User login
Psychiatry and semantics
I am a psychiatrist, which means I am a mental health professional, which means I work with people with mental illness. Sometimes people with mental health conditions who suffer from mental illness need to take a day off work – also called a mental health day – because they are too symptomatic to work, and sometimes people who don’t have a mental illness need to take a day off work, also called a mental health day, because they are feeling stressed.
Sometimes professional athletes don’t do things they agreed to do in their contracts because they realize that doing these things is very upsetting and will be detrimental to their mental health, or maybe they have a mental illness and doing these things will worsen their mental health condition, which is, in fact, a mental illness. Other times people with mental health conditions need to have pets travel with them because this mitigates the symptoms of their mental illness or perhaps it’s just good for their mental health. And finally, some people suffer from mental illnesses, or sometimes from learning problems, which are severe enough that a person with these conditions has a disability and needs special accommodations to function optimally in educational or occupational settings, or needs public financial support because their difficulties disable them to the point that they can’t work at all.
Is your head spinning yet? who we serve, and differentiating the fact that what someone with a psychiatric disorder needs to do to function or to alleviate emotional suffering may be entirely different from the things that everyone needs to do, regardless of whether they have a psychiatric disorder, to feel their emotional best.
The National Alliance on Mental Illness tells us that one in five Americans are suffering from a mental illness, while the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Program revealed that half of people will meet criteria for a mental illness at some point in their lives. We hear about “the mentally ill” constantly in the news – often in relation to mass shooters or homelessness – yet even psychiatrists might be pressed to define who exactly the “mentally ill” are. And how many of us could not somehow, at some time, find ourselves in 1 of the 157 disorders that DSM-5 lists – down from 365 disorders in the DSM-IV-TR?
Differentiating mental health from mental illness is just the beginning of our semantic confusion. As psychiatrists we treat major depression, and yet the illness “depression,” a syndromic constellation of symptoms, includes the key symptom of sadness. People often say they are “depressed” when they mean they are sad or demoralized, and yet, if their sadness persists in the absence of other symptoms, they may well want, or feel they “should” have medications, even in the absence of a disorder. And maybe those medications help them feel better, so that the presence or absence of a verified illness doesn’t really matter. But if the medications cause adverse reactions, then psychiatry might have done a better job by that person’s sadness. Melancholia, or perhaps any designation than “depression,” with its multiple meanings, might better serve our patients and our profession. This is only one example, as the number of people who tell me they have obsessive-compulsive disorder – or more often announce, “I’m OCD!” because they are well organized in a productive way is remarkable. And while I have treated only a few people who meet the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder, from general conversation it would seem that they are at every dinner table and by every water cooler.
Does it matter? A diagnostic lexicon can be so helpful when it guides treatment, provides a heterogeneous group of patients for research studies, and allows for an understanding of the etiology, course, and prognosis of a given condition. When someone is so depressed that they can’t get out of bed, or is so disorganized that they can’t perform their job and might cause a disturbance in their workplace, it is good to instruct them to take time off work and send them back well with a doctor’s note. But this is different from the person who doesn’t want to face a difficult situation, who simply doesn’t like their job or their boss, or who wants their pet declared an emotional support animal to avoid the fee the airlines charge to bring an animal on board if one does not have a psychiatric diagnosis. Sometimes these lines are blurry – if someone does not want to do something because it makes them anxious, does it matter how deep the pit in their stomach is, or if they are having full-blown panic attacks? When do we agree that their distress is reason to allow them to avoid responsibilities without repercussions versus a violation of their obligations and an infringement on others?
Diagnoses offer solace to some patients: There is a name for their suffering, available treatment, and often others with the same condition to look to for guidance and community. For others, a psychiatric diagnosis is a source of shame, a label they see as damaging to their character and sometimes to their careers – including in medicine – where we have been particularly unsympathetic to those who announce a psychiatric history.
In some cultures, the label itself decreases someone’s attractiveness as a potential marriage partner. We would all like to see the stigma of mental illness vanish, but we have a long way to go.
Psychiatric diagnoses move over time and with our politics and culture. This is good; we don’t hold on to what we learn to be untrue. But they may well add to issues of inequity. Those who can afford to pay for expensive educational assessments can request educational accommodations, including untimed standardized tests. This advantage may not be available to those without the resources to pay for these evaluations, and one might wonder why all comers can’t take untimed tests so as not to favor the privileged. Psychiatry has long been accused of diagnosing people of color with poor prognosis illnesses and women with conditions that imply emotional weakness.
While our diagnoses have clinical utility, it is unfortunate that they have come to be about reimbursement. A diagnosis needs to be assigned for insurers to pay for care, and so we create diagnostic categories to allow for treatment. Is this reasonable? Do we need to say that someone who is suffering after the death of a loved one has a mental illness in order to allow them to seek relief from their suffering? It leads us to believe that all suffering is about pathology, that we should expect pain-free emotional lives. Perhaps we need a diagnostic category of psychic pain, not otherwise specified, to allow for treatment for those who simply ache.
Mental illness is about interventions to alleviate the suffering of those with disorders. Mental health is about interventions that may benefit everyone, whether they suffer from a mental illness or not. Sleep, nutrition, exercise, sunlight, nature, entertainment and escape, yoga, meditation, vacations in beautiful places with loving people – these are things that potentially help us all whether we do or do not have an illness. With so much confusion about what it is we do, and about who “should” get help, who can get help, who might want help, and where they should go to seek help, perhaps it would be better if our lingo were more precise.
Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). The has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry ad behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore. She has no disclosures.
I am a psychiatrist, which means I am a mental health professional, which means I work with people with mental illness. Sometimes people with mental health conditions who suffer from mental illness need to take a day off work – also called a mental health day – because they are too symptomatic to work, and sometimes people who don’t have a mental illness need to take a day off work, also called a mental health day, because they are feeling stressed.
Sometimes professional athletes don’t do things they agreed to do in their contracts because they realize that doing these things is very upsetting and will be detrimental to their mental health, or maybe they have a mental illness and doing these things will worsen their mental health condition, which is, in fact, a mental illness. Other times people with mental health conditions need to have pets travel with them because this mitigates the symptoms of their mental illness or perhaps it’s just good for their mental health. And finally, some people suffer from mental illnesses, or sometimes from learning problems, which are severe enough that a person with these conditions has a disability and needs special accommodations to function optimally in educational or occupational settings, or needs public financial support because their difficulties disable them to the point that they can’t work at all.
Is your head spinning yet? who we serve, and differentiating the fact that what someone with a psychiatric disorder needs to do to function or to alleviate emotional suffering may be entirely different from the things that everyone needs to do, regardless of whether they have a psychiatric disorder, to feel their emotional best.
The National Alliance on Mental Illness tells us that one in five Americans are suffering from a mental illness, while the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Program revealed that half of people will meet criteria for a mental illness at some point in their lives. We hear about “the mentally ill” constantly in the news – often in relation to mass shooters or homelessness – yet even psychiatrists might be pressed to define who exactly the “mentally ill” are. And how many of us could not somehow, at some time, find ourselves in 1 of the 157 disorders that DSM-5 lists – down from 365 disorders in the DSM-IV-TR?
Differentiating mental health from mental illness is just the beginning of our semantic confusion. As psychiatrists we treat major depression, and yet the illness “depression,” a syndromic constellation of symptoms, includes the key symptom of sadness. People often say they are “depressed” when they mean they are sad or demoralized, and yet, if their sadness persists in the absence of other symptoms, they may well want, or feel they “should” have medications, even in the absence of a disorder. And maybe those medications help them feel better, so that the presence or absence of a verified illness doesn’t really matter. But if the medications cause adverse reactions, then psychiatry might have done a better job by that person’s sadness. Melancholia, or perhaps any designation than “depression,” with its multiple meanings, might better serve our patients and our profession. This is only one example, as the number of people who tell me they have obsessive-compulsive disorder – or more often announce, “I’m OCD!” because they are well organized in a productive way is remarkable. And while I have treated only a few people who meet the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder, from general conversation it would seem that they are at every dinner table and by every water cooler.
Does it matter? A diagnostic lexicon can be so helpful when it guides treatment, provides a heterogeneous group of patients for research studies, and allows for an understanding of the etiology, course, and prognosis of a given condition. When someone is so depressed that they can’t get out of bed, or is so disorganized that they can’t perform their job and might cause a disturbance in their workplace, it is good to instruct them to take time off work and send them back well with a doctor’s note. But this is different from the person who doesn’t want to face a difficult situation, who simply doesn’t like their job or their boss, or who wants their pet declared an emotional support animal to avoid the fee the airlines charge to bring an animal on board if one does not have a psychiatric diagnosis. Sometimes these lines are blurry – if someone does not want to do something because it makes them anxious, does it matter how deep the pit in their stomach is, or if they are having full-blown panic attacks? When do we agree that their distress is reason to allow them to avoid responsibilities without repercussions versus a violation of their obligations and an infringement on others?
Diagnoses offer solace to some patients: There is a name for their suffering, available treatment, and often others with the same condition to look to for guidance and community. For others, a psychiatric diagnosis is a source of shame, a label they see as damaging to their character and sometimes to their careers – including in medicine – where we have been particularly unsympathetic to those who announce a psychiatric history.
In some cultures, the label itself decreases someone’s attractiveness as a potential marriage partner. We would all like to see the stigma of mental illness vanish, but we have a long way to go.
Psychiatric diagnoses move over time and with our politics and culture. This is good; we don’t hold on to what we learn to be untrue. But they may well add to issues of inequity. Those who can afford to pay for expensive educational assessments can request educational accommodations, including untimed standardized tests. This advantage may not be available to those without the resources to pay for these evaluations, and one might wonder why all comers can’t take untimed tests so as not to favor the privileged. Psychiatry has long been accused of diagnosing people of color with poor prognosis illnesses and women with conditions that imply emotional weakness.
While our diagnoses have clinical utility, it is unfortunate that they have come to be about reimbursement. A diagnosis needs to be assigned for insurers to pay for care, and so we create diagnostic categories to allow for treatment. Is this reasonable? Do we need to say that someone who is suffering after the death of a loved one has a mental illness in order to allow them to seek relief from their suffering? It leads us to believe that all suffering is about pathology, that we should expect pain-free emotional lives. Perhaps we need a diagnostic category of psychic pain, not otherwise specified, to allow for treatment for those who simply ache.
Mental illness is about interventions to alleviate the suffering of those with disorders. Mental health is about interventions that may benefit everyone, whether they suffer from a mental illness or not. Sleep, nutrition, exercise, sunlight, nature, entertainment and escape, yoga, meditation, vacations in beautiful places with loving people – these are things that potentially help us all whether we do or do not have an illness. With so much confusion about what it is we do, and about who “should” get help, who can get help, who might want help, and where they should go to seek help, perhaps it would be better if our lingo were more precise.
Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). The has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry ad behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore. She has no disclosures.
I am a psychiatrist, which means I am a mental health professional, which means I work with people with mental illness. Sometimes people with mental health conditions who suffer from mental illness need to take a day off work – also called a mental health day – because they are too symptomatic to work, and sometimes people who don’t have a mental illness need to take a day off work, also called a mental health day, because they are feeling stressed.
Sometimes professional athletes don’t do things they agreed to do in their contracts because they realize that doing these things is very upsetting and will be detrimental to their mental health, or maybe they have a mental illness and doing these things will worsen their mental health condition, which is, in fact, a mental illness. Other times people with mental health conditions need to have pets travel with them because this mitigates the symptoms of their mental illness or perhaps it’s just good for their mental health. And finally, some people suffer from mental illnesses, or sometimes from learning problems, which are severe enough that a person with these conditions has a disability and needs special accommodations to function optimally in educational or occupational settings, or needs public financial support because their difficulties disable them to the point that they can’t work at all.
Is your head spinning yet? who we serve, and differentiating the fact that what someone with a psychiatric disorder needs to do to function or to alleviate emotional suffering may be entirely different from the things that everyone needs to do, regardless of whether they have a psychiatric disorder, to feel their emotional best.
The National Alliance on Mental Illness tells us that one in five Americans are suffering from a mental illness, while the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Program revealed that half of people will meet criteria for a mental illness at some point in their lives. We hear about “the mentally ill” constantly in the news – often in relation to mass shooters or homelessness – yet even psychiatrists might be pressed to define who exactly the “mentally ill” are. And how many of us could not somehow, at some time, find ourselves in 1 of the 157 disorders that DSM-5 lists – down from 365 disorders in the DSM-IV-TR?
Differentiating mental health from mental illness is just the beginning of our semantic confusion. As psychiatrists we treat major depression, and yet the illness “depression,” a syndromic constellation of symptoms, includes the key symptom of sadness. People often say they are “depressed” when they mean they are sad or demoralized, and yet, if their sadness persists in the absence of other symptoms, they may well want, or feel they “should” have medications, even in the absence of a disorder. And maybe those medications help them feel better, so that the presence or absence of a verified illness doesn’t really matter. But if the medications cause adverse reactions, then psychiatry might have done a better job by that person’s sadness. Melancholia, or perhaps any designation than “depression,” with its multiple meanings, might better serve our patients and our profession. This is only one example, as the number of people who tell me they have obsessive-compulsive disorder – or more often announce, “I’m OCD!” because they are well organized in a productive way is remarkable. And while I have treated only a few people who meet the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder, from general conversation it would seem that they are at every dinner table and by every water cooler.
Does it matter? A diagnostic lexicon can be so helpful when it guides treatment, provides a heterogeneous group of patients for research studies, and allows for an understanding of the etiology, course, and prognosis of a given condition. When someone is so depressed that they can’t get out of bed, or is so disorganized that they can’t perform their job and might cause a disturbance in their workplace, it is good to instruct them to take time off work and send them back well with a doctor’s note. But this is different from the person who doesn’t want to face a difficult situation, who simply doesn’t like their job or their boss, or who wants their pet declared an emotional support animal to avoid the fee the airlines charge to bring an animal on board if one does not have a psychiatric diagnosis. Sometimes these lines are blurry – if someone does not want to do something because it makes them anxious, does it matter how deep the pit in their stomach is, or if they are having full-blown panic attacks? When do we agree that their distress is reason to allow them to avoid responsibilities without repercussions versus a violation of their obligations and an infringement on others?
Diagnoses offer solace to some patients: There is a name for their suffering, available treatment, and often others with the same condition to look to for guidance and community. For others, a psychiatric diagnosis is a source of shame, a label they see as damaging to their character and sometimes to their careers – including in medicine – where we have been particularly unsympathetic to those who announce a psychiatric history.
In some cultures, the label itself decreases someone’s attractiveness as a potential marriage partner. We would all like to see the stigma of mental illness vanish, but we have a long way to go.
Psychiatric diagnoses move over time and with our politics and culture. This is good; we don’t hold on to what we learn to be untrue. But they may well add to issues of inequity. Those who can afford to pay for expensive educational assessments can request educational accommodations, including untimed standardized tests. This advantage may not be available to those without the resources to pay for these evaluations, and one might wonder why all comers can’t take untimed tests so as not to favor the privileged. Psychiatry has long been accused of diagnosing people of color with poor prognosis illnesses and women with conditions that imply emotional weakness.
While our diagnoses have clinical utility, it is unfortunate that they have come to be about reimbursement. A diagnosis needs to be assigned for insurers to pay for care, and so we create diagnostic categories to allow for treatment. Is this reasonable? Do we need to say that someone who is suffering after the death of a loved one has a mental illness in order to allow them to seek relief from their suffering? It leads us to believe that all suffering is about pathology, that we should expect pain-free emotional lives. Perhaps we need a diagnostic category of psychic pain, not otherwise specified, to allow for treatment for those who simply ache.
Mental illness is about interventions to alleviate the suffering of those with disorders. Mental health is about interventions that may benefit everyone, whether they suffer from a mental illness or not. Sleep, nutrition, exercise, sunlight, nature, entertainment and escape, yoga, meditation, vacations in beautiful places with loving people – these are things that potentially help us all whether we do or do not have an illness. With so much confusion about what it is we do, and about who “should” get help, who can get help, who might want help, and where they should go to seek help, perhaps it would be better if our lingo were more precise.
Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). The has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry ad behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore. She has no disclosures.
No-suicide contracts: Can they work?
An elderly, retired, married African American man sought psychiatric treatment for depression and suicidal thoughts. He had a detailed, lethal suicide plan, but he had not taken any steps to carry it out.
He met DSM-5 criteria for a major depressive episode, and he described a lifelong history of recurrent depressions as well as hypomanic episodes. He was diagnosed with bipolar II disorder, and he began weekly therapy, as well as medication. Despite several static and dynamic suicide risk factors, the psychiatrist also noted that he was help seeking and future oriented. He seemed transparent during his initial appointments. He did not have access to lethal means and welcomed the psychiatrist to communicate openly with his spouse.
The patient had never attempted suicide, there was no family history of suicide, and there was no psychosis or substance use disorder present. He was able to commit to reaching out to the psychiatrist, his spouse, or emergency personnel in the case of worsening suicidal thoughts or imminent suicidal action. He remained in the outpatient setting. His suicidal ideation faded and depression receded as psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy continued.
Discussion
Depression and suicidal ideation are ubiquitous in the practice of psychiatry. Psychiatrists draw from an array of assessment and management tools when this common clinical challenge arises. Among these tools is the no-suicide contract (NSC). The NSC goes by many names, including the no-harm contract and suicide prevention contract.1 It is a promise, verbal or written, from the patient to not attempt suicide and to tell a loved one or psychiatric provider instead.2 The verbal exchange between the patient and therapist described in the case fits the widely accepted clinical definition of an NSC. The contents and implementation of NSCs vary greatly; no standard approach is taught in psychiatric training.3 The American Psychiatric Association has warned against over-reliance on them, emphasizing that they have not been proven effective. It advises that NSCs should not be used independently of other tools or outside well-established patient-provider relationships.4 A 2007 review of the literature on NSCs concluded that there were no data to support their effectiveness and some data that they might even cause harm.5
The origin of the NSC
The NSC is fairly young and its foundation arguably weak. Its evolution has been traced back to a study published in 1973 by Robert C. Drye, MD, and associates on the effectiveness of a questionnaire for the assessment of suicide risk.6 The questionnaire centered on the patient’s reaction to the statement, “No matter what happens, I will not kill myself, accidently or on purpose, at any time.” The authors placed special emphasis on the words “I will,” which they felt to be a stronger indicator of commitment to safety than “I promise.” The authors thought the latter statement sounded like a child’s empty reply to a demanding parent. The authors reported a 100% success rate with “approximately 600 patients” across geographic regions and clinical settings.7 The study group is not further described, and that the authors contend that the intervention had “complete effectiveness in evaluating suicide risk” should give pause to anyone aiming to practice evidence-based psychiatry.
The theoretical basis of the NSC has been presumed by others to be based, in part, on the principles of transactional analysis. Specifically, the suicidal patient is seen as occupying the child ego state, and the NSC is seen as a means of moving the patient into the less problematic adult ego state. It has been argued, however, that an NSC can achieve exactly the opposite. The contract can pit the patient against the clinician, entrenching the patient deeper into the child ego and, therefore, suicidal state.8
Michael Craig Miller, MD, and associates proposed other psychological reasons why NSCs may be counterproductive. They write, “Psychological pitfalls abound, and any of them may contribute to a contract being thoughtless, unrealistic, irrelevant, cynical, punitive, or coercive.”9 They postulated that the NSC grew out of and assumes the same shared decision-making inherent in any therapeutic contract – and they argue that this assumption is flawed given the legal power clinicians have over suicidal patients. While acknowledging this problematic power differential, the authors go on to urge clinicians to aim for shared decision-making and a shared burden of risk when discussing treatment with suicidal patients.
Possible NSC common factors
Psychiatry, like the rest of medicine, is increasingly practiced in an evidence-based manner. The NSC should not be excluded from this movement. To this end, a recently published, randomized study of 97 active duty Army personnel seeking emergency behavioral health evaluation compared the effectiveness of NSCs and with an alternative intervention, the crisis response plan (CRP). The CRP was chosen because it had been suggested by the Joint Commision as an alternative to the NSC, although it also has little evidence supporting its use.10
The NSC and CRP interventions of the Army study were very similar. Both included suicide risk assessment, supportive listening, provision of crisis resources, and referral to treatment. In addition, the NSC intervention included asking whether the patients could keep themselves safe at home. The CRP intervention included collaboration with the patient to identify warning signs of crisis, self-management skills, and support persons. A seemingly small but interesting difference between the two interventions was which member of the dyad, patient or clinician, created a written record of the discussion. In the NSC group, the assessor did the writing, while in the CRP group, the patient controlled the pen.
The results of the study were intriguing. Suicidal ideation declined faster in the CRP arm. and lost statistical significance when controlling for baseline severity of suicidal ideation. Despite those promising data, the only completed suicide was in the CRP arm.
The authors compared the makeup of the CRP intervention with key components of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). They pointed to a 2015 study by Marsha Linehan, PhD, and associates that sought to identify the active ingredients of DBT. The Linehan study indicated that attending to warning signs and using self-management tools and social supports contributed more to the success of DBT than the individual therapy component. Interestingly, these were the same features that set the CRP intervention apart from the NSC in the Army study. Perhaps these are the common factors of effective counseling of suicidal patients.
Indeed, these factors seem to harken back to the NSC as originally envisioned by the late Dr. Drye – a patient-driven collaboration. Dr. Drye and associates wrote: “This approach developed out of our belief that the only therapeutic contracts likely to lead to change are those developed by the patient himself, for which he will assume responsibility.” While the data presented by Dr. Drye and associates were weak, the theory behind their NSC – patient commitment – seems solid. Commitment strategies, which grew out of social psychology, are effective and heavily used in DBT, including to decrease suicidal behaviors.11
Conclusion
Suicidologist Shawn Christopher Shea, MD, argues that the answer to whether or not NSCs can work is conditional on the unique combination of patient, clinician, and therapeutic relationship at play. He considers the limited data available and has warned against resolutely assuming either a pro- or anti-NSC stance. He postulates that NSCs might have the best chance at saving a life in the context of ongoing therapy with a patient with mature defenses, while in other contexts, such as with a patient with borderline personality disorder, it might prove counterproductive. Importantly, he wrote, “there is not a shred of empirical evidence that safety contracting has not been a deterrent with specific clients in the hands of specific clinicians.”
Dr. Shea describes various ways of maximizing the utility of the NSC. First, he describes that NSCs may be more effective as safety assessment tools (paying attention to both verbal and nonverbal cues) than tools to directly deter attempts. Second, NSCs may have increased utility when repeated across time to provide an understanding for how the patient typically engages in contracting. Soliciting a patient’s reasons for living also can enhance a contract’s usefulness because patients with suicidal ideation weigh reasons for living against reasons for dying in their decision-making. Finally, the sound documentation of the process of contracting not only protects against subsequent legal action but also improves the quality of the clinical care, in part by entraining the psychiatrist to incorporate key elements into the contracting process.
Returning to the clinical case, the strengths and weakness of that NSC can now be evaluated. Looking at the NSC through the eyes of Dr. Shea, the young therapeutic relationship diminishes the value of the NSC, while the relationship’s ongoing basis and the patient’s mature defenses bolster it. Dr. Shea would encourage the psychiatrist to use the NSC as an assessment tool, including assessment of ambivalence. In this case, the patient’s ambivalence about suicide comes through, but it could have been explored and expanded through explicit discussion of reasons for living. Applying the lens of Dr. Linehan, the contract is strengthened by the attention paid to social supports, while it would have been improved by specific discussion about warning signs and self-management tools.
In line with Dr. Drye’s original vision of the NSC, the degree to which the patient owns the NSC seems to be particularly crucial. In this case, the patient’s ownership of the no-suicide decision was suggested by his transparency during interview and full engagement in contracting, including identification of crisis resources. Still, the patient could have been encouraged to take additional responsibility for the NSC. One means of transferring responsibility to the patient could have been giving the patient a pen to create a written record of the contract, mobilizing and symbolizing the patient’s greater control of the process and outcome. Finally, and of utmost importance, it should be reiterated that the NSC should be only part of the assessment and planning that a psychiatrist does with a suicidal patient. While there are circumstances and strategies that augment its utility, it should not be overly relied on.
References
1. Weiss A. Am J Psychother. 2001;55(3):414-9.
2. Kroll J. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(10):1684-6.
3. Shea SC. The Practical Art of Suicide Assessment: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals and Substance Abuse Counselors. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
4. Jacobs DG et al. Practice guideline for the assessment and treatment of patients with suicidal behavior. American Psychiatric Association, 2003 Nov.
5. Lewis LM. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2007;37(1):50-7.
6. Goin M. Psychiatr News. 2003 Jul 18;38(14):3-38.
7. Drye RC et al. Am J Psychiatry. 1973;130(2):171-4.
8. Farrow TL. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2003 Apr;10(2):199-202.
9. Miller MC et al. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 1998;6(2):78-87.
10. Bryan CJ et al. J Affect Disord. 2017 Apr;212:64-72.
11. Pederson LD. Dialectical Behavior Therapy: A Contemporary Guide for Practitioners. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
Dr. Roberts is a board-certified psychiatrist in Northern Virginia, working in both the partial hospital and outpatient settings. She has a special interest in working with patients with serious mental illness and believes in the recovery model of care, in which each patient’s life goals become the focal point of their treatment. Dr. Roberts completed her psychiatry residency at George Washington University, in Washington, where she also served as the 2018-2019 chief outpatient resident. She is a native of Minnesota and earned her medical degree from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in 2015. Dr. Roberts has no disclosures.
An elderly, retired, married African American man sought psychiatric treatment for depression and suicidal thoughts. He had a detailed, lethal suicide plan, but he had not taken any steps to carry it out.
He met DSM-5 criteria for a major depressive episode, and he described a lifelong history of recurrent depressions as well as hypomanic episodes. He was diagnosed with bipolar II disorder, and he began weekly therapy, as well as medication. Despite several static and dynamic suicide risk factors, the psychiatrist also noted that he was help seeking and future oriented. He seemed transparent during his initial appointments. He did not have access to lethal means and welcomed the psychiatrist to communicate openly with his spouse.
The patient had never attempted suicide, there was no family history of suicide, and there was no psychosis or substance use disorder present. He was able to commit to reaching out to the psychiatrist, his spouse, or emergency personnel in the case of worsening suicidal thoughts or imminent suicidal action. He remained in the outpatient setting. His suicidal ideation faded and depression receded as psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy continued.
Discussion
Depression and suicidal ideation are ubiquitous in the practice of psychiatry. Psychiatrists draw from an array of assessment and management tools when this common clinical challenge arises. Among these tools is the no-suicide contract (NSC). The NSC goes by many names, including the no-harm contract and suicide prevention contract.1 It is a promise, verbal or written, from the patient to not attempt suicide and to tell a loved one or psychiatric provider instead.2 The verbal exchange between the patient and therapist described in the case fits the widely accepted clinical definition of an NSC. The contents and implementation of NSCs vary greatly; no standard approach is taught in psychiatric training.3 The American Psychiatric Association has warned against over-reliance on them, emphasizing that they have not been proven effective. It advises that NSCs should not be used independently of other tools or outside well-established patient-provider relationships.4 A 2007 review of the literature on NSCs concluded that there were no data to support their effectiveness and some data that they might even cause harm.5
The origin of the NSC
The NSC is fairly young and its foundation arguably weak. Its evolution has been traced back to a study published in 1973 by Robert C. Drye, MD, and associates on the effectiveness of a questionnaire for the assessment of suicide risk.6 The questionnaire centered on the patient’s reaction to the statement, “No matter what happens, I will not kill myself, accidently or on purpose, at any time.” The authors placed special emphasis on the words “I will,” which they felt to be a stronger indicator of commitment to safety than “I promise.” The authors thought the latter statement sounded like a child’s empty reply to a demanding parent. The authors reported a 100% success rate with “approximately 600 patients” across geographic regions and clinical settings.7 The study group is not further described, and that the authors contend that the intervention had “complete effectiveness in evaluating suicide risk” should give pause to anyone aiming to practice evidence-based psychiatry.
The theoretical basis of the NSC has been presumed by others to be based, in part, on the principles of transactional analysis. Specifically, the suicidal patient is seen as occupying the child ego state, and the NSC is seen as a means of moving the patient into the less problematic adult ego state. It has been argued, however, that an NSC can achieve exactly the opposite. The contract can pit the patient against the clinician, entrenching the patient deeper into the child ego and, therefore, suicidal state.8
Michael Craig Miller, MD, and associates proposed other psychological reasons why NSCs may be counterproductive. They write, “Psychological pitfalls abound, and any of them may contribute to a contract being thoughtless, unrealistic, irrelevant, cynical, punitive, or coercive.”9 They postulated that the NSC grew out of and assumes the same shared decision-making inherent in any therapeutic contract – and they argue that this assumption is flawed given the legal power clinicians have over suicidal patients. While acknowledging this problematic power differential, the authors go on to urge clinicians to aim for shared decision-making and a shared burden of risk when discussing treatment with suicidal patients.
Possible NSC common factors
Psychiatry, like the rest of medicine, is increasingly practiced in an evidence-based manner. The NSC should not be excluded from this movement. To this end, a recently published, randomized study of 97 active duty Army personnel seeking emergency behavioral health evaluation compared the effectiveness of NSCs and with an alternative intervention, the crisis response plan (CRP). The CRP was chosen because it had been suggested by the Joint Commision as an alternative to the NSC, although it also has little evidence supporting its use.10
The NSC and CRP interventions of the Army study were very similar. Both included suicide risk assessment, supportive listening, provision of crisis resources, and referral to treatment. In addition, the NSC intervention included asking whether the patients could keep themselves safe at home. The CRP intervention included collaboration with the patient to identify warning signs of crisis, self-management skills, and support persons. A seemingly small but interesting difference between the two interventions was which member of the dyad, patient or clinician, created a written record of the discussion. In the NSC group, the assessor did the writing, while in the CRP group, the patient controlled the pen.
The results of the study were intriguing. Suicidal ideation declined faster in the CRP arm. and lost statistical significance when controlling for baseline severity of suicidal ideation. Despite those promising data, the only completed suicide was in the CRP arm.
The authors compared the makeup of the CRP intervention with key components of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). They pointed to a 2015 study by Marsha Linehan, PhD, and associates that sought to identify the active ingredients of DBT. The Linehan study indicated that attending to warning signs and using self-management tools and social supports contributed more to the success of DBT than the individual therapy component. Interestingly, these were the same features that set the CRP intervention apart from the NSC in the Army study. Perhaps these are the common factors of effective counseling of suicidal patients.
Indeed, these factors seem to harken back to the NSC as originally envisioned by the late Dr. Drye – a patient-driven collaboration. Dr. Drye and associates wrote: “This approach developed out of our belief that the only therapeutic contracts likely to lead to change are those developed by the patient himself, for which he will assume responsibility.” While the data presented by Dr. Drye and associates were weak, the theory behind their NSC – patient commitment – seems solid. Commitment strategies, which grew out of social psychology, are effective and heavily used in DBT, including to decrease suicidal behaviors.11
Conclusion
Suicidologist Shawn Christopher Shea, MD, argues that the answer to whether or not NSCs can work is conditional on the unique combination of patient, clinician, and therapeutic relationship at play. He considers the limited data available and has warned against resolutely assuming either a pro- or anti-NSC stance. He postulates that NSCs might have the best chance at saving a life in the context of ongoing therapy with a patient with mature defenses, while in other contexts, such as with a patient with borderline personality disorder, it might prove counterproductive. Importantly, he wrote, “there is not a shred of empirical evidence that safety contracting has not been a deterrent with specific clients in the hands of specific clinicians.”
Dr. Shea describes various ways of maximizing the utility of the NSC. First, he describes that NSCs may be more effective as safety assessment tools (paying attention to both verbal and nonverbal cues) than tools to directly deter attempts. Second, NSCs may have increased utility when repeated across time to provide an understanding for how the patient typically engages in contracting. Soliciting a patient’s reasons for living also can enhance a contract’s usefulness because patients with suicidal ideation weigh reasons for living against reasons for dying in their decision-making. Finally, the sound documentation of the process of contracting not only protects against subsequent legal action but also improves the quality of the clinical care, in part by entraining the psychiatrist to incorporate key elements into the contracting process.
Returning to the clinical case, the strengths and weakness of that NSC can now be evaluated. Looking at the NSC through the eyes of Dr. Shea, the young therapeutic relationship diminishes the value of the NSC, while the relationship’s ongoing basis and the patient’s mature defenses bolster it. Dr. Shea would encourage the psychiatrist to use the NSC as an assessment tool, including assessment of ambivalence. In this case, the patient’s ambivalence about suicide comes through, but it could have been explored and expanded through explicit discussion of reasons for living. Applying the lens of Dr. Linehan, the contract is strengthened by the attention paid to social supports, while it would have been improved by specific discussion about warning signs and self-management tools.
In line with Dr. Drye’s original vision of the NSC, the degree to which the patient owns the NSC seems to be particularly crucial. In this case, the patient’s ownership of the no-suicide decision was suggested by his transparency during interview and full engagement in contracting, including identification of crisis resources. Still, the patient could have been encouraged to take additional responsibility for the NSC. One means of transferring responsibility to the patient could have been giving the patient a pen to create a written record of the contract, mobilizing and symbolizing the patient’s greater control of the process and outcome. Finally, and of utmost importance, it should be reiterated that the NSC should be only part of the assessment and planning that a psychiatrist does with a suicidal patient. While there are circumstances and strategies that augment its utility, it should not be overly relied on.
References
1. Weiss A. Am J Psychother. 2001;55(3):414-9.
2. Kroll J. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(10):1684-6.
3. Shea SC. The Practical Art of Suicide Assessment: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals and Substance Abuse Counselors. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
4. Jacobs DG et al. Practice guideline for the assessment and treatment of patients with suicidal behavior. American Psychiatric Association, 2003 Nov.
5. Lewis LM. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2007;37(1):50-7.
6. Goin M. Psychiatr News. 2003 Jul 18;38(14):3-38.
7. Drye RC et al. Am J Psychiatry. 1973;130(2):171-4.
8. Farrow TL. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2003 Apr;10(2):199-202.
9. Miller MC et al. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 1998;6(2):78-87.
10. Bryan CJ et al. J Affect Disord. 2017 Apr;212:64-72.
11. Pederson LD. Dialectical Behavior Therapy: A Contemporary Guide for Practitioners. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
Dr. Roberts is a board-certified psychiatrist in Northern Virginia, working in both the partial hospital and outpatient settings. She has a special interest in working with patients with serious mental illness and believes in the recovery model of care, in which each patient’s life goals become the focal point of their treatment. Dr. Roberts completed her psychiatry residency at George Washington University, in Washington, where she also served as the 2018-2019 chief outpatient resident. She is a native of Minnesota and earned her medical degree from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in 2015. Dr. Roberts has no disclosures.
An elderly, retired, married African American man sought psychiatric treatment for depression and suicidal thoughts. He had a detailed, lethal suicide plan, but he had not taken any steps to carry it out.
He met DSM-5 criteria for a major depressive episode, and he described a lifelong history of recurrent depressions as well as hypomanic episodes. He was diagnosed with bipolar II disorder, and he began weekly therapy, as well as medication. Despite several static and dynamic suicide risk factors, the psychiatrist also noted that he was help seeking and future oriented. He seemed transparent during his initial appointments. He did not have access to lethal means and welcomed the psychiatrist to communicate openly with his spouse.
The patient had never attempted suicide, there was no family history of suicide, and there was no psychosis or substance use disorder present. He was able to commit to reaching out to the psychiatrist, his spouse, or emergency personnel in the case of worsening suicidal thoughts or imminent suicidal action. He remained in the outpatient setting. His suicidal ideation faded and depression receded as psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy continued.
Discussion
Depression and suicidal ideation are ubiquitous in the practice of psychiatry. Psychiatrists draw from an array of assessment and management tools when this common clinical challenge arises. Among these tools is the no-suicide contract (NSC). The NSC goes by many names, including the no-harm contract and suicide prevention contract.1 It is a promise, verbal or written, from the patient to not attempt suicide and to tell a loved one or psychiatric provider instead.2 The verbal exchange between the patient and therapist described in the case fits the widely accepted clinical definition of an NSC. The contents and implementation of NSCs vary greatly; no standard approach is taught in psychiatric training.3 The American Psychiatric Association has warned against over-reliance on them, emphasizing that they have not been proven effective. It advises that NSCs should not be used independently of other tools or outside well-established patient-provider relationships.4 A 2007 review of the literature on NSCs concluded that there were no data to support their effectiveness and some data that they might even cause harm.5
The origin of the NSC
The NSC is fairly young and its foundation arguably weak. Its evolution has been traced back to a study published in 1973 by Robert C. Drye, MD, and associates on the effectiveness of a questionnaire for the assessment of suicide risk.6 The questionnaire centered on the patient’s reaction to the statement, “No matter what happens, I will not kill myself, accidently or on purpose, at any time.” The authors placed special emphasis on the words “I will,” which they felt to be a stronger indicator of commitment to safety than “I promise.” The authors thought the latter statement sounded like a child’s empty reply to a demanding parent. The authors reported a 100% success rate with “approximately 600 patients” across geographic regions and clinical settings.7 The study group is not further described, and that the authors contend that the intervention had “complete effectiveness in evaluating suicide risk” should give pause to anyone aiming to practice evidence-based psychiatry.
The theoretical basis of the NSC has been presumed by others to be based, in part, on the principles of transactional analysis. Specifically, the suicidal patient is seen as occupying the child ego state, and the NSC is seen as a means of moving the patient into the less problematic adult ego state. It has been argued, however, that an NSC can achieve exactly the opposite. The contract can pit the patient against the clinician, entrenching the patient deeper into the child ego and, therefore, suicidal state.8
Michael Craig Miller, MD, and associates proposed other psychological reasons why NSCs may be counterproductive. They write, “Psychological pitfalls abound, and any of them may contribute to a contract being thoughtless, unrealistic, irrelevant, cynical, punitive, or coercive.”9 They postulated that the NSC grew out of and assumes the same shared decision-making inherent in any therapeutic contract – and they argue that this assumption is flawed given the legal power clinicians have over suicidal patients. While acknowledging this problematic power differential, the authors go on to urge clinicians to aim for shared decision-making and a shared burden of risk when discussing treatment with suicidal patients.
Possible NSC common factors
Psychiatry, like the rest of medicine, is increasingly practiced in an evidence-based manner. The NSC should not be excluded from this movement. To this end, a recently published, randomized study of 97 active duty Army personnel seeking emergency behavioral health evaluation compared the effectiveness of NSCs and with an alternative intervention, the crisis response plan (CRP). The CRP was chosen because it had been suggested by the Joint Commision as an alternative to the NSC, although it also has little evidence supporting its use.10
The NSC and CRP interventions of the Army study were very similar. Both included suicide risk assessment, supportive listening, provision of crisis resources, and referral to treatment. In addition, the NSC intervention included asking whether the patients could keep themselves safe at home. The CRP intervention included collaboration with the patient to identify warning signs of crisis, self-management skills, and support persons. A seemingly small but interesting difference between the two interventions was which member of the dyad, patient or clinician, created a written record of the discussion. In the NSC group, the assessor did the writing, while in the CRP group, the patient controlled the pen.
The results of the study were intriguing. Suicidal ideation declined faster in the CRP arm. and lost statistical significance when controlling for baseline severity of suicidal ideation. Despite those promising data, the only completed suicide was in the CRP arm.
The authors compared the makeup of the CRP intervention with key components of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). They pointed to a 2015 study by Marsha Linehan, PhD, and associates that sought to identify the active ingredients of DBT. The Linehan study indicated that attending to warning signs and using self-management tools and social supports contributed more to the success of DBT than the individual therapy component. Interestingly, these were the same features that set the CRP intervention apart from the NSC in the Army study. Perhaps these are the common factors of effective counseling of suicidal patients.
Indeed, these factors seem to harken back to the NSC as originally envisioned by the late Dr. Drye – a patient-driven collaboration. Dr. Drye and associates wrote: “This approach developed out of our belief that the only therapeutic contracts likely to lead to change are those developed by the patient himself, for which he will assume responsibility.” While the data presented by Dr. Drye and associates were weak, the theory behind their NSC – patient commitment – seems solid. Commitment strategies, which grew out of social psychology, are effective and heavily used in DBT, including to decrease suicidal behaviors.11
Conclusion
Suicidologist Shawn Christopher Shea, MD, argues that the answer to whether or not NSCs can work is conditional on the unique combination of patient, clinician, and therapeutic relationship at play. He considers the limited data available and has warned against resolutely assuming either a pro- or anti-NSC stance. He postulates that NSCs might have the best chance at saving a life in the context of ongoing therapy with a patient with mature defenses, while in other contexts, such as with a patient with borderline personality disorder, it might prove counterproductive. Importantly, he wrote, “there is not a shred of empirical evidence that safety contracting has not been a deterrent with specific clients in the hands of specific clinicians.”
Dr. Shea describes various ways of maximizing the utility of the NSC. First, he describes that NSCs may be more effective as safety assessment tools (paying attention to both verbal and nonverbal cues) than tools to directly deter attempts. Second, NSCs may have increased utility when repeated across time to provide an understanding for how the patient typically engages in contracting. Soliciting a patient’s reasons for living also can enhance a contract’s usefulness because patients with suicidal ideation weigh reasons for living against reasons for dying in their decision-making. Finally, the sound documentation of the process of contracting not only protects against subsequent legal action but also improves the quality of the clinical care, in part by entraining the psychiatrist to incorporate key elements into the contracting process.
Returning to the clinical case, the strengths and weakness of that NSC can now be evaluated. Looking at the NSC through the eyes of Dr. Shea, the young therapeutic relationship diminishes the value of the NSC, while the relationship’s ongoing basis and the patient’s mature defenses bolster it. Dr. Shea would encourage the psychiatrist to use the NSC as an assessment tool, including assessment of ambivalence. In this case, the patient’s ambivalence about suicide comes through, but it could have been explored and expanded through explicit discussion of reasons for living. Applying the lens of Dr. Linehan, the contract is strengthened by the attention paid to social supports, while it would have been improved by specific discussion about warning signs and self-management tools.
In line with Dr. Drye’s original vision of the NSC, the degree to which the patient owns the NSC seems to be particularly crucial. In this case, the patient’s ownership of the no-suicide decision was suggested by his transparency during interview and full engagement in contracting, including identification of crisis resources. Still, the patient could have been encouraged to take additional responsibility for the NSC. One means of transferring responsibility to the patient could have been giving the patient a pen to create a written record of the contract, mobilizing and symbolizing the patient’s greater control of the process and outcome. Finally, and of utmost importance, it should be reiterated that the NSC should be only part of the assessment and planning that a psychiatrist does with a suicidal patient. While there are circumstances and strategies that augment its utility, it should not be overly relied on.
References
1. Weiss A. Am J Psychother. 2001;55(3):414-9.
2. Kroll J. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(10):1684-6.
3. Shea SC. The Practical Art of Suicide Assessment: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals and Substance Abuse Counselors. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
4. Jacobs DG et al. Practice guideline for the assessment and treatment of patients with suicidal behavior. American Psychiatric Association, 2003 Nov.
5. Lewis LM. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2007;37(1):50-7.
6. Goin M. Psychiatr News. 2003 Jul 18;38(14):3-38.
7. Drye RC et al. Am J Psychiatry. 1973;130(2):171-4.
8. Farrow TL. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2003 Apr;10(2):199-202.
9. Miller MC et al. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 1998;6(2):78-87.
10. Bryan CJ et al. J Affect Disord. 2017 Apr;212:64-72.
11. Pederson LD. Dialectical Behavior Therapy: A Contemporary Guide for Practitioners. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
Dr. Roberts is a board-certified psychiatrist in Northern Virginia, working in both the partial hospital and outpatient settings. She has a special interest in working with patients with serious mental illness and believes in the recovery model of care, in which each patient’s life goals become the focal point of their treatment. Dr. Roberts completed her psychiatry residency at George Washington University, in Washington, where she also served as the 2018-2019 chief outpatient resident. She is a native of Minnesota and earned her medical degree from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in 2015. Dr. Roberts has no disclosures.
Older adults who self-harm face increased suicide risk
Adults aged 65 years and older with a self-harm history are more likely to die from unnatural causes – specifically suicide – than are those who do not self-harm, according to what researchers called the first study of self-harm that exclusively focused on older adults from the perspective of primary care.
“This work should alert policy makers and primary health care professionals to progress towards implementing preventive measures among older adults who consult with a GP,” lead author Catharine Morgan, PhD, and her coauthors, wrote in the Lancet Psychiatry.
The study, which reviewed the primary care records of 4,124 older adults in the United Kingdom with incidents of self-harm, found that , said Dr. Morgan, of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Greater Manchester (England) Patient Safety Translational Research Centre at the University of Manchester, and her coauthors. They also noted that, “compared with their peers who had not harmed themselves, adults in the self-harm cohort were an estimated 20 times more likely to die unnaturally during the first year after a self-harm episode and three or four times more likely to die unnaturally in subsequent years.”
The coauthors also found that, compared with a comparison cohort, the prevalence of a previous mental illness was twice as high among older adults who had engaged in self-harm (hazard ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 2.03-2.17). Older adults with a self-harm history also had a 20% higher prevalence of a physical illness (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.17-1.23), compared with those without such a history.
Dr. Morgan and her coauthors also uncovered differing likelihoods of referral to specialists, depending on socioeconomic status of the surrounding area. Older patients in “more socially deprived localities” were less likely to be referred to mental health services. Women also were more likely than men were to be referred, highlighting “an important target for improvement across the health care system.” They also recommended avoiding tricyclics for older patients and encouraged maintaining “frequent medication reviews after self-harm.”
The coauthors noted potential limitations in their study, including reliance on clinicians who entered the primary care records and reluctance of coroners to report suicide as the cause of death in certain scenarios. However, they strongly encouraged general practitioners to intervene early and consider alternative medications when treating older patients who exhibit risk factors.
“Health care professionals should take the opportunity to consider the risk of self-harm when an older person consults with other health problems, especially when major physical illnesses and psychopathology are both present, to reduce the risk of an escalation in self-harming behaviour and associated mortality,” they wrote.
The NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre funded the study. Dr. Morgan and three of her coauthors declared no conflicts of interest. Two authors reported grants from the NIHR, and one author reported grants from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership.
SOURCE: Morgan C et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Oct 15. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30348-1.
The study by Morgan et al. and her colleagues reinforced both the risks of self-harm among older adults and the absence of follow-up, but more research needs to be done, according to Rebecca Mitchell, PhD, an associate professor at the Australian Institute of Health Innovation at Macquarie University in Sydney.
Just 11.7% of older adults who self-harmed were referred to a mental health specialist, even though the authors found that the older adult cohort had twice the prevalence of a previous mental illness, compared with a matched comparison cohort. Though we may not always know the factors that contributed to these incidents of self-harm, “Morgan and colleagues have provided evidence that the clinical management of older adults who self-harm needs to improve,” Dr. Mitchell wrote.
Next steps could include “qualitative studies that focus on life experiences, social connectedness, resilience, and experience of health care use,” she wrote, painting a fuller picture of the intentions behind those self-harm choices.
“Further research still needs to be done on self-harm among older adults, including the replication of Morgan and colleagues’ research in other countries, to increase our understanding of how primary care could present an early window of opportunity to prevent repeated self-harm attempts and unnatural deaths,” Dr. Mitchell added.
These comments are adapted from an accompanying editorial (Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Oct 15. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[18]30358-4). Dr. Mitchell declared no conflicts of interest.
The study by Morgan et al. and her colleagues reinforced both the risks of self-harm among older adults and the absence of follow-up, but more research needs to be done, according to Rebecca Mitchell, PhD, an associate professor at the Australian Institute of Health Innovation at Macquarie University in Sydney.
Just 11.7% of older adults who self-harmed were referred to a mental health specialist, even though the authors found that the older adult cohort had twice the prevalence of a previous mental illness, compared with a matched comparison cohort. Though we may not always know the factors that contributed to these incidents of self-harm, “Morgan and colleagues have provided evidence that the clinical management of older adults who self-harm needs to improve,” Dr. Mitchell wrote.
Next steps could include “qualitative studies that focus on life experiences, social connectedness, resilience, and experience of health care use,” she wrote, painting a fuller picture of the intentions behind those self-harm choices.
“Further research still needs to be done on self-harm among older adults, including the replication of Morgan and colleagues’ research in other countries, to increase our understanding of how primary care could present an early window of opportunity to prevent repeated self-harm attempts and unnatural deaths,” Dr. Mitchell added.
These comments are adapted from an accompanying editorial (Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Oct 15. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[18]30358-4). Dr. Mitchell declared no conflicts of interest.
The study by Morgan et al. and her colleagues reinforced both the risks of self-harm among older adults and the absence of follow-up, but more research needs to be done, according to Rebecca Mitchell, PhD, an associate professor at the Australian Institute of Health Innovation at Macquarie University in Sydney.
Just 11.7% of older adults who self-harmed were referred to a mental health specialist, even though the authors found that the older adult cohort had twice the prevalence of a previous mental illness, compared with a matched comparison cohort. Though we may not always know the factors that contributed to these incidents of self-harm, “Morgan and colleagues have provided evidence that the clinical management of older adults who self-harm needs to improve,” Dr. Mitchell wrote.
Next steps could include “qualitative studies that focus on life experiences, social connectedness, resilience, and experience of health care use,” she wrote, painting a fuller picture of the intentions behind those self-harm choices.
“Further research still needs to be done on self-harm among older adults, including the replication of Morgan and colleagues’ research in other countries, to increase our understanding of how primary care could present an early window of opportunity to prevent repeated self-harm attempts and unnatural deaths,” Dr. Mitchell added.
These comments are adapted from an accompanying editorial (Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Oct 15. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[18]30358-4). Dr. Mitchell declared no conflicts of interest.
Adults aged 65 years and older with a self-harm history are more likely to die from unnatural causes – specifically suicide – than are those who do not self-harm, according to what researchers called the first study of self-harm that exclusively focused on older adults from the perspective of primary care.
“This work should alert policy makers and primary health care professionals to progress towards implementing preventive measures among older adults who consult with a GP,” lead author Catharine Morgan, PhD, and her coauthors, wrote in the Lancet Psychiatry.
The study, which reviewed the primary care records of 4,124 older adults in the United Kingdom with incidents of self-harm, found that , said Dr. Morgan, of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Greater Manchester (England) Patient Safety Translational Research Centre at the University of Manchester, and her coauthors. They also noted that, “compared with their peers who had not harmed themselves, adults in the self-harm cohort were an estimated 20 times more likely to die unnaturally during the first year after a self-harm episode and three or four times more likely to die unnaturally in subsequent years.”
The coauthors also found that, compared with a comparison cohort, the prevalence of a previous mental illness was twice as high among older adults who had engaged in self-harm (hazard ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 2.03-2.17). Older adults with a self-harm history also had a 20% higher prevalence of a physical illness (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.17-1.23), compared with those without such a history.
Dr. Morgan and her coauthors also uncovered differing likelihoods of referral to specialists, depending on socioeconomic status of the surrounding area. Older patients in “more socially deprived localities” were less likely to be referred to mental health services. Women also were more likely than men were to be referred, highlighting “an important target for improvement across the health care system.” They also recommended avoiding tricyclics for older patients and encouraged maintaining “frequent medication reviews after self-harm.”
The coauthors noted potential limitations in their study, including reliance on clinicians who entered the primary care records and reluctance of coroners to report suicide as the cause of death in certain scenarios. However, they strongly encouraged general practitioners to intervene early and consider alternative medications when treating older patients who exhibit risk factors.
“Health care professionals should take the opportunity to consider the risk of self-harm when an older person consults with other health problems, especially when major physical illnesses and psychopathology are both present, to reduce the risk of an escalation in self-harming behaviour and associated mortality,” they wrote.
The NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre funded the study. Dr. Morgan and three of her coauthors declared no conflicts of interest. Two authors reported grants from the NIHR, and one author reported grants from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership.
SOURCE: Morgan C et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Oct 15. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30348-1.
Adults aged 65 years and older with a self-harm history are more likely to die from unnatural causes – specifically suicide – than are those who do not self-harm, according to what researchers called the first study of self-harm that exclusively focused on older adults from the perspective of primary care.
“This work should alert policy makers and primary health care professionals to progress towards implementing preventive measures among older adults who consult with a GP,” lead author Catharine Morgan, PhD, and her coauthors, wrote in the Lancet Psychiatry.
The study, which reviewed the primary care records of 4,124 older adults in the United Kingdom with incidents of self-harm, found that , said Dr. Morgan, of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Greater Manchester (England) Patient Safety Translational Research Centre at the University of Manchester, and her coauthors. They also noted that, “compared with their peers who had not harmed themselves, adults in the self-harm cohort were an estimated 20 times more likely to die unnaturally during the first year after a self-harm episode and three or four times more likely to die unnaturally in subsequent years.”
The coauthors also found that, compared with a comparison cohort, the prevalence of a previous mental illness was twice as high among older adults who had engaged in self-harm (hazard ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 2.03-2.17). Older adults with a self-harm history also had a 20% higher prevalence of a physical illness (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.17-1.23), compared with those without such a history.
Dr. Morgan and her coauthors also uncovered differing likelihoods of referral to specialists, depending on socioeconomic status of the surrounding area. Older patients in “more socially deprived localities” were less likely to be referred to mental health services. Women also were more likely than men were to be referred, highlighting “an important target for improvement across the health care system.” They also recommended avoiding tricyclics for older patients and encouraged maintaining “frequent medication reviews after self-harm.”
The coauthors noted potential limitations in their study, including reliance on clinicians who entered the primary care records and reluctance of coroners to report suicide as the cause of death in certain scenarios. However, they strongly encouraged general practitioners to intervene early and consider alternative medications when treating older patients who exhibit risk factors.
“Health care professionals should take the opportunity to consider the risk of self-harm when an older person consults with other health problems, especially when major physical illnesses and psychopathology are both present, to reduce the risk of an escalation in self-harming behaviour and associated mortality,” they wrote.
The NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre funded the study. Dr. Morgan and three of her coauthors declared no conflicts of interest. Two authors reported grants from the NIHR, and one author reported grants from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership.
SOURCE: Morgan C et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Oct 15. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30348-1.
FROM THE LANCET PSYCHIATRY
Key clinical point: Consider medications other than tricyclics and frequent medication reviews for older adults who self-harm.
Major finding: “Adults in the self-harm cohort were an estimated 20 times more likely to die unnaturally during the first year after a self-harm episode and three or four times more likely to die unnaturally in subsequent years.”
Study details: A multiphase cohort study involving 4,124 adults in the United Kingdom, aged 65 years and older, with a self-harm episode recorded during 2001-2014.
Disclosures: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre funded the study. Dr. Morgan and three of her coauthors declared no conflicts of interest. Two authors reported grants from the NIHR, and one reported grants from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership.
Source: Morgan C et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Oct 15. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30348-1.
VIDEO: Is your patient clinically depressed, or is there something else?
Is your 42-year-old patient with well-controlled hypertension and type 2 diabetes dealing with a mood disorder that should be regarded as a psychiatric illness – or is she experiencing demoralization and grief?
In this installment of Mental Health Consult, the patient screens positive for depression but is ambivalent about taking antidepressants. In addition, the patient believes she has a number of coping resources that she can utilize. Finding out whether there is a need for an evidence-based psychotherapy, medication, or if other interventions are appropriate requires four key questions when taking a history.
Our expert panel from George Washington University, Washington, includes James L. Griffith, MD, chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences; April Barbour, MD, MPH, director of the division of general internal medicine; and Lorenzo Norris, MD, medical director of psychiatric and behavioral services.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
wmcknight@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
Is your 42-year-old patient with well-controlled hypertension and type 2 diabetes dealing with a mood disorder that should be regarded as a psychiatric illness – or is she experiencing demoralization and grief?
In this installment of Mental Health Consult, the patient screens positive for depression but is ambivalent about taking antidepressants. In addition, the patient believes she has a number of coping resources that she can utilize. Finding out whether there is a need for an evidence-based psychotherapy, medication, or if other interventions are appropriate requires four key questions when taking a history.
Our expert panel from George Washington University, Washington, includes James L. Griffith, MD, chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences; April Barbour, MD, MPH, director of the division of general internal medicine; and Lorenzo Norris, MD, medical director of psychiatric and behavioral services.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
wmcknight@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
Is your 42-year-old patient with well-controlled hypertension and type 2 diabetes dealing with a mood disorder that should be regarded as a psychiatric illness – or is she experiencing demoralization and grief?
In this installment of Mental Health Consult, the patient screens positive for depression but is ambivalent about taking antidepressants. In addition, the patient believes she has a number of coping resources that she can utilize. Finding out whether there is a need for an evidence-based psychotherapy, medication, or if other interventions are appropriate requires four key questions when taking a history.
Our expert panel from George Washington University, Washington, includes James L. Griffith, MD, chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences; April Barbour, MD, MPH, director of the division of general internal medicine; and Lorenzo Norris, MD, medical director of psychiatric and behavioral services.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
wmcknight@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
VIDEO: When geriatric depression turns psychotic
A geriatric patient who recently lost his wife presents with significant weight loss and appears disheveled. He speaks of reuniting with his wife as soon as possible. How do you quickly stabilize this patient who appears to be experiencing psychotic depression?
In this installment of Mental Health Consult, our panel members discuss their recommendations for triaging a 65-year-old recently widowed man with a history of prostate cancer but no prior history of psychosis.
Join our panel of experts from George Washington University, Washington, including Katalin Roth, MD, director of geriatrics and palliative medicine; April Barbour, MD, MPH, director of the division of general internal medicine; and Lorenzo Norris, MD, medical director of psychiatric and behavioral services, as they discuss how to effectively deal with a geriatric patient in crisis.
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
A geriatric patient who recently lost his wife presents with significant weight loss and appears disheveled. He speaks of reuniting with his wife as soon as possible. How do you quickly stabilize this patient who appears to be experiencing psychotic depression?
In this installment of Mental Health Consult, our panel members discuss their recommendations for triaging a 65-year-old recently widowed man with a history of prostate cancer but no prior history of psychosis.
Join our panel of experts from George Washington University, Washington, including Katalin Roth, MD, director of geriatrics and palliative medicine; April Barbour, MD, MPH, director of the division of general internal medicine; and Lorenzo Norris, MD, medical director of psychiatric and behavioral services, as they discuss how to effectively deal with a geriatric patient in crisis.
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
A geriatric patient who recently lost his wife presents with significant weight loss and appears disheveled. He speaks of reuniting with his wife as soon as possible. How do you quickly stabilize this patient who appears to be experiencing psychotic depression?
In this installment of Mental Health Consult, our panel members discuss their recommendations for triaging a 65-year-old recently widowed man with a history of prostate cancer but no prior history of psychosis.
Join our panel of experts from George Washington University, Washington, including Katalin Roth, MD, director of geriatrics and palliative medicine; April Barbour, MD, MPH, director of the division of general internal medicine; and Lorenzo Norris, MD, medical director of psychiatric and behavioral services, as they discuss how to effectively deal with a geriatric patient in crisis.
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
VIDEO: A case study in diagnosing depression or demoralization after retirement
Why is your geriatric patient whose life seemed fulfilling before retirement now talking about not feeling “right”? “Am I depressed, or is this normal,” your patient wants to know. What should be your reply, and what interventions can you take to help this patient in the context of a 15-minute appointment?
In this video, part of the Mental Health Consult series of roundtable discussions, our panel members discuss their recommendations for work-up and next steps for managing a 65-year-old recently retired man with a history of prostate cancer but no psychiatric disorders. He has some mild depressive symptoms, and he brings up suicide during the office visit.
Join our panel of experts from George Washington University, Washington, including Katalin Roth, MD, director of geriatrics and palliative medicine; April Barbour, MD, director of the division of general internal medicine; and Lorenzo Norris, MD, medical director of psychiatric and behavioral services, as they discuss how to differentiate between the distress often inherent in life passages and mental illness, and how practice models drive treatment decisions and reimbursement.
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
Why is your geriatric patient whose life seemed fulfilling before retirement now talking about not feeling “right”? “Am I depressed, or is this normal,” your patient wants to know. What should be your reply, and what interventions can you take to help this patient in the context of a 15-minute appointment?
In this video, part of the Mental Health Consult series of roundtable discussions, our panel members discuss their recommendations for work-up and next steps for managing a 65-year-old recently retired man with a history of prostate cancer but no psychiatric disorders. He has some mild depressive symptoms, and he brings up suicide during the office visit.
Join our panel of experts from George Washington University, Washington, including Katalin Roth, MD, director of geriatrics and palliative medicine; April Barbour, MD, director of the division of general internal medicine; and Lorenzo Norris, MD, medical director of psychiatric and behavioral services, as they discuss how to differentiate between the distress often inherent in life passages and mental illness, and how practice models drive treatment decisions and reimbursement.
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
Why is your geriatric patient whose life seemed fulfilling before retirement now talking about not feeling “right”? “Am I depressed, or is this normal,” your patient wants to know. What should be your reply, and what interventions can you take to help this patient in the context of a 15-minute appointment?
In this video, part of the Mental Health Consult series of roundtable discussions, our panel members discuss their recommendations for work-up and next steps for managing a 65-year-old recently retired man with a history of prostate cancer but no psychiatric disorders. He has some mild depressive symptoms, and he brings up suicide during the office visit.
Join our panel of experts from George Washington University, Washington, including Katalin Roth, MD, director of geriatrics and palliative medicine; April Barbour, MD, director of the division of general internal medicine; and Lorenzo Norris, MD, medical director of psychiatric and behavioral services, as they discuss how to differentiate between the distress often inherent in life passages and mental illness, and how practice models drive treatment decisions and reimbursement.
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
VIDEO: A case study in managing opioid addiction after a back injury
Has your patient’s opioid use escalated to opioid addiction? How can you tell, and what interventions can you take to help this patient in the context of a 15-minute appointment?
In this edition of Mental Health Consult, our panel discusses their recommendations for workup and next steps for managing a 45-year-old man who has no history of psychiatric disorders and appears to now be dependent on the opioid painkillers that he initially received after a back injury.
Join our panel of experts from George Washington University, Washington, including Daniel Lieberman, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences clinical director; April Barbour, MD, MPH, director of the division of general internal medicine; and Lorenzo Norris, MD, medical director of psychiatric and behavioral services, as they discuss how to treat pain medication–related addiction, including when to refer to pain specialists and how various practice models drive treatment decisions and reimbursement.
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
Has your patient’s opioid use escalated to opioid addiction? How can you tell, and what interventions can you take to help this patient in the context of a 15-minute appointment?
In this edition of Mental Health Consult, our panel discusses their recommendations for workup and next steps for managing a 45-year-old man who has no history of psychiatric disorders and appears to now be dependent on the opioid painkillers that he initially received after a back injury.
Join our panel of experts from George Washington University, Washington, including Daniel Lieberman, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences clinical director; April Barbour, MD, MPH, director of the division of general internal medicine; and Lorenzo Norris, MD, medical director of psychiatric and behavioral services, as they discuss how to treat pain medication–related addiction, including when to refer to pain specialists and how various practice models drive treatment decisions and reimbursement.
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
Has your patient’s opioid use escalated to opioid addiction? How can you tell, and what interventions can you take to help this patient in the context of a 15-minute appointment?
In this edition of Mental Health Consult, our panel discusses their recommendations for workup and next steps for managing a 45-year-old man who has no history of psychiatric disorders and appears to now be dependent on the opioid painkillers that he initially received after a back injury.
Join our panel of experts from George Washington University, Washington, including Daniel Lieberman, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences clinical director; April Barbour, MD, MPH, director of the division of general internal medicine; and Lorenzo Norris, MD, medical director of psychiatric and behavioral services, as they discuss how to treat pain medication–related addiction, including when to refer to pain specialists and how various practice models drive treatment decisions and reimbursement.
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
Distress or depression in a 12-year-old girl?
A 12-year-old girl presents for a well-child visit but is withdrawn, and her mother reports recent behavioral changes. Symptoms suggest a possible depressive disorder. The physician did not anticipate a mental health concern and is behind schedule. What are the next steps?
In this edition of Mental Health Consult, join our expert panelists for their analysis of this case, and their recommendations for assessing similar patients and addressing their mental health needs within the context of a busy primary care practice. Our panel includes Dr. David Pickar, a psychiatrist and former intramural research director for the National Institute of Mental Health; Dr. Lee Savio Beers of Children’s National Health System, Washington; and Dr. Lorenzo Norris, medical director of psychiatric and behavioral services at George Washington University Hospital, Washington.
“This is a case that … really gets at the heart of the idea of what is normal versus abnormal in terms of clinical depression,” says Dr. Norris. Watch the video to hear their perspectives on when and how to perform screening interventions, decide on referrals, handle emergent situations, and decide how practice models drive decisions and reimbursement.
Click here for a PDF of the case study.
A 12-year-old girl presents for a well-child visit but is withdrawn, and her mother reports recent behavioral changes. Symptoms suggest a possible depressive disorder. The physician did not anticipate a mental health concern and is behind schedule. What are the next steps?
In this edition of Mental Health Consult, join our expert panelists for their analysis of this case, and their recommendations for assessing similar patients and addressing their mental health needs within the context of a busy primary care practice. Our panel includes Dr. David Pickar, a psychiatrist and former intramural research director for the National Institute of Mental Health; Dr. Lee Savio Beers of Children’s National Health System, Washington; and Dr. Lorenzo Norris, medical director of psychiatric and behavioral services at George Washington University Hospital, Washington.
“This is a case that … really gets at the heart of the idea of what is normal versus abnormal in terms of clinical depression,” says Dr. Norris. Watch the video to hear their perspectives on when and how to perform screening interventions, decide on referrals, handle emergent situations, and decide how practice models drive decisions and reimbursement.
Click here for a PDF of the case study.
A 12-year-old girl presents for a well-child visit but is withdrawn, and her mother reports recent behavioral changes. Symptoms suggest a possible depressive disorder. The physician did not anticipate a mental health concern and is behind schedule. What are the next steps?
In this edition of Mental Health Consult, join our expert panelists for their analysis of this case, and their recommendations for assessing similar patients and addressing their mental health needs within the context of a busy primary care practice. Our panel includes Dr. David Pickar, a psychiatrist and former intramural research director for the National Institute of Mental Health; Dr. Lee Savio Beers of Children’s National Health System, Washington; and Dr. Lorenzo Norris, medical director of psychiatric and behavioral services at George Washington University Hospital, Washington.
“This is a case that … really gets at the heart of the idea of what is normal versus abnormal in terms of clinical depression,” says Dr. Norris. Watch the video to hear their perspectives on when and how to perform screening interventions, decide on referrals, handle emergent situations, and decide how practice models drive decisions and reimbursement.
Click here for a PDF of the case study.
VIDEO: Secrets of success in a MACRA-based world
WASHINGTON – Are you ready for the way you are paid for seeing patients to change, and not just change, but change dramatically?
The value-based care system of reimbursement for primary care physicians under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) is expected to take effect beginning in 2019, but how those payments will be made will be based on measurements of your overall performance in 2017. Will you be ready?
“Times are changing, and we need to change with them,” says Dr. Nitin Damle, the incoming president of the American College of Physicians, and an internist with South County Internal Medicine, Wakefield, R.I.
In this video, part of a series of roundtable discussions with leading health policy analysts and academic primary care physicians and mental health specialists, Dr. Damle and Dr. Lee Beers, the medical director for municipal and regional affairs at Children’s National Health System, Washington, discuss the essential steps physician practices must take in order to survive – and thrive – in a value-based care environment.
These steps include: team-based care, inclusion of mental health services, flexible IT electronic health record systems, quality measures tailored to your practice’s competencies and patient panel, and adequate funding.
Whether you’ve already begun the transition to a value-based system, or have yet to begin, this video will help focus your efforts and expectations of what’s to come.
“Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Start with incremental steps so you can get momentum going so that you end up where you want to be,” says Dr. Beers.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
WASHINGTON – Are you ready for the way you are paid for seeing patients to change, and not just change, but change dramatically?
The value-based care system of reimbursement for primary care physicians under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) is expected to take effect beginning in 2019, but how those payments will be made will be based on measurements of your overall performance in 2017. Will you be ready?
“Times are changing, and we need to change with them,” says Dr. Nitin Damle, the incoming president of the American College of Physicians, and an internist with South County Internal Medicine, Wakefield, R.I.
In this video, part of a series of roundtable discussions with leading health policy analysts and academic primary care physicians and mental health specialists, Dr. Damle and Dr. Lee Beers, the medical director for municipal and regional affairs at Children’s National Health System, Washington, discuss the essential steps physician practices must take in order to survive – and thrive – in a value-based care environment.
These steps include: team-based care, inclusion of mental health services, flexible IT electronic health record systems, quality measures tailored to your practice’s competencies and patient panel, and adequate funding.
Whether you’ve already begun the transition to a value-based system, or have yet to begin, this video will help focus your efforts and expectations of what’s to come.
“Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Start with incremental steps so you can get momentum going so that you end up where you want to be,” says Dr. Beers.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
WASHINGTON – Are you ready for the way you are paid for seeing patients to change, and not just change, but change dramatically?
The value-based care system of reimbursement for primary care physicians under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) is expected to take effect beginning in 2019, but how those payments will be made will be based on measurements of your overall performance in 2017. Will you be ready?
“Times are changing, and we need to change with them,” says Dr. Nitin Damle, the incoming president of the American College of Physicians, and an internist with South County Internal Medicine, Wakefield, R.I.
In this video, part of a series of roundtable discussions with leading health policy analysts and academic primary care physicians and mental health specialists, Dr. Damle and Dr. Lee Beers, the medical director for municipal and regional affairs at Children’s National Health System, Washington, discuss the essential steps physician practices must take in order to survive – and thrive – in a value-based care environment.
These steps include: team-based care, inclusion of mental health services, flexible IT electronic health record systems, quality measures tailored to your practice’s competencies and patient panel, and adequate funding.
Whether you’ve already begun the transition to a value-based system, or have yet to begin, this video will help focus your efforts and expectations of what’s to come.
“Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Start with incremental steps so you can get momentum going so that you end up where you want to be,” says Dr. Beers.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
VIDEO: Value-based care 101
WASHINGTON – Feel free to continue operating under a fee-for-service system, but according to Neil Kirschner, Ph.D., the senior associate for regulatory and insurer affairs at the American College of Physicians, “It’ll slowly be bled. The updates will be less, and will be linked to quality and efficiency.”
But just what is “value-based care” and why is it now, literally, the law of the land?
In this video interview, Dr. Kirschner explains how and why practice is being transformed and what this means in practical terms, and he lists resources for what you can do to ensure your practice is not left behind.
“I think many doctors still are not seeing the change, or not seeing how quickly it’s coming,” says Dr. Kirschner. “Once it comes, it’s going to hit physicians in the face if they’re not prepared.”
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
WASHINGTON – Feel free to continue operating under a fee-for-service system, but according to Neil Kirschner, Ph.D., the senior associate for regulatory and insurer affairs at the American College of Physicians, “It’ll slowly be bled. The updates will be less, and will be linked to quality and efficiency.”
But just what is “value-based care” and why is it now, literally, the law of the land?
In this video interview, Dr. Kirschner explains how and why practice is being transformed and what this means in practical terms, and he lists resources for what you can do to ensure your practice is not left behind.
“I think many doctors still are not seeing the change, or not seeing how quickly it’s coming,” says Dr. Kirschner. “Once it comes, it’s going to hit physicians in the face if they’re not prepared.”
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
WASHINGTON – Feel free to continue operating under a fee-for-service system, but according to Neil Kirschner, Ph.D., the senior associate for regulatory and insurer affairs at the American College of Physicians, “It’ll slowly be bled. The updates will be less, and will be linked to quality and efficiency.”
But just what is “value-based care” and why is it now, literally, the law of the land?
In this video interview, Dr. Kirschner explains how and why practice is being transformed and what this means in practical terms, and he lists resources for what you can do to ensure your practice is not left behind.
“I think many doctors still are not seeing the change, or not seeing how quickly it’s coming,” says Dr. Kirschner. “Once it comes, it’s going to hit physicians in the face if they’re not prepared.”
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
