/files/8816/0017/8240/admsep_aadprt_statement_9-14-20_Rev.pdf. Published May 18, 2020. Accessed November 20, 2020.
2. Seifi A, Mirahmadizadeh A, Eslami V. Perception of medical students and residents about virtual interviews for residency applications in the United States. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(8):e0238239. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238239.
As a psychiatry resident in the age of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many of my educational experiences have undergone adjustments. Now, as I interview for a fellowship, I see firsthand that recruitment activities have not been spared from shifting paradigms levied by the pandemic. To adhere to social distancing guidelines and limit trainee interpersonal exposure, the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training recommended that all psychiatry residency interviews be conducted virtually for 2020/2021.1 Trainees and programs alike are embarking on a new frontier of virtual interviews, and it is important that we evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of this approach. Because uncertainty abounds regarding when a sense of normalcy might eventually return to psychiatry residency and fellowship recruitment activities, I also provide recommendations to interviewers and interviewees who may navigate virtual recruitment in the future.
Advantages of virtual interviews
An immediately significant advantage of virtual interviews is the lack of travel, which for some applicants can be cost-prohibitive. The costs of airfare, rental vehicles, and lodging in multiple cities can add up, sometimes requiring students to budget interview travel into already-high student loans. In some cases, applicants may have limited days to interview, which makes the flexibility afforded by the lack of travel advantageous. Furthermore, navigating new locations can add to preexisting interview stress. Without travel, applicants can consider a broader set of programs and accept more interviews.
Another advantage is that virtual interviews allow interviewees latitude to shift the interview’s “frame.” Rather than sitting in an interviewer’s office, interviewees can choose a more comfortable environment for themselves, imparting a “home-field advantage” that may put them at ease. During my fellowship interviews, controlling the room temperature, using a familiar chair, and wearing comfortable shoes helped to reduce the anxiety inherent to interviewing.
Disadvantages of virtual interviews
Any new or unfamiliar experience can impart challenges. For example, applicants and interviewers must adjust to and observe different sets of etiquette during virtual interviews. These include muting microphones to avoid talking over each other, maintaining consistent eye contact, avoiding multitasking, and following up to avoid miscommunication.
Another potential problem is that virtual interviews can dampen an applicant’s ability to appreciate a program’s culture. Observing informal interactions between trainees and faculty is often as important as the formal interviews in ascertaining which programs have a supportive culture. Because my virtual fellowship interviews have generally been limited to formal one-on-one interviews, assessing program culture has become more challenging. Conversely, programs may find it difficult to grasp an applicant’s temperament and interaction style.
Virtual interviewing, while undeniably convenient in many regards, may fall prey to its own convenience. There can be disparities in the quantity, duration, and frequency of interviews. For me, the number of and time allotted for interviews has varied widely, ranging from 2.5 to 8 hours. The amount of allotted break time has also differed, with some programs providing longer breaks between interviews (30 to 60 minutes) and others offering shorter (5 to 10 minutes) or no breaks. Minimal breaks may fatigue applicants, while longer breaks may seem like wasted time. While virtual interviews may require no physical travel between offices, breaks are a necessity that should be implemented thoughtfully.
Finally, a troublesome challenge I encountered surprisingly often was unreliable internet service and other technical difficulties. Several times, my interviewers’ (or my) screen froze or shut off due to connectivity issues. This is an obstacle unique to virtual interviews that requires both a backup plan as well as patience and calm to navigate during an already taxing situation.
Continue to: What's next?
What’s next?
As applicants and programs adjust to the realities of virtual interviewing, this is likely an unfamiliar experience for all. While the benefits and shortcomings must be considered together, I, along with many of my peers,2 continue to prefer traditional in-person interviews. As the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic makes in-person interviews difficult, applicants and programs must embrace the experience of virtual interviews. However, a good understanding of the advantages and disadvantages are instrumental in preempting prospective challenges. Based on my recent experiences with virtual fellowship interviews, I have created some recommendations for applicants and psychiatry programs participating in virtual recruitment (Table).
After the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, it is conceivable that the advantages of virtual interviewing may justify its continued use. For example, applicants may be able to apply to geographically diverse programs without travel expenses. Currently, there is a paucity of evidence regarding virtual interviews specifically in psychiatry training programs, but the experiences of both applicants and psychiatry programs during this atypical time will allow us to improve the process going forward, and evaluate its utility well after COVID-19 recedes.
As a psychiatry resident in the age of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many of my educational experiences have undergone adjustments. Now, as I interview for a fellowship, I see firsthand that recruitment activities have not been spared from shifting paradigms levied by the pandemic. To adhere to social distancing guidelines and limit trainee interpersonal exposure, the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training recommended that all psychiatry residency interviews be conducted virtually for 2020/2021.1 Trainees and programs alike are embarking on a new frontier of virtual interviews, and it is important that we evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of this approach. Because uncertainty abounds regarding when a sense of normalcy might eventually return to psychiatry residency and fellowship recruitment activities, I also provide recommendations to interviewers and interviewees who may navigate virtual recruitment in the future.
Advantages of virtual interviews
An immediately significant advantage of virtual interviews is the lack of travel, which for some applicants can be cost-prohibitive. The costs of airfare, rental vehicles, and lodging in multiple cities can add up, sometimes requiring students to budget interview travel into already-high student loans. In some cases, applicants may have limited days to interview, which makes the flexibility afforded by the lack of travel advantageous. Furthermore, navigating new locations can add to preexisting interview stress. Without travel, applicants can consider a broader set of programs and accept more interviews.
Another advantage is that virtual interviews allow interviewees latitude to shift the interview’s “frame.” Rather than sitting in an interviewer’s office, interviewees can choose a more comfortable environment for themselves, imparting a “home-field advantage” that may put them at ease. During my fellowship interviews, controlling the room temperature, using a familiar chair, and wearing comfortable shoes helped to reduce the anxiety inherent to interviewing.
Disadvantages of virtual interviews
Any new or unfamiliar experience can impart challenges. For example, applicants and interviewers must adjust to and observe different sets of etiquette during virtual interviews. These include muting microphones to avoid talking over each other, maintaining consistent eye contact, avoiding multitasking, and following up to avoid miscommunication.
Another potential problem is that virtual interviews can dampen an applicant’s ability to appreciate a program’s culture. Observing informal interactions between trainees and faculty is often as important as the formal interviews in ascertaining which programs have a supportive culture. Because my virtual fellowship interviews have generally been limited to formal one-on-one interviews, assessing program culture has become more challenging. Conversely, programs may find it difficult to grasp an applicant’s temperament and interaction style.
Virtual interviewing, while undeniably convenient in many regards, may fall prey to its own convenience. There can be disparities in the quantity, duration, and frequency of interviews. For me, the number of and time allotted for interviews has varied widely, ranging from 2.5 to 8 hours. The amount of allotted break time has also differed, with some programs providing longer breaks between interviews (30 to 60 minutes) and others offering shorter (5 to 10 minutes) or no breaks. Minimal breaks may fatigue applicants, while longer breaks may seem like wasted time. While virtual interviews may require no physical travel between offices, breaks are a necessity that should be implemented thoughtfully.
Finally, a troublesome challenge I encountered surprisingly often was unreliable internet service and other technical difficulties. Several times, my interviewers’ (or my) screen froze or shut off due to connectivity issues. This is an obstacle unique to virtual interviews that requires both a backup plan as well as patience and calm to navigate during an already taxing situation.
Continue to: What's next?
What’s next?
As applicants and programs adjust to the realities of virtual interviewing, this is likely an unfamiliar experience for all. While the benefits and shortcomings must be considered together, I, along with many of my peers,2 continue to prefer traditional in-person interviews. As the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic makes in-person interviews difficult, applicants and programs must embrace the experience of virtual interviews. However, a good understanding of the advantages and disadvantages are instrumental in preempting prospective challenges. Based on my recent experiences with virtual fellowship interviews, I have created some recommendations for applicants and psychiatry programs participating in virtual recruitment (Table).
After the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, it is conceivable that the advantages of virtual interviewing may justify its continued use. For example, applicants may be able to apply to geographically diverse programs without travel expenses. Currently, there is a paucity of evidence regarding virtual interviews specifically in psychiatry training programs, but the experiences of both applicants and psychiatry programs during this atypical time will allow us to improve the process going forward, and evaluate its utility well after COVID-19 recedes.
1. Arbuckle M, Kerlek A, Kovach J, et al. Consensus statement from the Association of Directors of Medical Student Education in Psychiatry (ADMSEP) and the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training (AADPRT) on the 2020-21 Residency Application Cycle. https://www.aadprt.org/application/files/8816/0017/8240/admsep_aadprt_statement_9-14-20_Rev.pdf. Published May 18, 2020. Accessed November 20, 2020.
2. Seifi A, Mirahmadizadeh A, Eslami V. Perception of medical students and residents about virtual interviews for residency applications in the United States. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(8):e0238239. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238239.
1. Arbuckle M, Kerlek A, Kovach J, et al. Consensus statement from the Association of Directors of Medical Student Education in Psychiatry (ADMSEP) and the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training (AADPRT) on the 2020-21 Residency Application Cycle. https://www.aadprt.org/application/files/8816/0017/8240/admsep_aadprt_statement_9-14-20_Rev.pdf. Published May 18, 2020. Accessed November 20, 2020.
2. Seifi A, Mirahmadizadeh A, Eslami V. Perception of medical students and residents about virtual interviews for residency applications in the United States. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(8):e0238239. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238239.
COVID-19’s religious strain: Differentiating spirituality from pathology
As the world grapples with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the search for answers, comfort, how to cope, and how to make sense of it all has become paramount. People commonly turn to their faith in times of crisis, but this recent global public health emergency is unlike many have ever seen or could have imagined.1 What happens when the well-intentioned journey for spiritual insight intersects with psychiatric symptomatology? Where does the line between these phenomena get crossed? As a psychiatric resident and person who was raised in the Pentecostal faith, I have observed faith and psychopathology come to a head in the last 6 months. COVID-19 has dealt a religious strain of undocumented cases; I hope to shed light on the topic by sharing my experience of navigating the assessment and treatment plan of patients with psychiatric symptoms whose spiritual beliefs are a cornerstone of life.
Piety, or pathology?
The following approaches have helped me to identify what is driven by faith vs what is psychopathology:
While taking the patient history. Obtaining a history from a patient who professes to have strong spiritual beliefs and presents with psychiatric symptoms is similar to a standard patient interview, but pay special attention to how the patient came to the emergency department. Was there a family member, friend, or emergency medical services present at that time? During the interview, patients often appear “normal,” which may lead a clinician to question the reason for the consult, yet considering the recent events preceding the presentation will be a good place to start gathering the appropriate information for investigation.
Next, compare the patient’s recent daily functioning with his/her baseline. If this information comes solely from the patient, it may be skewed, so try to retrieve information from a collateral source. If the patient was accompanied by someone, request permission from the patient to speak with him/her. It may also be best in some instances to speak with the collateral source out of earshot of the patient. Be aware that collateral information that comes from just one source also could be biased, so search for additional contacts to help acquire a comprehensive representation of the circumstances.
Information about a patient could come from a faith leader because people often rely on their faith leaders when they are ill, in need of support, or in crisis.2 Faith leaders may have valuable information and insight into the patient and the history of the patient’s illness. In addition, diverse sources of collateral reports may be helpful because specific spiritual views and practices can vary even within one family or congregation. What may be an abnormal practice to some followers may be normal for others.3 When approaching these situations with parishioners, it is essential to maintain confidentiality.
While performing the clinical examination. As with any psychiatric diagnosis, other causative factors (metabolic and organic) need to be ruled out. Also, assess for the use of mood-altering substances. The patient may express offense or resistance to such questions, but maintain a matter-of-fact approach and explain that assessment for substance use is a routine part of the clinical examination. Approximately 18% of people in the United States with psychiatric disorders have a comorbid substance use disorder.4 However, keep in mind that a patient who refuses substance use screening is not necessarily hiding something. The road to being thorough may lead to strained rapport with the patient, and this risk must be balanced with providing the best care. As in any other clinical situation, seek evidence to both verify and clarify information without being deterred by a patient’s vocalization of spiritual tenants.
Learn about your patients’ beliefs
Do not feel defeated if you find these interviews difficult. Religion and symptomatology can overlap and fluctuate within the same faith group, which can make these types of assessments complex.5 In an effort to understand the patient more clearly, be sensitive to their spiritual practices and receptive to learning about unfamiliar spiritual beliefs. Be transparent about not knowing a specific belief or practice, and exhibit humility. Most patients are open to sharing their religious/spiritual views with a clinician who is sincere about wanting insight. Understanding the value of spiritual care is an important skill that many medical practitioners often lack.6 This understanding is especially critical when patients express worries related to the COVID-19 pandemic and how they are coping.
Continue to: Integrate your patient's spiritual requests
Integrate your patient’s spiritual requests
If you are comfortable with certain practices that do not compromise your values or beliefs or put a patient at risk, try to integrate your patients’ spiritual request(s) in their care. For a patient who serves a higher power, admitting to a problem (eg, fears related to COVID-19) or seeking professional help for symptoms (eg, anxiety, depression) may imply spiritual doubt. Patients may believe that seeking professional assistance means they are questioning the omnipotence of their deity to prevent or heal a condition. While spiritual distress can stimulate changes in behavior, it may not be pathological.
To avoid misdiagnosis, refer to the description “V62.89 (Z65.8) Religious or Spiritual Problem” in the DSM-5.7 If you find that it is a discord in faith that is affecting the patient’s presentation, and that this has not caused a psychiatric disorder, document this appropriately and provide the necessary resources to continue supporting the patient holistically.
1. Dein S, Loewenthal K, Lewis CA, et al. COVID-19, mental health and religion: an agenda for future research. Mental Health, Religion & Culture. 2020;23(1):1-9.
2. American Psychiatric Association Foundation. Mental health: a guide for faith leaders. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association Foundation; 2018.
3. Johnson CV, Friedman HL. Enlightened or delusional? Differentiating religious, spiritual, and transpersonal experiences from psychopathology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 2008;48(4):505-527.
4. Han B, Compton WM, Blanco C, et al. Prevalence, treatment, and unmet treatment needs of US adults with mental health and substance use disorders. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(10):1739-1747.
5. Menezes Jr A, Moreira-Almeida A. Differential diagnosis between spiritual experiences and mental disorders of religious content. Rev Psiq Clín. 2009;36(2):75-82.
6. Best M, Butow P, Olver I. Doctors discussing religion and spirituality: a systematic literature review. Palliat Med. 2016;30(4):327-337.
7. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013:725.
As the world grapples with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the search for answers, comfort, how to cope, and how to make sense of it all has become paramount. People commonly turn to their faith in times of crisis, but this recent global public health emergency is unlike many have ever seen or could have imagined.1 What happens when the well-intentioned journey for spiritual insight intersects with psychiatric symptomatology? Where does the line between these phenomena get crossed? As a psychiatric resident and person who was raised in the Pentecostal faith, I have observed faith and psychopathology come to a head in the last 6 months. COVID-19 has dealt a religious strain of undocumented cases; I hope to shed light on the topic by sharing my experience of navigating the assessment and treatment plan of patients with psychiatric symptoms whose spiritual beliefs are a cornerstone of life.
Piety, or pathology?
The following approaches have helped me to identify what is driven by faith vs what is psychopathology:
While taking the patient history. Obtaining a history from a patient who professes to have strong spiritual beliefs and presents with psychiatric symptoms is similar to a standard patient interview, but pay special attention to how the patient came to the emergency department. Was there a family member, friend, or emergency medical services present at that time? During the interview, patients often appear “normal,” which may lead a clinician to question the reason for the consult, yet considering the recent events preceding the presentation will be a good place to start gathering the appropriate information for investigation.
Next, compare the patient’s recent daily functioning with his/her baseline. If this information comes solely from the patient, it may be skewed, so try to retrieve information from a collateral source. If the patient was accompanied by someone, request permission from the patient to speak with him/her. It may also be best in some instances to speak with the collateral source out of earshot of the patient. Be aware that collateral information that comes from just one source also could be biased, so search for additional contacts to help acquire a comprehensive representation of the circumstances.
Information about a patient could come from a faith leader because people often rely on their faith leaders when they are ill, in need of support, or in crisis.2 Faith leaders may have valuable information and insight into the patient and the history of the patient’s illness. In addition, diverse sources of collateral reports may be helpful because specific spiritual views and practices can vary even within one family or congregation. What may be an abnormal practice to some followers may be normal for others.3 When approaching these situations with parishioners, it is essential to maintain confidentiality.
While performing the clinical examination. As with any psychiatric diagnosis, other causative factors (metabolic and organic) need to be ruled out. Also, assess for the use of mood-altering substances. The patient may express offense or resistance to such questions, but maintain a matter-of-fact approach and explain that assessment for substance use is a routine part of the clinical examination. Approximately 18% of people in the United States with psychiatric disorders have a comorbid substance use disorder.4 However, keep in mind that a patient who refuses substance use screening is not necessarily hiding something. The road to being thorough may lead to strained rapport with the patient, and this risk must be balanced with providing the best care. As in any other clinical situation, seek evidence to both verify and clarify information without being deterred by a patient’s vocalization of spiritual tenants.
Learn about your patients’ beliefs
Do not feel defeated if you find these interviews difficult. Religion and symptomatology can overlap and fluctuate within the same faith group, which can make these types of assessments complex.5 In an effort to understand the patient more clearly, be sensitive to their spiritual practices and receptive to learning about unfamiliar spiritual beliefs. Be transparent about not knowing a specific belief or practice, and exhibit humility. Most patients are open to sharing their religious/spiritual views with a clinician who is sincere about wanting insight. Understanding the value of spiritual care is an important skill that many medical practitioners often lack.6 This understanding is especially critical when patients express worries related to the COVID-19 pandemic and how they are coping.
Continue to: Integrate your patient's spiritual requests
Integrate your patient’s spiritual requests
If you are comfortable with certain practices that do not compromise your values or beliefs or put a patient at risk, try to integrate your patients’ spiritual request(s) in their care. For a patient who serves a higher power, admitting to a problem (eg, fears related to COVID-19) or seeking professional help for symptoms (eg, anxiety, depression) may imply spiritual doubt. Patients may believe that seeking professional assistance means they are questioning the omnipotence of their deity to prevent or heal a condition. While spiritual distress can stimulate changes in behavior, it may not be pathological.
To avoid misdiagnosis, refer to the description “V62.89 (Z65.8) Religious or Spiritual Problem” in the DSM-5.7 If you find that it is a discord in faith that is affecting the patient’s presentation, and that this has not caused a psychiatric disorder, document this appropriately and provide the necessary resources to continue supporting the patient holistically.
As the world grapples with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the search for answers, comfort, how to cope, and how to make sense of it all has become paramount. People commonly turn to their faith in times of crisis, but this recent global public health emergency is unlike many have ever seen or could have imagined.1 What happens when the well-intentioned journey for spiritual insight intersects with psychiatric symptomatology? Where does the line between these phenomena get crossed? As a psychiatric resident and person who was raised in the Pentecostal faith, I have observed faith and psychopathology come to a head in the last 6 months. COVID-19 has dealt a religious strain of undocumented cases; I hope to shed light on the topic by sharing my experience of navigating the assessment and treatment plan of patients with psychiatric symptoms whose spiritual beliefs are a cornerstone of life.
Piety, or pathology?
The following approaches have helped me to identify what is driven by faith vs what is psychopathology:
While taking the patient history. Obtaining a history from a patient who professes to have strong spiritual beliefs and presents with psychiatric symptoms is similar to a standard patient interview, but pay special attention to how the patient came to the emergency department. Was there a family member, friend, or emergency medical services present at that time? During the interview, patients often appear “normal,” which may lead a clinician to question the reason for the consult, yet considering the recent events preceding the presentation will be a good place to start gathering the appropriate information for investigation.
Next, compare the patient’s recent daily functioning with his/her baseline. If this information comes solely from the patient, it may be skewed, so try to retrieve information from a collateral source. If the patient was accompanied by someone, request permission from the patient to speak with him/her. It may also be best in some instances to speak with the collateral source out of earshot of the patient. Be aware that collateral information that comes from just one source also could be biased, so search for additional contacts to help acquire a comprehensive representation of the circumstances.
Information about a patient could come from a faith leader because people often rely on their faith leaders when they are ill, in need of support, or in crisis.2 Faith leaders may have valuable information and insight into the patient and the history of the patient’s illness. In addition, diverse sources of collateral reports may be helpful because specific spiritual views and practices can vary even within one family or congregation. What may be an abnormal practice to some followers may be normal for others.3 When approaching these situations with parishioners, it is essential to maintain confidentiality.
While performing the clinical examination. As with any psychiatric diagnosis, other causative factors (metabolic and organic) need to be ruled out. Also, assess for the use of mood-altering substances. The patient may express offense or resistance to such questions, but maintain a matter-of-fact approach and explain that assessment for substance use is a routine part of the clinical examination. Approximately 18% of people in the United States with psychiatric disorders have a comorbid substance use disorder.4 However, keep in mind that a patient who refuses substance use screening is not necessarily hiding something. The road to being thorough may lead to strained rapport with the patient, and this risk must be balanced with providing the best care. As in any other clinical situation, seek evidence to both verify and clarify information without being deterred by a patient’s vocalization of spiritual tenants.
Learn about your patients’ beliefs
Do not feel defeated if you find these interviews difficult. Religion and symptomatology can overlap and fluctuate within the same faith group, which can make these types of assessments complex.5 In an effort to understand the patient more clearly, be sensitive to their spiritual practices and receptive to learning about unfamiliar spiritual beliefs. Be transparent about not knowing a specific belief or practice, and exhibit humility. Most patients are open to sharing their religious/spiritual views with a clinician who is sincere about wanting insight. Understanding the value of spiritual care is an important skill that many medical practitioners often lack.6 This understanding is especially critical when patients express worries related to the COVID-19 pandemic and how they are coping.
Continue to: Integrate your patient's spiritual requests
Integrate your patient’s spiritual requests
If you are comfortable with certain practices that do not compromise your values or beliefs or put a patient at risk, try to integrate your patients’ spiritual request(s) in their care. For a patient who serves a higher power, admitting to a problem (eg, fears related to COVID-19) or seeking professional help for symptoms (eg, anxiety, depression) may imply spiritual doubt. Patients may believe that seeking professional assistance means they are questioning the omnipotence of their deity to prevent or heal a condition. While spiritual distress can stimulate changes in behavior, it may not be pathological.
To avoid misdiagnosis, refer to the description “V62.89 (Z65.8) Religious or Spiritual Problem” in the DSM-5.7 If you find that it is a discord in faith that is affecting the patient’s presentation, and that this has not caused a psychiatric disorder, document this appropriately and provide the necessary resources to continue supporting the patient holistically.
1. Dein S, Loewenthal K, Lewis CA, et al. COVID-19, mental health and religion: an agenda for future research. Mental Health, Religion & Culture. 2020;23(1):1-9.
2. American Psychiatric Association Foundation. Mental health: a guide for faith leaders. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association Foundation; 2018.
3. Johnson CV, Friedman HL. Enlightened or delusional? Differentiating religious, spiritual, and transpersonal experiences from psychopathology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 2008;48(4):505-527.
4. Han B, Compton WM, Blanco C, et al. Prevalence, treatment, and unmet treatment needs of US adults with mental health and substance use disorders. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(10):1739-1747.
5. Menezes Jr A, Moreira-Almeida A. Differential diagnosis between spiritual experiences and mental disorders of religious content. Rev Psiq Clín. 2009;36(2):75-82.
6. Best M, Butow P, Olver I. Doctors discussing religion and spirituality: a systematic literature review. Palliat Med. 2016;30(4):327-337.
7. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013:725.
1. Dein S, Loewenthal K, Lewis CA, et al. COVID-19, mental health and religion: an agenda for future research. Mental Health, Religion & Culture. 2020;23(1):1-9.
2. American Psychiatric Association Foundation. Mental health: a guide for faith leaders. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association Foundation; 2018.
3. Johnson CV, Friedman HL. Enlightened or delusional? Differentiating religious, spiritual, and transpersonal experiences from psychopathology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 2008;48(4):505-527.
4. Han B, Compton WM, Blanco C, et al. Prevalence, treatment, and unmet treatment needs of US adults with mental health and substance use disorders. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(10):1739-1747.
5. Menezes Jr A, Moreira-Almeida A. Differential diagnosis between spiritual experiences and mental disorders of religious content. Rev Psiq Clín. 2009;36(2):75-82.
6. Best M, Butow P, Olver I. Doctors discussing religion and spirituality: a systematic literature review. Palliat Med. 2016;30(4):327-337.
7. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013:725.
Scientific power will save us
COVID-19 numbers again are increasing dramatically. Community infection rates have nearly doubled, and hospitals and health care workers are stretched beyond their limits. It is difficult not to feel anger about how poorly this pandemic was managed (mismanaged) by so many officials in charge and by a large segment of our population who still refuse protective actions to limit spread. While politics and ideology continue to cost American lives, scientific firepower will emerge as our saving grace.
My editorial board and I are entering our final year at the helm of GI & Hepatology News. AGA issued a search for the next Editor in Chief (EIC), who will take over October 2021. I urge anyone interested to apply (https://gastro.org/news/prestigious-aga-publications-seek-new-editors-in-chief/). As EIC, you will choose the next editorial board and forge professional friendships that are gratifying. You will assume responsibility for the content, where you must balance your own views with those of both the AGA and our readership.
As EIC, each month I am given space for 300 words to communicate interesting ideas and opinions. The AGA gives the newspaper great editorial freedom, and I hope we have supported AGA’s mission and values when we publish its official newspaper. I always have next month’s editorial in mind, and I look for useful phrases, quotes, ideas, and opinions. If you are interested in becoming EIC, please email ginews@gastro.org for more information.
I would be remiss not to acknowledge the contribution that Lora McGlade has made to GI & Hepatology News. She has been my partner, as the Frontline Medical Communications Editor in charge of GI & Hepatology News. Next month, she will move on to assume a new role. I cannot thank her enough for helping make this newspaper work. As the months go on, I will highlight the contributions of others from the AGA, our Board, and Frontline.
Please stay safe and do not let your guard down. COVID-19 is merciless and relentless. “If you think research is expensive, try disease.” – Mary Lasker.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGA
Editor in Chief
COVID-19 numbers again are increasing dramatically. Community infection rates have nearly doubled, and hospitals and health care workers are stretched beyond their limits. It is difficult not to feel anger about how poorly this pandemic was managed (mismanaged) by so many officials in charge and by a large segment of our population who still refuse protective actions to limit spread. While politics and ideology continue to cost American lives, scientific firepower will emerge as our saving grace.
My editorial board and I are entering our final year at the helm of GI & Hepatology News. AGA issued a search for the next Editor in Chief (EIC), who will take over October 2021. I urge anyone interested to apply (https://gastro.org/news/prestigious-aga-publications-seek-new-editors-in-chief/). As EIC, you will choose the next editorial board and forge professional friendships that are gratifying. You will assume responsibility for the content, where you must balance your own views with those of both the AGA and our readership.
As EIC, each month I am given space for 300 words to communicate interesting ideas and opinions. The AGA gives the newspaper great editorial freedom, and I hope we have supported AGA’s mission and values when we publish its official newspaper. I always have next month’s editorial in mind, and I look for useful phrases, quotes, ideas, and opinions. If you are interested in becoming EIC, please email ginews@gastro.org for more information.
I would be remiss not to acknowledge the contribution that Lora McGlade has made to GI & Hepatology News. She has been my partner, as the Frontline Medical Communications Editor in charge of GI & Hepatology News. Next month, she will move on to assume a new role. I cannot thank her enough for helping make this newspaper work. As the months go on, I will highlight the contributions of others from the AGA, our Board, and Frontline.
Please stay safe and do not let your guard down. COVID-19 is merciless and relentless. “If you think research is expensive, try disease.” – Mary Lasker.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGA
Editor in Chief
COVID-19 numbers again are increasing dramatically. Community infection rates have nearly doubled, and hospitals and health care workers are stretched beyond their limits. It is difficult not to feel anger about how poorly this pandemic was managed (mismanaged) by so many officials in charge and by a large segment of our population who still refuse protective actions to limit spread. While politics and ideology continue to cost American lives, scientific firepower will emerge as our saving grace.
My editorial board and I are entering our final year at the helm of GI & Hepatology News. AGA issued a search for the next Editor in Chief (EIC), who will take over October 2021. I urge anyone interested to apply (https://gastro.org/news/prestigious-aga-publications-seek-new-editors-in-chief/). As EIC, you will choose the next editorial board and forge professional friendships that are gratifying. You will assume responsibility for the content, where you must balance your own views with those of both the AGA and our readership.
As EIC, each month I am given space for 300 words to communicate interesting ideas and opinions. The AGA gives the newspaper great editorial freedom, and I hope we have supported AGA’s mission and values when we publish its official newspaper. I always have next month’s editorial in mind, and I look for useful phrases, quotes, ideas, and opinions. If you are interested in becoming EIC, please email ginews@gastro.org for more information.
I would be remiss not to acknowledge the contribution that Lora McGlade has made to GI & Hepatology News. She has been my partner, as the Frontline Medical Communications Editor in charge of GI & Hepatology News. Next month, she will move on to assume a new role. I cannot thank her enough for helping make this newspaper work. As the months go on, I will highlight the contributions of others from the AGA, our Board, and Frontline.
Please stay safe and do not let your guard down. COVID-19 is merciless and relentless. “If you think research is expensive, try disease.” – Mary Lasker.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGA
Editor in Chief
What the Biden-Harris COVID-19 Advisory Board is missing
On Nov. 9, the Biden-Harris administration announced the members of its COVID-19 Advisory Board. Among them were many esteemed infectious disease and public health experts – encouraging, given that, for now, the COVID-19 pandemic shows no signs of slowing down. Not among them was a mental health professional.
As psychiatrists, we did not find this omission surprising, given the sidelined role our specialty too often plays among medical professionals. But we did find it disappointing. Not having a single behavioral health provider on the advisory board will prove to be a mistake that could affect millions of Americans.
Studies continue to roll in showing that patients with COVID-19 can present during and after infection with neuropsychiatric symptoms, including delirium, psychosis, and anxiety. In July, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet regarding the neuropsychological outcomes of earlier diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome – suggested that, in the short term, close to one-quarter of patients experienced confusion representative of delirium. In the long term, following recovery, respondents frequently reported emotional lability, impaired concentration, and traumatic memories. Additionally, more recent research published in The Lancet suggests that rates of psychiatric disorders, dementia, and insomnia are significantly higher among survivors of COVID-19. This study echoes the findings of an article in JAMA from September that reported that, among patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19, mortality rates were higher for those who had previously been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. And overall, the pandemic has been associated with significantly increased rates of anxiety and depression symptoms.
Although this research is preliminary,
This is especially true when you consider the following:
- It is very difficult to diagnose and treat mental health symptoms in a primary care setting that is already overburdened. Doing so results in delayed treatment and increased costs.
- In the long term, COVID-19 survivors will overburden the already underfunded mental healthcare system.
- Additional unforeseen psychological outcomes stem from the myriad traumas of events in 2020 (eg, racial unrest, children out of school, loss of jobs, the recent election).
Psychiatric disorders are notoriously difficult to diagnose and treat in the outpatient primary care setting, which is why mental health professionals will need to be a more integral part of the postpandemic treatment model and should be represented on the advisory board. Each year in the United States, there are more than 8 million doctors’ visits for depression, and more than half of these are in the primary care setting. Yet fewer than half of those patients leave with a diagnosis of depression or are treated for it.
Historically, screening for depression in the primary care setting is difficult given its broad presentation of symptoms, which include nonspecific physical complaints, such as digestive problems, headaches, insomnia, or general aches and pains. These shortcomings exist despite multiple changes in guidelines, such as regarding the use of self-screening tools and general screening for specific populations, such as postpartum women.
But screening alone has not been an effective strategy, especially when certain groups are less likely to be screened. These include older adults, Black persons, and men, all of whom are at higher risk for mortality after COVID-19. There is a failure to consistently apply standards of universal screening across all patient groups, and even if it occurs, there is a failure to establish reliable treatment and follow-up regimens. As clinicians, imagine how challenging diagnosis and treatment of more complicated psychiatric syndromes, such as somatoform disorder, will be in the primary care setting after the pandemic.
When almost two-thirds of symptoms in primary care are already “medically unexplained,” how do we expect primary care doctors to differentiate between those presenting with vague coronavirus-related “brain fog,” the run of the mill worrywart, and the 16%-34% with legitimate hypochondriasis of somatoform disorder who won’t improve without the involvement of a mental health provider?
A specialty in short supply
The mental health system we have now is inadequate for those who are currently diagnosed with mental disorders. Before the pandemic, emergency departments were boarding increasing numbers of patients with psychiatric illness because beds on inpatient units were unavailable. Individuals with insurance faced difficulty finding psychiatrists or psychotherapists who took insurance or who were availabile to accept new patients, given the growing shortage of providers in general. Community health centers continued to grapple with decreases in federal and state funding despite public political support for parity. Individuals with substance use faced few options for the outpatient, residential, or pharmacologic treatment that many needed to maintain sobriety.
Since the pandemic, we have seen rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal thinking increase among adults and youth while many clinics have been forced to lay off employees, reduce services, or close their doors. As psychiatrists, we not only see the lack of treatment options for our patients but are forced to find creative solutions to meet their needs. How are we supposed to adapt (or feel confident) when individuals with or without previous mental illness face downstream consequences after COVID-19 when not one of our own is represented in the advisory board? How can we feel confident that downstream solutions acknowledge and address the intricacy of the behavioral health system that we, as mental health providers, know so intimately?
And what about the cumulative impact of everything else that has happened in 2020 in addition to the pandemic?! Although cataloging the various negative events that have happened this year is beyond the scope of this discussion, such lists have been compiled by the mainstream media and include the Australian brush fires, the crisis in Armenia, racial protests, economic uncertainties, and the run-up to and occurrence of the 2020 presidential election. Research is solid in its assertion that chronic stress can disturb our immune and cardiovascular systems, as well as mental health, leading to depression or anxiety. As a result of the pandemic itself, plus the events of this year, mental health providers are already warning not only of the current trauma underlying our day-to-day lives but also that of years to come.
More importantly, healthcare providers, both those represented by members of the advisory board and those who are not, are not immune to these issues. Before the pandemic, rates of suicide among doctors were already above average compared with other professions. After witnessing death repeatedly, self-isolation, the risk for infection to family, and dealing with the continued resistance to wearing masks, who knows what the eventual psychological toll our medical workforce will be?
Mental health providers have stepped up to the plate to provide care outside of traditional models to meet the needs that patients have now. One survey found that 81% of behavioral health providers began using telehealth for the first time in the past 6 months, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. If not for the sake of the mental health of the Biden-Harris advisory board members themselves, who as doctors are likely to downplay the impact when struggling with mental health concerns in their own lives, a mental health provider deserves a seat at the table.
Plus, the outcomes speak for themselves when behavioral health providers collaborate with primary care providers to give treatment or when mental health experts are members of health crisis teams. Why wouldn’t the same be true for the Biden-Harris advisory board?
Kali Cyrus, MD, MPH, is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. She sees patients in private practice and offers consultation services in diversity strategy. Ranna Parekh, MD, MPH, is past deputy medical director and director of diversity and health equity for the American Psychiatric Association. She is currently a consultant psychiatrist at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the chief diversity and inclusion officer at the American College of Cardiology.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
On Nov. 9, the Biden-Harris administration announced the members of its COVID-19 Advisory Board. Among them were many esteemed infectious disease and public health experts – encouraging, given that, for now, the COVID-19 pandemic shows no signs of slowing down. Not among them was a mental health professional.
As psychiatrists, we did not find this omission surprising, given the sidelined role our specialty too often plays among medical professionals. But we did find it disappointing. Not having a single behavioral health provider on the advisory board will prove to be a mistake that could affect millions of Americans.
Studies continue to roll in showing that patients with COVID-19 can present during and after infection with neuropsychiatric symptoms, including delirium, psychosis, and anxiety. In July, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet regarding the neuropsychological outcomes of earlier diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome – suggested that, in the short term, close to one-quarter of patients experienced confusion representative of delirium. In the long term, following recovery, respondents frequently reported emotional lability, impaired concentration, and traumatic memories. Additionally, more recent research published in The Lancet suggests that rates of psychiatric disorders, dementia, and insomnia are significantly higher among survivors of COVID-19. This study echoes the findings of an article in JAMA from September that reported that, among patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19, mortality rates were higher for those who had previously been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. And overall, the pandemic has been associated with significantly increased rates of anxiety and depression symptoms.
Although this research is preliminary,
This is especially true when you consider the following:
- It is very difficult to diagnose and treat mental health symptoms in a primary care setting that is already overburdened. Doing so results in delayed treatment and increased costs.
- In the long term, COVID-19 survivors will overburden the already underfunded mental healthcare system.
- Additional unforeseen psychological outcomes stem from the myriad traumas of events in 2020 (eg, racial unrest, children out of school, loss of jobs, the recent election).
Psychiatric disorders are notoriously difficult to diagnose and treat in the outpatient primary care setting, which is why mental health professionals will need to be a more integral part of the postpandemic treatment model and should be represented on the advisory board. Each year in the United States, there are more than 8 million doctors’ visits for depression, and more than half of these are in the primary care setting. Yet fewer than half of those patients leave with a diagnosis of depression or are treated for it.
Historically, screening for depression in the primary care setting is difficult given its broad presentation of symptoms, which include nonspecific physical complaints, such as digestive problems, headaches, insomnia, or general aches and pains. These shortcomings exist despite multiple changes in guidelines, such as regarding the use of self-screening tools and general screening for specific populations, such as postpartum women.
But screening alone has not been an effective strategy, especially when certain groups are less likely to be screened. These include older adults, Black persons, and men, all of whom are at higher risk for mortality after COVID-19. There is a failure to consistently apply standards of universal screening across all patient groups, and even if it occurs, there is a failure to establish reliable treatment and follow-up regimens. As clinicians, imagine how challenging diagnosis and treatment of more complicated psychiatric syndromes, such as somatoform disorder, will be in the primary care setting after the pandemic.
When almost two-thirds of symptoms in primary care are already “medically unexplained,” how do we expect primary care doctors to differentiate between those presenting with vague coronavirus-related “brain fog,” the run of the mill worrywart, and the 16%-34% with legitimate hypochondriasis of somatoform disorder who won’t improve without the involvement of a mental health provider?
A specialty in short supply
The mental health system we have now is inadequate for those who are currently diagnosed with mental disorders. Before the pandemic, emergency departments were boarding increasing numbers of patients with psychiatric illness because beds on inpatient units were unavailable. Individuals with insurance faced difficulty finding psychiatrists or psychotherapists who took insurance or who were availabile to accept new patients, given the growing shortage of providers in general. Community health centers continued to grapple with decreases in federal and state funding despite public political support for parity. Individuals with substance use faced few options for the outpatient, residential, or pharmacologic treatment that many needed to maintain sobriety.
Since the pandemic, we have seen rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal thinking increase among adults and youth while many clinics have been forced to lay off employees, reduce services, or close their doors. As psychiatrists, we not only see the lack of treatment options for our patients but are forced to find creative solutions to meet their needs. How are we supposed to adapt (or feel confident) when individuals with or without previous mental illness face downstream consequences after COVID-19 when not one of our own is represented in the advisory board? How can we feel confident that downstream solutions acknowledge and address the intricacy of the behavioral health system that we, as mental health providers, know so intimately?
And what about the cumulative impact of everything else that has happened in 2020 in addition to the pandemic?! Although cataloging the various negative events that have happened this year is beyond the scope of this discussion, such lists have been compiled by the mainstream media and include the Australian brush fires, the crisis in Armenia, racial protests, economic uncertainties, and the run-up to and occurrence of the 2020 presidential election. Research is solid in its assertion that chronic stress can disturb our immune and cardiovascular systems, as well as mental health, leading to depression or anxiety. As a result of the pandemic itself, plus the events of this year, mental health providers are already warning not only of the current trauma underlying our day-to-day lives but also that of years to come.
More importantly, healthcare providers, both those represented by members of the advisory board and those who are not, are not immune to these issues. Before the pandemic, rates of suicide among doctors were already above average compared with other professions. After witnessing death repeatedly, self-isolation, the risk for infection to family, and dealing with the continued resistance to wearing masks, who knows what the eventual psychological toll our medical workforce will be?
Mental health providers have stepped up to the plate to provide care outside of traditional models to meet the needs that patients have now. One survey found that 81% of behavioral health providers began using telehealth for the first time in the past 6 months, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. If not for the sake of the mental health of the Biden-Harris advisory board members themselves, who as doctors are likely to downplay the impact when struggling with mental health concerns in their own lives, a mental health provider deserves a seat at the table.
Plus, the outcomes speak for themselves when behavioral health providers collaborate with primary care providers to give treatment or when mental health experts are members of health crisis teams. Why wouldn’t the same be true for the Biden-Harris advisory board?
Kali Cyrus, MD, MPH, is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. She sees patients in private practice and offers consultation services in diversity strategy. Ranna Parekh, MD, MPH, is past deputy medical director and director of diversity and health equity for the American Psychiatric Association. She is currently a consultant psychiatrist at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the chief diversity and inclusion officer at the American College of Cardiology.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
On Nov. 9, the Biden-Harris administration announced the members of its COVID-19 Advisory Board. Among them were many esteemed infectious disease and public health experts – encouraging, given that, for now, the COVID-19 pandemic shows no signs of slowing down. Not among them was a mental health professional.
As psychiatrists, we did not find this omission surprising, given the sidelined role our specialty too often plays among medical professionals. But we did find it disappointing. Not having a single behavioral health provider on the advisory board will prove to be a mistake that could affect millions of Americans.
Studies continue to roll in showing that patients with COVID-19 can present during and after infection with neuropsychiatric symptoms, including delirium, psychosis, and anxiety. In July, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet regarding the neuropsychological outcomes of earlier diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome – suggested that, in the short term, close to one-quarter of patients experienced confusion representative of delirium. In the long term, following recovery, respondents frequently reported emotional lability, impaired concentration, and traumatic memories. Additionally, more recent research published in The Lancet suggests that rates of psychiatric disorders, dementia, and insomnia are significantly higher among survivors of COVID-19. This study echoes the findings of an article in JAMA from September that reported that, among patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19, mortality rates were higher for those who had previously been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. And overall, the pandemic has been associated with significantly increased rates of anxiety and depression symptoms.
Although this research is preliminary,
This is especially true when you consider the following:
- It is very difficult to diagnose and treat mental health symptoms in a primary care setting that is already overburdened. Doing so results in delayed treatment and increased costs.
- In the long term, COVID-19 survivors will overburden the already underfunded mental healthcare system.
- Additional unforeseen psychological outcomes stem from the myriad traumas of events in 2020 (eg, racial unrest, children out of school, loss of jobs, the recent election).
Psychiatric disorders are notoriously difficult to diagnose and treat in the outpatient primary care setting, which is why mental health professionals will need to be a more integral part of the postpandemic treatment model and should be represented on the advisory board. Each year in the United States, there are more than 8 million doctors’ visits for depression, and more than half of these are in the primary care setting. Yet fewer than half of those patients leave with a diagnosis of depression or are treated for it.
Historically, screening for depression in the primary care setting is difficult given its broad presentation of symptoms, which include nonspecific physical complaints, such as digestive problems, headaches, insomnia, or general aches and pains. These shortcomings exist despite multiple changes in guidelines, such as regarding the use of self-screening tools and general screening for specific populations, such as postpartum women.
But screening alone has not been an effective strategy, especially when certain groups are less likely to be screened. These include older adults, Black persons, and men, all of whom are at higher risk for mortality after COVID-19. There is a failure to consistently apply standards of universal screening across all patient groups, and even if it occurs, there is a failure to establish reliable treatment and follow-up regimens. As clinicians, imagine how challenging diagnosis and treatment of more complicated psychiatric syndromes, such as somatoform disorder, will be in the primary care setting after the pandemic.
When almost two-thirds of symptoms in primary care are already “medically unexplained,” how do we expect primary care doctors to differentiate between those presenting with vague coronavirus-related “brain fog,” the run of the mill worrywart, and the 16%-34% with legitimate hypochondriasis of somatoform disorder who won’t improve without the involvement of a mental health provider?
A specialty in short supply
The mental health system we have now is inadequate for those who are currently diagnosed with mental disorders. Before the pandemic, emergency departments were boarding increasing numbers of patients with psychiatric illness because beds on inpatient units were unavailable. Individuals with insurance faced difficulty finding psychiatrists or psychotherapists who took insurance or who were availabile to accept new patients, given the growing shortage of providers in general. Community health centers continued to grapple with decreases in federal and state funding despite public political support for parity. Individuals with substance use faced few options for the outpatient, residential, or pharmacologic treatment that many needed to maintain sobriety.
Since the pandemic, we have seen rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal thinking increase among adults and youth while many clinics have been forced to lay off employees, reduce services, or close their doors. As psychiatrists, we not only see the lack of treatment options for our patients but are forced to find creative solutions to meet their needs. How are we supposed to adapt (or feel confident) when individuals with or without previous mental illness face downstream consequences after COVID-19 when not one of our own is represented in the advisory board? How can we feel confident that downstream solutions acknowledge and address the intricacy of the behavioral health system that we, as mental health providers, know so intimately?
And what about the cumulative impact of everything else that has happened in 2020 in addition to the pandemic?! Although cataloging the various negative events that have happened this year is beyond the scope of this discussion, such lists have been compiled by the mainstream media and include the Australian brush fires, the crisis in Armenia, racial protests, economic uncertainties, and the run-up to and occurrence of the 2020 presidential election. Research is solid in its assertion that chronic stress can disturb our immune and cardiovascular systems, as well as mental health, leading to depression or anxiety. As a result of the pandemic itself, plus the events of this year, mental health providers are already warning not only of the current trauma underlying our day-to-day lives but also that of years to come.
More importantly, healthcare providers, both those represented by members of the advisory board and those who are not, are not immune to these issues. Before the pandemic, rates of suicide among doctors were already above average compared with other professions. After witnessing death repeatedly, self-isolation, the risk for infection to family, and dealing with the continued resistance to wearing masks, who knows what the eventual psychological toll our medical workforce will be?
Mental health providers have stepped up to the plate to provide care outside of traditional models to meet the needs that patients have now. One survey found that 81% of behavioral health providers began using telehealth for the first time in the past 6 months, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. If not for the sake of the mental health of the Biden-Harris advisory board members themselves, who as doctors are likely to downplay the impact when struggling with mental health concerns in their own lives, a mental health provider deserves a seat at the table.
Plus, the outcomes speak for themselves when behavioral health providers collaborate with primary care providers to give treatment or when mental health experts are members of health crisis teams. Why wouldn’t the same be true for the Biden-Harris advisory board?
Kali Cyrus, MD, MPH, is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. She sees patients in private practice and offers consultation services in diversity strategy. Ranna Parekh, MD, MPH, is past deputy medical director and director of diversity and health equity for the American Psychiatric Association. She is currently a consultant psychiatrist at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the chief diversity and inclusion officer at the American College of Cardiology.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Can mental health teams de-escalate crises in NYC?
“Defund the police”: It’s a slogan, or perhaps a battle cry, that has emerged from the Black Lives Matter movement as a response to race-related police brutality and concerns that people of color are profiled, targeted, arrested, charged, manhandled, and killed by law enforcement in a disproportionate and unjust manner. It crosses into our realm as psychiatrists as mental health emergency calls are handled by the police and not by mental health professionals. The result is sometimes tragic: As many as half of police shootings involve people with psychiatric disorders, and the hope is that many of the police shootings could be avoided if crises were handed by mental health clinicians instead of, or in cooperation with, the police.
At best, police officers receive a week of specialized, crisis intervention training about how to approach those with psychiatric disorders; most officers receive no training. This leaves psychiatry as the only field where medical crises are routinely handled by the police – it is demeaning and embarrassing for some of our patients and dangerous for others. The reality remains, however, that there are times when psychiatric disorders result in violent behavior, and patients being taken for involuntary treatment often resist transport, so either way there is risk, both to the patient and to anyone who responds to a call for assistance.
Early this month, the office of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that a major change would be made in how mental health calls to 911 are handled in two “high-need” areas. The mayor’s website states:
“Beginning in February 2021, new Mental Health Teams will use their physical and mental health expertise, and experience in crisis response to de-escalate emergency situations, will help reduce the number of times police will need to respond to 911 mental health calls in these precincts. These teams will have the expertise to respond to a range of behavioral health problems, such as suicide attempts, substance misuse, and serious mental illness, as well as physical health problems, which can be exacerbated by or mask mental health problems. NYC Health + Hospitals will train and provide ongoing technical assistance and support. In selecting team members for this program, FDNY will prioritize professionals with significant experience with mental health crises.”
The press release goes on to say that, in situations where there is a weapon or reason to believe there is a risk of violence, the police will be dispatched along with the new mental health team.
“This is the first time in our history that health professionals will be the default responders to mental health emergencies,” New York City First Lady Chirlane McCray said as she announced the new program. “Treating mental health crises as mental health challenges and not public safety ones is the modern and more appropriate approach.”
New York City is not the first city to employ this model. In the United States, the CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets) program in Eugene, Ore., has been run by the White Bird Clinic since 1989 as part of a community policing initiative. Last year, the team responded to 24,000 calls and police backup was required on only 150 of those responses. The CAHOOTS website states:
“The CAHOOTS model has been in the spotlight recently as our nation struggles to reimagine public safety. The program mobilizes two-person teams consisting of a medic (a nurse, paramedic, or EMT) and a crisis worker who has substantial training and experience in the mental health field. The CAHOOTS teams deal with a wide range of mental health-related crises, including conflict resolution, welfare checks, substance abuse, suicide threats, and more, relying on trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction techniques. CAHOOTS staff are not law enforcement officers and do not carry weapons; their training and experience are the tools they use to ensure a non-violent resolution of crisis situations. They also handle non-emergent medical issues, avoiding costly ambulance transport and emergency room treatment.”
Other cities in the United States are also looking at implementing programs where mental health teams, and not the police, respond to emergency calls. Last year, Oakland, Calif.’s city council invested $40,000 in research to assess how they could best implement a program like the one in Eugene. They hope to begin the Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland (MACROS) next year. Sigal Samuel writes in a Vox article, “The goal is to launch the pilot next year with funding from the city budget, and although supporters are not yet sure what its size and duration will be, they’re hopeful it’ll make a big difference to Oakland’s overpoliced community of people without homes. They were among those who first called for a non-policing approach.”
The model is not unique to the United States. In 2005, Stockholm started a program with a psychiatric ambulance – equipped with comfortable seating rather than a stretcher – to respond to mental health emergencies. The ambulance responds to 130 calls a month. It is staffed with a driver and two psychiatric nurses, and for half of the calls, the police also come. While the Swedish program was not about removing resources from the police, it has relieved the police of the responsibility for many psychiatric emergencies.
The New York City program will be modeled after the CAHOOTS initiative in Eugene. It differs from the mobile crisis response services in many other cities because CAHOOTS is hooked directly into the 911 emergency services system. Its website notes that the program has saved money:
“The cost savings are considerable. The CAHOOTS program budget is about $2.1 million annually, while the combined annual budgets for the Eugene and Springfield police departments are $90 million. In 2017, the CAHOOTS teams answered 17% of the Eugene Police Department’s overall call volume. The program saves the city of Eugene an estimated $8.5 million in public safety spending annually.”
Some worry there is an unpredictable aspect to calls for psychiatric emergencies, and the potential for mental health professions to be injured or killed. Annette Hanson, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at University of Maryland, Baltimore, voiced her concerns, “While multidisciplinary teams are useful, there have been rare cases of violence against responding mental health providers. People with serious mental illness are rarely violent but their dangerousness is unpredictable and cannot be predicted by case screening.”
Daniel Felts is a mental health crisis counselor who has worked at CAHOOTS for the past 4* years. He has responded to about 8,000 calls, and called for police backup only three times to request an immediate "Code 3 cover" when someone's safety has been in danger. Mr. Felts calls the police about once a month for concerns that do not require an immediate response for safety.* “Over the last 4 years, I am only aware of three instances when a team member’s safety was compromised because of a client’s violent behavior. No employee has been seriously physically harmed. In 30 years, with hundreds of thousands (millions?) of calls responded to, no CAHOOTS worker has ever been killed, shot, or stabbed in the line of duty,” Mr. Felts noted.
Emergency calls are screened. “It is not uncommon for CAHOOTS to be dispatched to ‘stage’ for calls involving active disputes or acutely suicidal individuals where means are present. “Staging” entails us parking roughly a mile away while police make first contact and advise whether it is safe for CAHOOTS to engage.”
Mr. Felts went on to discuss the program’s relationship with the community. “ and how we operate. Having operated in Eugene for 30 years, our service is well understood to be one that does not kill, harm, or violate personal boundaries or liberties.”
Would a program like the ones in Stockholm or in Eugene work in other places? Eugene is a city with a population of 172,000 with a low crime rate. Whether a program implemented in one city can be mimicked in another very different city is not clear.
Paul Appelbaum, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at Columbia University, New York, is optimistic about New York City’s forthcoming program.
“The proposed pilot project in NYC is a real step forward. Work that we’ve done looking at fatal encounters involving the police found that roughly 25% of all deaths at the hands of the police are of people with mental illness. In many of those cases, police were initially called to bring people who were clearly troubled for psychiatric evaluation, but as the situation escalated, the police turned to their weapons to control it, which led to a fatal outcome. Taking police out of the picture whenever possible in favor of trained mental health personnel is clearly a better approach. It will be important for the city to collect good outcome data to enable independent evaluation of the pilot project – not something that political entities are inclined toward, but a critical element in assessing the effectiveness of this approach.”
There are questions that remain about the new program. Mayor de Blasio’s office has not released information about which areas of the city are being chosen for the new program, how much the program will cost, or what the funding source will be. If it can be implemented safely and effectively, it has the potential to provide more sensitive care to patients in crisis, and to save lives.
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.
*Correction, 11/27/2020: An earlier version of this article misstated the number of years Daniel Felts has worked at CAHOOTS.
“Defund the police”: It’s a slogan, or perhaps a battle cry, that has emerged from the Black Lives Matter movement as a response to race-related police brutality and concerns that people of color are profiled, targeted, arrested, charged, manhandled, and killed by law enforcement in a disproportionate and unjust manner. It crosses into our realm as psychiatrists as mental health emergency calls are handled by the police and not by mental health professionals. The result is sometimes tragic: As many as half of police shootings involve people with psychiatric disorders, and the hope is that many of the police shootings could be avoided if crises were handed by mental health clinicians instead of, or in cooperation with, the police.
At best, police officers receive a week of specialized, crisis intervention training about how to approach those with psychiatric disorders; most officers receive no training. This leaves psychiatry as the only field where medical crises are routinely handled by the police – it is demeaning and embarrassing for some of our patients and dangerous for others. The reality remains, however, that there are times when psychiatric disorders result in violent behavior, and patients being taken for involuntary treatment often resist transport, so either way there is risk, both to the patient and to anyone who responds to a call for assistance.
Early this month, the office of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that a major change would be made in how mental health calls to 911 are handled in two “high-need” areas. The mayor’s website states:
“Beginning in February 2021, new Mental Health Teams will use their physical and mental health expertise, and experience in crisis response to de-escalate emergency situations, will help reduce the number of times police will need to respond to 911 mental health calls in these precincts. These teams will have the expertise to respond to a range of behavioral health problems, such as suicide attempts, substance misuse, and serious mental illness, as well as physical health problems, which can be exacerbated by or mask mental health problems. NYC Health + Hospitals will train and provide ongoing technical assistance and support. In selecting team members for this program, FDNY will prioritize professionals with significant experience with mental health crises.”
The press release goes on to say that, in situations where there is a weapon or reason to believe there is a risk of violence, the police will be dispatched along with the new mental health team.
“This is the first time in our history that health professionals will be the default responders to mental health emergencies,” New York City First Lady Chirlane McCray said as she announced the new program. “Treating mental health crises as mental health challenges and not public safety ones is the modern and more appropriate approach.”
New York City is not the first city to employ this model. In the United States, the CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets) program in Eugene, Ore., has been run by the White Bird Clinic since 1989 as part of a community policing initiative. Last year, the team responded to 24,000 calls and police backup was required on only 150 of those responses. The CAHOOTS website states:
“The CAHOOTS model has been in the spotlight recently as our nation struggles to reimagine public safety. The program mobilizes two-person teams consisting of a medic (a nurse, paramedic, or EMT) and a crisis worker who has substantial training and experience in the mental health field. The CAHOOTS teams deal with a wide range of mental health-related crises, including conflict resolution, welfare checks, substance abuse, suicide threats, and more, relying on trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction techniques. CAHOOTS staff are not law enforcement officers and do not carry weapons; their training and experience are the tools they use to ensure a non-violent resolution of crisis situations. They also handle non-emergent medical issues, avoiding costly ambulance transport and emergency room treatment.”
Other cities in the United States are also looking at implementing programs where mental health teams, and not the police, respond to emergency calls. Last year, Oakland, Calif.’s city council invested $40,000 in research to assess how they could best implement a program like the one in Eugene. They hope to begin the Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland (MACROS) next year. Sigal Samuel writes in a Vox article, “The goal is to launch the pilot next year with funding from the city budget, and although supporters are not yet sure what its size and duration will be, they’re hopeful it’ll make a big difference to Oakland’s overpoliced community of people without homes. They were among those who first called for a non-policing approach.”
The model is not unique to the United States. In 2005, Stockholm started a program with a psychiatric ambulance – equipped with comfortable seating rather than a stretcher – to respond to mental health emergencies. The ambulance responds to 130 calls a month. It is staffed with a driver and two psychiatric nurses, and for half of the calls, the police also come. While the Swedish program was not about removing resources from the police, it has relieved the police of the responsibility for many psychiatric emergencies.
The New York City program will be modeled after the CAHOOTS initiative in Eugene. It differs from the mobile crisis response services in many other cities because CAHOOTS is hooked directly into the 911 emergency services system. Its website notes that the program has saved money:
“The cost savings are considerable. The CAHOOTS program budget is about $2.1 million annually, while the combined annual budgets for the Eugene and Springfield police departments are $90 million. In 2017, the CAHOOTS teams answered 17% of the Eugene Police Department’s overall call volume. The program saves the city of Eugene an estimated $8.5 million in public safety spending annually.”
Some worry there is an unpredictable aspect to calls for psychiatric emergencies, and the potential for mental health professions to be injured or killed. Annette Hanson, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at University of Maryland, Baltimore, voiced her concerns, “While multidisciplinary teams are useful, there have been rare cases of violence against responding mental health providers. People with serious mental illness are rarely violent but their dangerousness is unpredictable and cannot be predicted by case screening.”
Daniel Felts is a mental health crisis counselor who has worked at CAHOOTS for the past 4* years. He has responded to about 8,000 calls, and called for police backup only three times to request an immediate "Code 3 cover" when someone's safety has been in danger. Mr. Felts calls the police about once a month for concerns that do not require an immediate response for safety.* “Over the last 4 years, I am only aware of three instances when a team member’s safety was compromised because of a client’s violent behavior. No employee has been seriously physically harmed. In 30 years, with hundreds of thousands (millions?) of calls responded to, no CAHOOTS worker has ever been killed, shot, or stabbed in the line of duty,” Mr. Felts noted.
Emergency calls are screened. “It is not uncommon for CAHOOTS to be dispatched to ‘stage’ for calls involving active disputes or acutely suicidal individuals where means are present. “Staging” entails us parking roughly a mile away while police make first contact and advise whether it is safe for CAHOOTS to engage.”
Mr. Felts went on to discuss the program’s relationship with the community. “ and how we operate. Having operated in Eugene for 30 years, our service is well understood to be one that does not kill, harm, or violate personal boundaries or liberties.”
Would a program like the ones in Stockholm or in Eugene work in other places? Eugene is a city with a population of 172,000 with a low crime rate. Whether a program implemented in one city can be mimicked in another very different city is not clear.
Paul Appelbaum, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at Columbia University, New York, is optimistic about New York City’s forthcoming program.
“The proposed pilot project in NYC is a real step forward. Work that we’ve done looking at fatal encounters involving the police found that roughly 25% of all deaths at the hands of the police are of people with mental illness. In many of those cases, police were initially called to bring people who were clearly troubled for psychiatric evaluation, but as the situation escalated, the police turned to their weapons to control it, which led to a fatal outcome. Taking police out of the picture whenever possible in favor of trained mental health personnel is clearly a better approach. It will be important for the city to collect good outcome data to enable independent evaluation of the pilot project – not something that political entities are inclined toward, but a critical element in assessing the effectiveness of this approach.”
There are questions that remain about the new program. Mayor de Blasio’s office has not released information about which areas of the city are being chosen for the new program, how much the program will cost, or what the funding source will be. If it can be implemented safely and effectively, it has the potential to provide more sensitive care to patients in crisis, and to save lives.
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.
*Correction, 11/27/2020: An earlier version of this article misstated the number of years Daniel Felts has worked at CAHOOTS.
“Defund the police”: It’s a slogan, or perhaps a battle cry, that has emerged from the Black Lives Matter movement as a response to race-related police brutality and concerns that people of color are profiled, targeted, arrested, charged, manhandled, and killed by law enforcement in a disproportionate and unjust manner. It crosses into our realm as psychiatrists as mental health emergency calls are handled by the police and not by mental health professionals. The result is sometimes tragic: As many as half of police shootings involve people with psychiatric disorders, and the hope is that many of the police shootings could be avoided if crises were handed by mental health clinicians instead of, or in cooperation with, the police.
At best, police officers receive a week of specialized, crisis intervention training about how to approach those with psychiatric disorders; most officers receive no training. This leaves psychiatry as the only field where medical crises are routinely handled by the police – it is demeaning and embarrassing for some of our patients and dangerous for others. The reality remains, however, that there are times when psychiatric disorders result in violent behavior, and patients being taken for involuntary treatment often resist transport, so either way there is risk, both to the patient and to anyone who responds to a call for assistance.
Early this month, the office of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that a major change would be made in how mental health calls to 911 are handled in two “high-need” areas. The mayor’s website states:
“Beginning in February 2021, new Mental Health Teams will use their physical and mental health expertise, and experience in crisis response to de-escalate emergency situations, will help reduce the number of times police will need to respond to 911 mental health calls in these precincts. These teams will have the expertise to respond to a range of behavioral health problems, such as suicide attempts, substance misuse, and serious mental illness, as well as physical health problems, which can be exacerbated by or mask mental health problems. NYC Health + Hospitals will train and provide ongoing technical assistance and support. In selecting team members for this program, FDNY will prioritize professionals with significant experience with mental health crises.”
The press release goes on to say that, in situations where there is a weapon or reason to believe there is a risk of violence, the police will be dispatched along with the new mental health team.
“This is the first time in our history that health professionals will be the default responders to mental health emergencies,” New York City First Lady Chirlane McCray said as she announced the new program. “Treating mental health crises as mental health challenges and not public safety ones is the modern and more appropriate approach.”
New York City is not the first city to employ this model. In the United States, the CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets) program in Eugene, Ore., has been run by the White Bird Clinic since 1989 as part of a community policing initiative. Last year, the team responded to 24,000 calls and police backup was required on only 150 of those responses. The CAHOOTS website states:
“The CAHOOTS model has been in the spotlight recently as our nation struggles to reimagine public safety. The program mobilizes two-person teams consisting of a medic (a nurse, paramedic, or EMT) and a crisis worker who has substantial training and experience in the mental health field. The CAHOOTS teams deal with a wide range of mental health-related crises, including conflict resolution, welfare checks, substance abuse, suicide threats, and more, relying on trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction techniques. CAHOOTS staff are not law enforcement officers and do not carry weapons; their training and experience are the tools they use to ensure a non-violent resolution of crisis situations. They also handle non-emergent medical issues, avoiding costly ambulance transport and emergency room treatment.”
Other cities in the United States are also looking at implementing programs where mental health teams, and not the police, respond to emergency calls. Last year, Oakland, Calif.’s city council invested $40,000 in research to assess how they could best implement a program like the one in Eugene. They hope to begin the Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland (MACROS) next year. Sigal Samuel writes in a Vox article, “The goal is to launch the pilot next year with funding from the city budget, and although supporters are not yet sure what its size and duration will be, they’re hopeful it’ll make a big difference to Oakland’s overpoliced community of people without homes. They were among those who first called for a non-policing approach.”
The model is not unique to the United States. In 2005, Stockholm started a program with a psychiatric ambulance – equipped with comfortable seating rather than a stretcher – to respond to mental health emergencies. The ambulance responds to 130 calls a month. It is staffed with a driver and two psychiatric nurses, and for half of the calls, the police also come. While the Swedish program was not about removing resources from the police, it has relieved the police of the responsibility for many psychiatric emergencies.
The New York City program will be modeled after the CAHOOTS initiative in Eugene. It differs from the mobile crisis response services in many other cities because CAHOOTS is hooked directly into the 911 emergency services system. Its website notes that the program has saved money:
“The cost savings are considerable. The CAHOOTS program budget is about $2.1 million annually, while the combined annual budgets for the Eugene and Springfield police departments are $90 million. In 2017, the CAHOOTS teams answered 17% of the Eugene Police Department’s overall call volume. The program saves the city of Eugene an estimated $8.5 million in public safety spending annually.”
Some worry there is an unpredictable aspect to calls for psychiatric emergencies, and the potential for mental health professions to be injured or killed. Annette Hanson, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at University of Maryland, Baltimore, voiced her concerns, “While multidisciplinary teams are useful, there have been rare cases of violence against responding mental health providers. People with serious mental illness are rarely violent but their dangerousness is unpredictable and cannot be predicted by case screening.”
Daniel Felts is a mental health crisis counselor who has worked at CAHOOTS for the past 4* years. He has responded to about 8,000 calls, and called for police backup only three times to request an immediate "Code 3 cover" when someone's safety has been in danger. Mr. Felts calls the police about once a month for concerns that do not require an immediate response for safety.* “Over the last 4 years, I am only aware of three instances when a team member’s safety was compromised because of a client’s violent behavior. No employee has been seriously physically harmed. In 30 years, with hundreds of thousands (millions?) of calls responded to, no CAHOOTS worker has ever been killed, shot, or stabbed in the line of duty,” Mr. Felts noted.
Emergency calls are screened. “It is not uncommon for CAHOOTS to be dispatched to ‘stage’ for calls involving active disputes or acutely suicidal individuals where means are present. “Staging” entails us parking roughly a mile away while police make first contact and advise whether it is safe for CAHOOTS to engage.”
Mr. Felts went on to discuss the program’s relationship with the community. “ and how we operate. Having operated in Eugene for 30 years, our service is well understood to be one that does not kill, harm, or violate personal boundaries or liberties.”
Would a program like the ones in Stockholm or in Eugene work in other places? Eugene is a city with a population of 172,000 with a low crime rate. Whether a program implemented in one city can be mimicked in another very different city is not clear.
Paul Appelbaum, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at Columbia University, New York, is optimistic about New York City’s forthcoming program.
“The proposed pilot project in NYC is a real step forward. Work that we’ve done looking at fatal encounters involving the police found that roughly 25% of all deaths at the hands of the police are of people with mental illness. In many of those cases, police were initially called to bring people who were clearly troubled for psychiatric evaluation, but as the situation escalated, the police turned to their weapons to control it, which led to a fatal outcome. Taking police out of the picture whenever possible in favor of trained mental health personnel is clearly a better approach. It will be important for the city to collect good outcome data to enable independent evaluation of the pilot project – not something that political entities are inclined toward, but a critical element in assessing the effectiveness of this approach.”
There are questions that remain about the new program. Mayor de Blasio’s office has not released information about which areas of the city are being chosen for the new program, how much the program will cost, or what the funding source will be. If it can be implemented safely and effectively, it has the potential to provide more sensitive care to patients in crisis, and to save lives.
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.
*Correction, 11/27/2020: An earlier version of this article misstated the number of years Daniel Felts has worked at CAHOOTS.
Excited delirium: Is it time to change the status quo?
Prior to George Floyd’s death, Officer Thomas Lane reportedly said, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever” to his colleague, Officer Derek Chauvin.1 For those of us who frequently work with law enforcement and in correctional facilities, “excited delirium” is a common refrain. It would be too facile to dismiss the concept as an attempt by police officers to inappropriately use medically sounding jargon to justify violence. “Excited delirium” is a reminder of the complex situations faced by police officers and the need for better medical training, as well as the attention of research on this commonly used label.
Many law enforcement facilities, in particular jails that receive inmates directly from the community, will have large posters educating staff on the “signs of excited delirium.” The concept is not covered in residency training programs, or many of the leading textbooks of psychiatry. Yet, it has become common parlance in law enforcement. Officers in training receive education programs on excited delirium, although those are rarely conducted by clinicians.
In our practice and experience, “excited delirium” has been used by law enforcement officers to describe mood lability from the stress of arrest, acute agitation from stimulant or phencyclidine intoxication, actual delirium from a medical comorbidity, sociopathic aggression for the purpose of violence, and incoherence from psychosis, along with simply describing a person not following direction from a police officer.
Our differential diagnosis when informed that someone was described by a nonclinician as having so-called excited delirium is wider than the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). In addition, the term comes at a cost. Its use has been implicated in police-related deaths and brutality.2 There is also concern of its disproportionate application to Black people.3,4
Nonetheless, the term “excited delirium” can sometimes accurately describe critical medical situations. We particularly remember a case of altered mental status from serotonin syndrome, a case of delirium tremens from alcohol withdrawal, and a case of life-threatening dehydration in the context of stimulant intoxication. Each of those cases was appropriately recognized as problematic by perceptive and caring police officers. It is important for police officers to recognize these life-threatening conditions, and they need the language to do so. Having a common label that can be used across professional fields and law enforcement departments to express medical concern in the context of aggressive behavior has value. The question is: can psychiatry help law enforcement describe situations more accurately?
As physicians, it would be overly simple to point out the limited understanding of medical information by police and correctional officers. Naming many behaviors poses significant challenges for psychiatrists and nonclinicians. Examples include the use of the word “agitation” to describe mild restlessness, “delusional” for uncooperative, and “irritable” for opinionated. We must also be cognizant of the infinite demands placed on police officers and that labels must be available to them to express complex situations without being forced to use medical diagnosis and terminology for which they do not have the license or expertise. It is possible that “excited delirium” serves an important role; the problem may not be as much “excited delirium,” the term itself, as the diversion of its use to justify poor policing.
It must be acknowledged that debates, concerns, poor nomenclature, confusing labels, and different interpretations of diagnoses and symptoms are not unusual things in psychiatry, even among professionals. In the 1970s, the famous American and British study of diagnostic criteria, showed that psychiatrists used the diagnosis of schizophrenia to describe vastly different patients.5 The findings of the study were a significant cause of the paradigm shift of the DSM in its 3rd edition. More recently, the DSM-5 field trials suggested that the field of psychiatry continues to struggle with this problem.6 Nonetheless, each edition of the DSM presents a new opportunity to discuss, refine, and improve our ability to communicate while emphasizing the importance of improving our common language.
Emergency physicians face delirious patients brought to them from the community on a regular basis. As such, it makes sense that they have been at the forefront of this issue and the American College of Emergency Physicians has recognized excited delirium as a condition since 2009.7 The emergency physician literature points out that death from excited delirium also happens in hospitals and is not a unique consequence of law enforcement. There is no accepted definition. Reported symptoms include agitation, bizarre behavior, tirelessness, unusual strength, pain tolerance, noncompliance, attraction to reflective surfaces, stupor, fear, panic, hyperthermia, inappropriate clothing, tachycardia, tachypnea, diaphoresis, seizure, and mydriasis. Etiology is suspected to be from catecholaminergic endogenous stress-related catecholamines and exogenous catecholaminergic drugs. In particular is the importance of dopamine through the use of stimulants, specifically cocaine. The literature makes some reference to management, including recommendations aimed at keeping patients on one of their sides, using de-escalation techniques, and performing evaluation in quiet rooms.
We certainly condone and commend efforts to understand and define this condition in the medical literature. The indiscriminate use of “excited delirium” to represent all sorts of behaviors by nonmedical personnel warrants intelligent, relevant, and researched commentary by physicians. There are several potentially appropriate ways forward. First, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium is not a useful diagnosis in the clinical setting and does not belong in the DSM. That distinction in itself would be potentially useful to law enforcement officers, who might welcome the opportunity to create their own nomenclature and classification. Second, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium is not a useful diagnosis in the clinical setting but warrants a definition nonetheless, akin to the ways homelessness and extreme poverty are defined in the DSM; this definition could take into account the wide use of the term by nonclinicians. Third, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium warrants a clinical diagnosis that warrants a distinction and clarification from the current delirium diagnosis with the hyperactive specifier.
At this time, the status quo doesn’t protect or help clinicians in their respective fields of work. “Excited delirium” is routinely used by law enforcement officers without clear meaning. Experts have difficulty pointing out the poor or ill-intended use of the term without a precise or accepted definition to rely on. Some of the proposed criteria, such as “unusual strength,” have unclear scientific legitimacy. Some, such as agitation or bizarre behavior, often have different meanings to nonphysicians. Some, such as poor clothing, may facilitate discrimination. The current state allows some professionals to hide their limited attempts at de-escalation by describing the person of interest as having excited delirium. On the other hand, the current state also prevents well-intended officers from using proper terminology that is understood by others as describing a concerning behavior reliably.
We wonder whether excited delirium is an important facet of the current dilemma of reconsidering the role of law enforcement in society. Frequent use of “excited delirium” by police officers is itself a testament to their desire to have assistance or delegation of certain duties to other social services, such as health care. In some ways, police officers face a difficult position: Admission that a behavior may be attributable to excited delirium should warrant a medical evaluation and, thus, render the person of interest a patient rather than a suspect. As such, this person interacting with police officers should be treated as someone in need of medical care, which makes many interventions – including neck compression – seemingly inappropriate. The frequent use of “excited delirium” suggests that law enforcement is ill-equipped in handling many situations and that an attempt to diversify the composition and funding of emergency response might be warranted. Psychiatry should be at the forefront of this research and effort.
References
1. State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin (4th Judicial District, 2020 May 29).
2. J Forensic Leg Med. 2008 May 15(4):227-30.
3. “Excited delirium: Rare and deadly syndrome or a condition to excuse deaths by police?” Florida Today. 2020 Jan 20.
4. J Forensic Sci. 1997 Jan;42(1):25-31.
5. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1971;25(2):123-30.
6. Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;170(1):59-70.
7. White Paper Report on Excited Delirium Syndrome. ACEP Excited Delirium Task Force. 2009 Sep 10.
Dr. Amendolara is a first-year psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. He spent years advocating for survivors of rape and domestic violence at the Crime Victims Treatment Center in New York and conducted public health research at Lourdes Center for Public Health in Camden, N.J. Dr. Amendolara has no disclosures. Dr. Malik is a first-year psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She has a background in policy and grassroots organizing through her time working at the National Coalition for the Homeless and the Women’s Law Project. Dr. Malik has no disclosures. Dr. Abrams is a forensic psychiatrist and attorney in San Diego. He is an expert in addictionology, behavioral toxicology, psychopharmacology, and correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego. Among his writings are chapters about competency in national textbooks. Dr. Abrams has no disclosures. Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings is chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019). He has no disclosures.
Prior to George Floyd’s death, Officer Thomas Lane reportedly said, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever” to his colleague, Officer Derek Chauvin.1 For those of us who frequently work with law enforcement and in correctional facilities, “excited delirium” is a common refrain. It would be too facile to dismiss the concept as an attempt by police officers to inappropriately use medically sounding jargon to justify violence. “Excited delirium” is a reminder of the complex situations faced by police officers and the need for better medical training, as well as the attention of research on this commonly used label.
Many law enforcement facilities, in particular jails that receive inmates directly from the community, will have large posters educating staff on the “signs of excited delirium.” The concept is not covered in residency training programs, or many of the leading textbooks of psychiatry. Yet, it has become common parlance in law enforcement. Officers in training receive education programs on excited delirium, although those are rarely conducted by clinicians.
In our practice and experience, “excited delirium” has been used by law enforcement officers to describe mood lability from the stress of arrest, acute agitation from stimulant or phencyclidine intoxication, actual delirium from a medical comorbidity, sociopathic aggression for the purpose of violence, and incoherence from psychosis, along with simply describing a person not following direction from a police officer.
Our differential diagnosis when informed that someone was described by a nonclinician as having so-called excited delirium is wider than the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). In addition, the term comes at a cost. Its use has been implicated in police-related deaths and brutality.2 There is also concern of its disproportionate application to Black people.3,4
Nonetheless, the term “excited delirium” can sometimes accurately describe critical medical situations. We particularly remember a case of altered mental status from serotonin syndrome, a case of delirium tremens from alcohol withdrawal, and a case of life-threatening dehydration in the context of stimulant intoxication. Each of those cases was appropriately recognized as problematic by perceptive and caring police officers. It is important for police officers to recognize these life-threatening conditions, and they need the language to do so. Having a common label that can be used across professional fields and law enforcement departments to express medical concern in the context of aggressive behavior has value. The question is: can psychiatry help law enforcement describe situations more accurately?
As physicians, it would be overly simple to point out the limited understanding of medical information by police and correctional officers. Naming many behaviors poses significant challenges for psychiatrists and nonclinicians. Examples include the use of the word “agitation” to describe mild restlessness, “delusional” for uncooperative, and “irritable” for opinionated. We must also be cognizant of the infinite demands placed on police officers and that labels must be available to them to express complex situations without being forced to use medical diagnosis and terminology for which they do not have the license or expertise. It is possible that “excited delirium” serves an important role; the problem may not be as much “excited delirium,” the term itself, as the diversion of its use to justify poor policing.
It must be acknowledged that debates, concerns, poor nomenclature, confusing labels, and different interpretations of diagnoses and symptoms are not unusual things in psychiatry, even among professionals. In the 1970s, the famous American and British study of diagnostic criteria, showed that psychiatrists used the diagnosis of schizophrenia to describe vastly different patients.5 The findings of the study were a significant cause of the paradigm shift of the DSM in its 3rd edition. More recently, the DSM-5 field trials suggested that the field of psychiatry continues to struggle with this problem.6 Nonetheless, each edition of the DSM presents a new opportunity to discuss, refine, and improve our ability to communicate while emphasizing the importance of improving our common language.
Emergency physicians face delirious patients brought to them from the community on a regular basis. As such, it makes sense that they have been at the forefront of this issue and the American College of Emergency Physicians has recognized excited delirium as a condition since 2009.7 The emergency physician literature points out that death from excited delirium also happens in hospitals and is not a unique consequence of law enforcement. There is no accepted definition. Reported symptoms include agitation, bizarre behavior, tirelessness, unusual strength, pain tolerance, noncompliance, attraction to reflective surfaces, stupor, fear, panic, hyperthermia, inappropriate clothing, tachycardia, tachypnea, diaphoresis, seizure, and mydriasis. Etiology is suspected to be from catecholaminergic endogenous stress-related catecholamines and exogenous catecholaminergic drugs. In particular is the importance of dopamine through the use of stimulants, specifically cocaine. The literature makes some reference to management, including recommendations aimed at keeping patients on one of their sides, using de-escalation techniques, and performing evaluation in quiet rooms.
We certainly condone and commend efforts to understand and define this condition in the medical literature. The indiscriminate use of “excited delirium” to represent all sorts of behaviors by nonmedical personnel warrants intelligent, relevant, and researched commentary by physicians. There are several potentially appropriate ways forward. First, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium is not a useful diagnosis in the clinical setting and does not belong in the DSM. That distinction in itself would be potentially useful to law enforcement officers, who might welcome the opportunity to create their own nomenclature and classification. Second, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium is not a useful diagnosis in the clinical setting but warrants a definition nonetheless, akin to the ways homelessness and extreme poverty are defined in the DSM; this definition could take into account the wide use of the term by nonclinicians. Third, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium warrants a clinical diagnosis that warrants a distinction and clarification from the current delirium diagnosis with the hyperactive specifier.
At this time, the status quo doesn’t protect or help clinicians in their respective fields of work. “Excited delirium” is routinely used by law enforcement officers without clear meaning. Experts have difficulty pointing out the poor or ill-intended use of the term without a precise or accepted definition to rely on. Some of the proposed criteria, such as “unusual strength,” have unclear scientific legitimacy. Some, such as agitation or bizarre behavior, often have different meanings to nonphysicians. Some, such as poor clothing, may facilitate discrimination. The current state allows some professionals to hide their limited attempts at de-escalation by describing the person of interest as having excited delirium. On the other hand, the current state also prevents well-intended officers from using proper terminology that is understood by others as describing a concerning behavior reliably.
We wonder whether excited delirium is an important facet of the current dilemma of reconsidering the role of law enforcement in society. Frequent use of “excited delirium” by police officers is itself a testament to their desire to have assistance or delegation of certain duties to other social services, such as health care. In some ways, police officers face a difficult position: Admission that a behavior may be attributable to excited delirium should warrant a medical evaluation and, thus, render the person of interest a patient rather than a suspect. As such, this person interacting with police officers should be treated as someone in need of medical care, which makes many interventions – including neck compression – seemingly inappropriate. The frequent use of “excited delirium” suggests that law enforcement is ill-equipped in handling many situations and that an attempt to diversify the composition and funding of emergency response might be warranted. Psychiatry should be at the forefront of this research and effort.
References
1. State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin (4th Judicial District, 2020 May 29).
2. J Forensic Leg Med. 2008 May 15(4):227-30.
3. “Excited delirium: Rare and deadly syndrome or a condition to excuse deaths by police?” Florida Today. 2020 Jan 20.
4. J Forensic Sci. 1997 Jan;42(1):25-31.
5. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1971;25(2):123-30.
6. Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;170(1):59-70.
7. White Paper Report on Excited Delirium Syndrome. ACEP Excited Delirium Task Force. 2009 Sep 10.
Dr. Amendolara is a first-year psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. He spent years advocating for survivors of rape and domestic violence at the Crime Victims Treatment Center in New York and conducted public health research at Lourdes Center for Public Health in Camden, N.J. Dr. Amendolara has no disclosures. Dr. Malik is a first-year psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She has a background in policy and grassroots organizing through her time working at the National Coalition for the Homeless and the Women’s Law Project. Dr. Malik has no disclosures. Dr. Abrams is a forensic psychiatrist and attorney in San Diego. He is an expert in addictionology, behavioral toxicology, psychopharmacology, and correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego. Among his writings are chapters about competency in national textbooks. Dr. Abrams has no disclosures. Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings is chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019). He has no disclosures.
Prior to George Floyd’s death, Officer Thomas Lane reportedly said, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever” to his colleague, Officer Derek Chauvin.1 For those of us who frequently work with law enforcement and in correctional facilities, “excited delirium” is a common refrain. It would be too facile to dismiss the concept as an attempt by police officers to inappropriately use medically sounding jargon to justify violence. “Excited delirium” is a reminder of the complex situations faced by police officers and the need for better medical training, as well as the attention of research on this commonly used label.
Many law enforcement facilities, in particular jails that receive inmates directly from the community, will have large posters educating staff on the “signs of excited delirium.” The concept is not covered in residency training programs, or many of the leading textbooks of psychiatry. Yet, it has become common parlance in law enforcement. Officers in training receive education programs on excited delirium, although those are rarely conducted by clinicians.
In our practice and experience, “excited delirium” has been used by law enforcement officers to describe mood lability from the stress of arrest, acute agitation from stimulant or phencyclidine intoxication, actual delirium from a medical comorbidity, sociopathic aggression for the purpose of violence, and incoherence from psychosis, along with simply describing a person not following direction from a police officer.
Our differential diagnosis when informed that someone was described by a nonclinician as having so-called excited delirium is wider than the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). In addition, the term comes at a cost. Its use has been implicated in police-related deaths and brutality.2 There is also concern of its disproportionate application to Black people.3,4
Nonetheless, the term “excited delirium” can sometimes accurately describe critical medical situations. We particularly remember a case of altered mental status from serotonin syndrome, a case of delirium tremens from alcohol withdrawal, and a case of life-threatening dehydration in the context of stimulant intoxication. Each of those cases was appropriately recognized as problematic by perceptive and caring police officers. It is important for police officers to recognize these life-threatening conditions, and they need the language to do so. Having a common label that can be used across professional fields and law enforcement departments to express medical concern in the context of aggressive behavior has value. The question is: can psychiatry help law enforcement describe situations more accurately?
As physicians, it would be overly simple to point out the limited understanding of medical information by police and correctional officers. Naming many behaviors poses significant challenges for psychiatrists and nonclinicians. Examples include the use of the word “agitation” to describe mild restlessness, “delusional” for uncooperative, and “irritable” for opinionated. We must also be cognizant of the infinite demands placed on police officers and that labels must be available to them to express complex situations without being forced to use medical diagnosis and terminology for which they do not have the license or expertise. It is possible that “excited delirium” serves an important role; the problem may not be as much “excited delirium,” the term itself, as the diversion of its use to justify poor policing.
It must be acknowledged that debates, concerns, poor nomenclature, confusing labels, and different interpretations of diagnoses and symptoms are not unusual things in psychiatry, even among professionals. In the 1970s, the famous American and British study of diagnostic criteria, showed that psychiatrists used the diagnosis of schizophrenia to describe vastly different patients.5 The findings of the study were a significant cause of the paradigm shift of the DSM in its 3rd edition. More recently, the DSM-5 field trials suggested that the field of psychiatry continues to struggle with this problem.6 Nonetheless, each edition of the DSM presents a new opportunity to discuss, refine, and improve our ability to communicate while emphasizing the importance of improving our common language.
Emergency physicians face delirious patients brought to them from the community on a regular basis. As such, it makes sense that they have been at the forefront of this issue and the American College of Emergency Physicians has recognized excited delirium as a condition since 2009.7 The emergency physician literature points out that death from excited delirium also happens in hospitals and is not a unique consequence of law enforcement. There is no accepted definition. Reported symptoms include agitation, bizarre behavior, tirelessness, unusual strength, pain tolerance, noncompliance, attraction to reflective surfaces, stupor, fear, panic, hyperthermia, inappropriate clothing, tachycardia, tachypnea, diaphoresis, seizure, and mydriasis. Etiology is suspected to be from catecholaminergic endogenous stress-related catecholamines and exogenous catecholaminergic drugs. In particular is the importance of dopamine through the use of stimulants, specifically cocaine. The literature makes some reference to management, including recommendations aimed at keeping patients on one of their sides, using de-escalation techniques, and performing evaluation in quiet rooms.
We certainly condone and commend efforts to understand and define this condition in the medical literature. The indiscriminate use of “excited delirium” to represent all sorts of behaviors by nonmedical personnel warrants intelligent, relevant, and researched commentary by physicians. There are several potentially appropriate ways forward. First, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium is not a useful diagnosis in the clinical setting and does not belong in the DSM. That distinction in itself would be potentially useful to law enforcement officers, who might welcome the opportunity to create their own nomenclature and classification. Second, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium is not a useful diagnosis in the clinical setting but warrants a definition nonetheless, akin to the ways homelessness and extreme poverty are defined in the DSM; this definition could take into account the wide use of the term by nonclinicians. Third, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium warrants a clinical diagnosis that warrants a distinction and clarification from the current delirium diagnosis with the hyperactive specifier.
At this time, the status quo doesn’t protect or help clinicians in their respective fields of work. “Excited delirium” is routinely used by law enforcement officers without clear meaning. Experts have difficulty pointing out the poor or ill-intended use of the term without a precise or accepted definition to rely on. Some of the proposed criteria, such as “unusual strength,” have unclear scientific legitimacy. Some, such as agitation or bizarre behavior, often have different meanings to nonphysicians. Some, such as poor clothing, may facilitate discrimination. The current state allows some professionals to hide their limited attempts at de-escalation by describing the person of interest as having excited delirium. On the other hand, the current state also prevents well-intended officers from using proper terminology that is understood by others as describing a concerning behavior reliably.
We wonder whether excited delirium is an important facet of the current dilemma of reconsidering the role of law enforcement in society. Frequent use of “excited delirium” by police officers is itself a testament to their desire to have assistance or delegation of certain duties to other social services, such as health care. In some ways, police officers face a difficult position: Admission that a behavior may be attributable to excited delirium should warrant a medical evaluation and, thus, render the person of interest a patient rather than a suspect. As such, this person interacting with police officers should be treated as someone in need of medical care, which makes many interventions – including neck compression – seemingly inappropriate. The frequent use of “excited delirium” suggests that law enforcement is ill-equipped in handling many situations and that an attempt to diversify the composition and funding of emergency response might be warranted. Psychiatry should be at the forefront of this research and effort.
References
1. State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin (4th Judicial District, 2020 May 29).
2. J Forensic Leg Med. 2008 May 15(4):227-30.
3. “Excited delirium: Rare and deadly syndrome or a condition to excuse deaths by police?” Florida Today. 2020 Jan 20.
4. J Forensic Sci. 1997 Jan;42(1):25-31.
5. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1971;25(2):123-30.
6. Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;170(1):59-70.
7. White Paper Report on Excited Delirium Syndrome. ACEP Excited Delirium Task Force. 2009 Sep 10.
Dr. Amendolara is a first-year psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. He spent years advocating for survivors of rape and domestic violence at the Crime Victims Treatment Center in New York and conducted public health research at Lourdes Center for Public Health in Camden, N.J. Dr. Amendolara has no disclosures. Dr. Malik is a first-year psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She has a background in policy and grassroots organizing through her time working at the National Coalition for the Homeless and the Women’s Law Project. Dr. Malik has no disclosures. Dr. Abrams is a forensic psychiatrist and attorney in San Diego. He is an expert in addictionology, behavioral toxicology, psychopharmacology, and correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego. Among his writings are chapters about competency in national textbooks. Dr. Abrams has no disclosures. Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings is chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019). He has no disclosures.
Sharing mental health notes with patients: Differentiating between access and accessibility
As a result of technology, data to which individuals have long had a legal right of access are now easily accessible. The advent of secure online portals has converted what was once largely a hypothetical proposition – i.e., ready patient access to clinical records – into the increasing reality of open notes. Unsurprisingly, this movement toward greater transparency carries special implications and complexities for mental health professionals concerned with balancing patient autonomy and safety.1
In setting clinician expectations for incorporating clinical note-sharing into patient care, it is important to clarify the already robust legal rights of patients to obtain copies of their treatment records, including in the mental health context. For example, the provision of access to one’s own health information is one of the rare circumstances in which the HIPAA Privacy Rule compels, rather than merely permits, health care organizations to disclose records to external parties.2 This requirement accords with a prevailing principle of medical ethics that records should be furnished to patients or their designees upon request.3
While HIPAA provides mechanisms for denying individuals access to their health records when a licensed health care professional determines that such access is “reasonably likely” to jeopardize someone’s life or physical safety, this standard sets a high bar of physical endangerment. A psychiatrist or other physician’s concern that sharing clinical notes would be therapeutically suboptimal, discomforting, emotionally harmful, confusing, or deleterious to the doctor-patient relationship would not constitute sufficient legal grounds for denial of access.4
Moreover, because access is framed as a patient right, denial on the aforementioned safety grounds implicates due process requirements to include a written explanation and appellate review by a designated disinterested official. Importantly, this federally mandated right of access would preempt or override any contrary state law classified as less protective of patient prerogatives.
Contrary to popular misconception, mental health notes are not necessarily entitled to a greater degree of secrecy vis-à-vis patients than records pertaining to physical health. The HIPAA Privacy Rule, for example, generally does not distinguish between medical and mental health information, nor does it provide special rules for the latter.5 Specifically, patients’ access rights remain unchanged regardless of whether the requested record is classified as medical or psychiatric.
One narrow exception involves “psychotherapy notes,” but the legal definition of this term is considerably more restrictive than in common psychiatric usage. Psychotherapy notes under health privacy law include therapists’ private, desk-drawer notes on counseling sessions intended for personal use as memory joggers. They explicitly exclude any discussion of treatment modalities, diagnosis, or clinical progress. To retain their protected status, psychotherapy notes must be kept separate and apart from the patient chart. Indeed, a primary reason why such notes are exempted from patient access is because they have so little legitimate use other than to their creator.
Integrating the proliferation of open notes into practice regimens will likely pose a continuing and growing challenge for mental health professionals. From a medicolegal perspective, however, even psychiatrists who are understandably hesitant about widespread note-sharing would do well to remember that patients’ underlying right of access is generally well established, and is merely being operationalized and automated via web portals. Ultimately, adapting clinical record-keeping to both anticipate patient access – and, where possible, leverage it to improve care – may prove the most effective path forward for practicing psychiatry in the digital age.
Lt. Col. Kels teaches at the U.S. Army Medical Center of Excellence, and Dr. Kels teaches and practices psychiatry at the University of the Incarnate Word School of Osteopathic Medicine, both in San Antonio, Tex. Neither Lt. Col. Kels nor Dr. Kels have any conflicts of interest to disclose. Opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect those of any government agency.
References
1. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(11):924-5.
2. 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, subparts A and E.
3. American Medical Association. Code of medical ethics, opinion 3.3.1: management of medical records.
4. Department of Health & Human Services. Individuals’ right under HIPAA to access their health information.
5. Department of Health & Human Services. HIPAA privacy rule and sharing information related to mental health.
As a result of technology, data to which individuals have long had a legal right of access are now easily accessible. The advent of secure online portals has converted what was once largely a hypothetical proposition – i.e., ready patient access to clinical records – into the increasing reality of open notes. Unsurprisingly, this movement toward greater transparency carries special implications and complexities for mental health professionals concerned with balancing patient autonomy and safety.1
In setting clinician expectations for incorporating clinical note-sharing into patient care, it is important to clarify the already robust legal rights of patients to obtain copies of their treatment records, including in the mental health context. For example, the provision of access to one’s own health information is one of the rare circumstances in which the HIPAA Privacy Rule compels, rather than merely permits, health care organizations to disclose records to external parties.2 This requirement accords with a prevailing principle of medical ethics that records should be furnished to patients or their designees upon request.3
While HIPAA provides mechanisms for denying individuals access to their health records when a licensed health care professional determines that such access is “reasonably likely” to jeopardize someone’s life or physical safety, this standard sets a high bar of physical endangerment. A psychiatrist or other physician’s concern that sharing clinical notes would be therapeutically suboptimal, discomforting, emotionally harmful, confusing, or deleterious to the doctor-patient relationship would not constitute sufficient legal grounds for denial of access.4
Moreover, because access is framed as a patient right, denial on the aforementioned safety grounds implicates due process requirements to include a written explanation and appellate review by a designated disinterested official. Importantly, this federally mandated right of access would preempt or override any contrary state law classified as less protective of patient prerogatives.
Contrary to popular misconception, mental health notes are not necessarily entitled to a greater degree of secrecy vis-à-vis patients than records pertaining to physical health. The HIPAA Privacy Rule, for example, generally does not distinguish between medical and mental health information, nor does it provide special rules for the latter.5 Specifically, patients’ access rights remain unchanged regardless of whether the requested record is classified as medical or psychiatric.
One narrow exception involves “psychotherapy notes,” but the legal definition of this term is considerably more restrictive than in common psychiatric usage. Psychotherapy notes under health privacy law include therapists’ private, desk-drawer notes on counseling sessions intended for personal use as memory joggers. They explicitly exclude any discussion of treatment modalities, diagnosis, or clinical progress. To retain their protected status, psychotherapy notes must be kept separate and apart from the patient chart. Indeed, a primary reason why such notes are exempted from patient access is because they have so little legitimate use other than to their creator.
Integrating the proliferation of open notes into practice regimens will likely pose a continuing and growing challenge for mental health professionals. From a medicolegal perspective, however, even psychiatrists who are understandably hesitant about widespread note-sharing would do well to remember that patients’ underlying right of access is generally well established, and is merely being operationalized and automated via web portals. Ultimately, adapting clinical record-keeping to both anticipate patient access – and, where possible, leverage it to improve care – may prove the most effective path forward for practicing psychiatry in the digital age.
Lt. Col. Kels teaches at the U.S. Army Medical Center of Excellence, and Dr. Kels teaches and practices psychiatry at the University of the Incarnate Word School of Osteopathic Medicine, both in San Antonio, Tex. Neither Lt. Col. Kels nor Dr. Kels have any conflicts of interest to disclose. Opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect those of any government agency.
References
1. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(11):924-5.
2. 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, subparts A and E.
3. American Medical Association. Code of medical ethics, opinion 3.3.1: management of medical records.
4. Department of Health & Human Services. Individuals’ right under HIPAA to access their health information.
5. Department of Health & Human Services. HIPAA privacy rule and sharing information related to mental health.
As a result of technology, data to which individuals have long had a legal right of access are now easily accessible. The advent of secure online portals has converted what was once largely a hypothetical proposition – i.e., ready patient access to clinical records – into the increasing reality of open notes. Unsurprisingly, this movement toward greater transparency carries special implications and complexities for mental health professionals concerned with balancing patient autonomy and safety.1
In setting clinician expectations for incorporating clinical note-sharing into patient care, it is important to clarify the already robust legal rights of patients to obtain copies of their treatment records, including in the mental health context. For example, the provision of access to one’s own health information is one of the rare circumstances in which the HIPAA Privacy Rule compels, rather than merely permits, health care organizations to disclose records to external parties.2 This requirement accords with a prevailing principle of medical ethics that records should be furnished to patients or their designees upon request.3
While HIPAA provides mechanisms for denying individuals access to their health records when a licensed health care professional determines that such access is “reasonably likely” to jeopardize someone’s life or physical safety, this standard sets a high bar of physical endangerment. A psychiatrist or other physician’s concern that sharing clinical notes would be therapeutically suboptimal, discomforting, emotionally harmful, confusing, or deleterious to the doctor-patient relationship would not constitute sufficient legal grounds for denial of access.4
Moreover, because access is framed as a patient right, denial on the aforementioned safety grounds implicates due process requirements to include a written explanation and appellate review by a designated disinterested official. Importantly, this federally mandated right of access would preempt or override any contrary state law classified as less protective of patient prerogatives.
Contrary to popular misconception, mental health notes are not necessarily entitled to a greater degree of secrecy vis-à-vis patients than records pertaining to physical health. The HIPAA Privacy Rule, for example, generally does not distinguish between medical and mental health information, nor does it provide special rules for the latter.5 Specifically, patients’ access rights remain unchanged regardless of whether the requested record is classified as medical or psychiatric.
One narrow exception involves “psychotherapy notes,” but the legal definition of this term is considerably more restrictive than in common psychiatric usage. Psychotherapy notes under health privacy law include therapists’ private, desk-drawer notes on counseling sessions intended for personal use as memory joggers. They explicitly exclude any discussion of treatment modalities, diagnosis, or clinical progress. To retain their protected status, psychotherapy notes must be kept separate and apart from the patient chart. Indeed, a primary reason why such notes are exempted from patient access is because they have so little legitimate use other than to their creator.
Integrating the proliferation of open notes into practice regimens will likely pose a continuing and growing challenge for mental health professionals. From a medicolegal perspective, however, even psychiatrists who are understandably hesitant about widespread note-sharing would do well to remember that patients’ underlying right of access is generally well established, and is merely being operationalized and automated via web portals. Ultimately, adapting clinical record-keeping to both anticipate patient access – and, where possible, leverage it to improve care – may prove the most effective path forward for practicing psychiatry in the digital age.
Lt. Col. Kels teaches at the U.S. Army Medical Center of Excellence, and Dr. Kels teaches and practices psychiatry at the University of the Incarnate Word School of Osteopathic Medicine, both in San Antonio, Tex. Neither Lt. Col. Kels nor Dr. Kels have any conflicts of interest to disclose. Opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect those of any government agency.
References
1. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(11):924-5.
2. 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, subparts A and E.
3. American Medical Association. Code of medical ethics, opinion 3.3.1: management of medical records.
4. Department of Health & Human Services. Individuals’ right under HIPAA to access their health information.
5. Department of Health & Human Services. HIPAA privacy rule and sharing information related to mental health.
