Minnesota State Hospitals Need To Be Managed To Minimize Aggression

When is that going to happen?  How much time will it take?

According to new Minneapolis StarTribune article by Chris Serres the situation at the state's second largest state mental hospital has worsened to the point that it has caught the attention of regulators from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).  CMS put the state on notice that it at risk for losing $3.5 million in federal funding if they don't correct patient safety issues at the hospital by March 5.  The hospital is described as having experienced a "surge" in violence and aggression with associated injuries since the state Legislature passed a 48 hour rule mandating that jail inmates identified in as having mental health problems be directly admitted to Anoka Regional Metro Regional Treatment Center.  The jail inmates were given priority status over any civilly committed persons in community hospitals.  The article points out that there have been 38 aggression-related injuries involving 24 patients in 2013 and 48 aggression-related injuries involving 28 patients in 2014.  A direct assault on a staff person is described in the article.

I have a few suggestions for legislators, bureaucrats, and citizens of the State of Minnesota on how this can be resolved as soon as possible.  Let me preface this by saying that I have no special knowledge about what is happening at AMRTC apart from what is in the Seres article.  I am one of a handful of psychiatrists in the state who have worked in these settings and am qualified to comment on these issues.  I have a formal request in to the Department of Human Services to review a copy of the CMS report because I cannot find it on the Internet, the DHS web site, the CMS web site, or the office of the Inspector General.  My suggestions follow:

1.  Rescind the 48 hour rule to send unscreened jail inmates to AMRTC immediately:

Any psychiatrist could have provided consultation at the time on the reasons why this will not work, but the biggest reason is that psychiatric symptoms or even a psychiatric diagnosis does not necessarily mean that a psychiatric hospital is the best place for the patient.  Patients admitted to inpatient units are screened for psychiatric disorders and not on the basis of alleged criminal behavior.  In terms of logistics within the state hospital system patients who are dangerously aggressive have generally been committed as mentally ill and dangerous and generally sent to the Security Hospital at St. Peter. It is fairly common to encounter sociopathic and psychopathic patients in community psychiatric hospital.  It soon becomes obvious that apart from the personality disorder and the associated aggressive and inappropriate behaviors that there are no treatable problems.  This patients often become aggressive toward staff or exploit other patients and are immediately discharged from inpatient settings.  Inpatient psychiatric settings are not the correct place to address antisocial persons or in many cases antisocial persons even with a psychiatric diagnosis because of their danger to staff and other patients.

There is the associated issue of there being a strong incentive to send patients who may be difficult to work with but who are not psychiatrically ill to the hospital just because the rule exists.  Transfers like that always occur to psychiatric units if someone has carte blanche for admitting people and psychiatrists don't screen them.  Aggression can be minimized only when the entire unit is managed with a safety focus and that includes screening anyone with aggression who is admitted.

2.  Reanalyze the culture at AMRTC with an emphasis on staff safety:

It is really impossible to run a psychiatric hospital if the staff responsible for the care of the patients are threatened and/or burned out.  The article lead me to believe that both things are happening and compounded by the fact that hospital staff is being mandated to work extra hours.  In the initial stages that may require the presence of additional security staff.  I have seen similar situations where the level of antisocial and aggressive behavior on an inpatient unit became overwhelming resulting in a riot situation that required police intervention.  Some attempts at splitting up large state hospitals to smaller local facilities in the state have resulted in similar incidents.

A critical element of the culture that has come to light in recent years is the fact that there appears  to be a top down initiative in the management of state facilities.  Aggressive behavior has been an ongoing problem at state facilities.  Psychiatric input into that problem is not clear.  It is clear that in at least some cases, programs were implemented by management staff who have no expertise in managing aggression and violence in inpatient settings.

Like most psychiatric problems aggression is a treatable problem, but it has to be addressed directly.  It is best address in an environment that identifies it as a treatable problem immediately rather than an untreatable characteristic or one that has a root cause that must be addressed first.  There is not better way to treat aggression than identifying it as a primary problem that is incompatible with a therapeutic environment.

3.  Take a serious look at how inpatient psychiatric facilities are supposed to run:

State governments and managed care systems have both had deleterious effects on psychiatric care on inpatient units.  These management systems have a lot in common in determining what happens on the inpatient side.  The absolute worst case scenario is containment only.  People are basically held usually based on the premise that they are dangerous in some way.  Dangerous in this context generally means at risk for aggressive or suicidal behavior.  They are discharged when that dangerousness passes either by the administration of medication, the person resolving a crisis in their life, or until they convince staff that they are no longer dangerous.  This approach to inpatient care seriously dumbs down psychiatry, treats patients like widgets on an assembly line rather than individuals, and creates the illusion that anyone can do inpatient psychiatry.  Dangerousness after all is not a psychiatric diagnosis.  It also creates the illusion that an inpatient psychiatric unit is tantamount to incarceration or jail.  It leads to a correctional atmosphere in what should be a therapeutic hospital environment.  In a correctional atmosphere, the staff seem to be policing the patients rather than working with them on common goals.  This attitude has also led at least one state official to suggest that psychiatrists in this environment are optional.  A local mental health advocate has said the same thing.  If that is true - why is it that the state of aggression in this hospital has gotten to the point that the union representative in the article is suggesting that the institution is being run by the patients?


4.  Rexamine the funding and rationing of psychiatric care in Minnesota:

The article mentions a backlog of patients at AMRTC due to the fact that many of them cannot be discharged.  This has been a problem in Minnesota for as long as I can remember.  Patients are committed in acute care hospitals and end up waiting there too long for transfer to AMRTC.  Once they get to AMRTC they meet criteria for discharge and there is nowhere for them to go, largely because they still have chronic psychiatric symptoms that are socially unacceptable or that preclude their safety in the community.  Anyone who is covered by standard health insurance is no longer covered if they are committed to a state hospital.  People can end up undergoing civil commitment because their insurance companies do not provide the level of care that they require in the community.  The entire system of fragmented and rationed care can be viewed as a way for the government and managed care companies to minimize their funding of necessary care, especially in patients with complex problems.  A basic option here is to expand care based on treatment parameters rather than rationing criteria.  Develop treatment based and quality goals rather than rationing goals that provide minimal and frequently inadequate care.  One of the basic principles of community psychiatry is that the funding needs to follow the patient.  If patients are committed and transferred to state hospitals and they are on private insurance plans - those plans need to have continued financial responsibility for those patients.  If a patient with private insurance needs treatment in jail, those services need to be covered by private insurance rather than being shifted to law enforcement.  The entire system of rationing and cost shifting is also a strong incentive to transfer any mentally ill inmate to AMRTC because law enforcement is covering the cost of medical and psychiatric care.  

5.  Facilities for mentally ill inmates that recognizes their vulnerability:

One of the concerns that I have always had for any inmate with a mental illness, is that they are generally much more vulnerable to any form of manipulation or intimidation by career criminals and sociopaths.  The second concern is that many patients with mental illnesses end up in jail because they are symptomatic and/or confused and end up trespassing or in dangerous situations.  They are often not able to follow instructions by the police.  Some Minnesota counties have mechanisms to safeguard this population.  One of them is having them screened in jail for competency to proceed to trial by qualified psychiatrists and psychologists.  The resolution in those cases is that the patient is transferred to an inpatient psychiatric unit for stabilization and the pending legal charges are usually dropped.  They can frequently be discharged from the acute care hospital without transfer to a state hospital.  In cases where this does not occur, every effort should be made to segregate the vulnerable inmates who are mentally ill from the general jail or prison population.  The ideal situation would allow for more programming to prevent some of the common correctional problems like isolation that lead to increasing symptoms.    

These are a few suggestions to resolve the current problems with aggression noted to exist at at AMRTC.  Over the years that I have been following this story, there is also the question of what is really going on in these facilities?  Why are these problems so difficult to resolve when acute care hospitals have fewer problems and are dealing with more acutely agitated and frequently intoxicated individuals.  Why does the bureaucracy think they can resolve these problems without using psychiatric expertise or at least methods that have been proven to work in psychiatric institutions?  And what about the alternate and seemingly more permissive methods of dealing with aggression?  Can anyone come out with a comment on whether or not they have succeeded or failed?  There is a lack of transparency when it comes to seeking the answers to these questions.

These are all important questions that need to be answered.  I hope to receive the CMS report and make further comments on this situation.  There is a lack of transparency about what the state is doing to resolve this situation.  When the state assumes the care of mentally ill individuals - people who by definition are vulnerable adults, transparency is important to assure their adequate care and reassure the families of all of the patients admitted to this hospital.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA




References:


1:  Chris Serres.  State psychiatric hospital in Anoka threatened with loss of federal funding.  Minneapolis StarTribune January 4, 2016.


Attribution:

The jail photograph at the top of this blog is by Andrew Bardwell from Cleveland, Ohio, USA (Jail Cell) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.  The URL is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ACela.jpg

Trauma in Psychiatric Hospitalizations

I read the Shrink Rap blog and found the recent post there on a reaction to one of the blog's posts on the violation that people feel after psychiatric hospitalization.  A direct attack on the author was certainly predictable especially given some of the sources quoted in the article.  As expected none of the author's intentions were captured by these responses.  Her intention was explicitly stated in the following 2 sentences:

"I realize that some people who are involuntarily hospitalized are terribly traumatized, which is why I'm writing the book. I don't think psychiatrists see that and I think if it were figured it into the equation, maybe less people would be involuntarily hospitalized (certainly, no one should be forcibly hospitalized for 'sadness' as one of the MIA commenters put it), other alternatives could be found, and more of an effort would be made to treat those where there are no options but involuntarily hospitalized with respect and kindness."

I worked in an acute care inpatient setting treating very acutely ill patients for 23 years and thought I would give my impressions to the statement about what psychiatrists see or don't see in people who have been acutely hospitalized, especially on an involuntary basis.  I think that there are several critical factors that determine what the experience will be like during those circumstances.  There will be considerable variation in the experience based on how these factors are approached.

1.  The pre-hospital experience

On the units where I worked, voluntary admissions were in the minority.  Most people were brought in to the emergency department (ED) by the police or paramedics.  They are usually involved when there is an acute behavioral change leading to a safety issue.  In that pre-hospital encounter some people are beaten up, maced or tasered by law enforcement.  If that happens and the person is in the ED wearing handcuffs that are too tight it can have an effect on the perception of the hospital and its staff following admission.  It is also an extremely traumatizing experience.  Years of observing this problem led me to problem solve with patients affected by these situations on how they could avoid confrontations with the police.  That is not the only source of trauma prior to admission.  Fights, accidents, self inflicted injuries, and near death experiences with suicide attempts and accidental overdoses can also happen prior to admission.  In some cases, people are transferred from intensive care units where they have been stabilized.

2.  Intoxication states

Intoxication states including alcohol,  cocaine, amphetamines, hallucinogens, and marijuana as well as the associated drug induced mental disorders are overrepresented in the population that gets acutely and/or involuntarily admitted.  People with substance use disorders have been systematically discriminated against by the insurance industry for the past thirty years.  At that time functional detoxification was not allowed and any patient who was intoxicated was generally denied care in psychiatric units by these same companies even if they had a significant psychiatric disorder.  They were supposed to go to "social detox" in county detox units, at least until most counties learned from insurance companies that it is cost effective to not have any resources and just deny care.  That means that today more people never get sober and are more likely to have increasing numbers of encounters with the police.  All it takes is an episode of aggression or suicidal statements while intoxicated and it can lead to transportation to specific psychiatric hospitals that receive patients from the police and paramedics.  In many cases, the hold is dropped after the person is detoxified and they no longer have the behaviors that occur in the intoxication state.  In other cases, there are semi-permanent or permanent changes secondary to the substance use and that results in a longer hospitalization.

3.  Acute psychotic states

Some patients who develop acute psychiatric states can experience similar changes in their conscious state that result in violent or suicidal behavior.  It is common rhetoric to hear that patients with mental disorders are no more likely than non-patients to be violent or aggressive.  Averaged across the entire population that may be true but it is also true that there are very high risk groups of people with mental illness.  The civil commitment laws in most states were designed for this contingency and a lot of these stories make the front pages these days.  Acute agitation and aggression in public or at the time of an emergency call places the person at high risk for a confrontation with the police.  In these confrontations anything can happen.   One of the functions of the hospital staff is to come up with a plan that will minimize any future risk of this kind of confrontation and to immediately address any physical or psychological trauma that occurred prior to admission.  In some cases, ongoing high levels of aggression in the hospital can result in additional physical intervention.  The goal of that physical intervention is much different that the police goals and staff have to be trained to provide this kind of treatment.  Medication can also be administered in emergency situations and according to state statutes to reduce the risk of injury to patients and staff.
   

4.  Suicidal states

One of the more complex aspects of inpatient care is assessing suicide risk and attempting to reduce suicide risk on the inpatient setting.  The problem is complicated by the fact that a lot of people with chronic suicidal thinking are assessed as being acutely suicidal and they are admitted.  In many cases it is a fine line between thinking about injuring or killing yourself every day for years and then one day deciding that you are going to do it.  In many cases people will injure themselves and demand to be released from the hospital.  They will deny making the statements even though the documentation is very clear.  They will be unaware or dishonest about their potential for suicide or self injury.  They may be indignant about being in a hospital even after a serious suicide attempt.  Others have very serious suicidal thinking and are quiet and cooperative but may at very high risk for suicide if they are released prematurely.  The worst case scenario is the person who suicides in the hospital or shortly after release.  The majority of people are able to recognize that there is a problem and work with the staff on resolving it and get released on a voluntary basis as soon as possible.

5.  Friends and family

In many cases of acute involuntary hospitalization, the chain of events starts with a family member or friend long before there is any suggestion of hospital involvement.  Family members often find themselves in the precarious situation of being concerned about the future patient, but not able to do anything about it.  They may have false information and believe that nothing can be done until the person actually "does something."  They are fearful about the patient's behavior and the fact that they have become unpredictable.  In some of these situations the first event leading to the hospital is an act of aggression or a suicide attempt.  The police are called, a crisis intervention team is activated, and the person is placed on a transportation hold and taken to the hospital.

Family members respond differently when the patient is admitted to a psychiatric unit.   Some family members are angry that the patient was admitted and insist that the patient be admitted to a medical or surgical service.  These patients are often geriatric patients who become aggressive at home.  Some families are relieved that the admission occurred and their member is in a safe environment and treatment can start.  Some families do not want the patient to know that they were involved in getting them to the hospital.  Some families get angry and demand that the patient be immediately released.  In some cases family members can become violent and threatening themselves.  Communication with the family can prevent a lot of misunderstandings and give them a clear idea of what the assessment and plan will be.  In some cases, the patient will refuse to sign the necessary releases to allow this communication.        

6.  Probate and criminal court officials

Statutes vary from state to state, but in the two main states where I have worked probate courts make the decisions about involuntary hospitalization, civil commitment, guardianship, involuntary administration of medication,  and conservatorship.  The process is advanced by screeners who gather evidence that can be tested against the statutory language for civil commitment and other proceedings.  Contrary to a recent Internet post on the "medical model", impaired insight is not a criterion for commitment and neither is "sadness" as suggested in the original post.  The probate court staff and not the hospital staff need to come up with all of the actual behavioral evidence to proceed with the original hold order and any further legal proceedings toward civil commitment.

One aspect of these court proceedings that nobody pays much attention to is that (like all American legal activity) these proceedings are contentious.  There are two sides and both sides want to "win" according to that model.  If any paternalism enters into the picture it typically happens when the patient's attorney recognizes that they are too ill to function and strikes some kind of bargain with the court.   Speaking for the clinician side I can say that quality treatment is a more realistic goal than "winning" in any usual sense of the word.   The patient, their family, and their attorney can decide that they will advocate for a position that is the opposite of what the hospital staff recommends.  In that case, there will typically be a lot more emotion than if there is no apparent alignment opposing the treatment team.
   

7.  Medical staff

In addition to the usual medical and psychiatric tasks of diagnosis and differential diagnosis and treatment of these diagnoses, the main task of inpatient staff is to maintain a safe and therapeutic environment.  Given the marginal existence of some of these units that is no easy task.  I can recall working on units where all of the patients stood on the other side of the glass and the activity was dominated by young aggressive men with severe personality and psychiatric disorders.  If an intimidating environment like that is allowed to exist a significant number of people in that environment will be frightened and in some cases traumatized.  Patients who are disruptive due to inappropriate social or sexual behavior or because of dementia can also frighten or anger other patients and that can lead to some level of traumatization or a reactivation of that dynamic.  The staff all need to be acutely aware of these potential problems and act to address them.  This requires an physical presence of medical staff on the unit.  Given the current levels of acuity, inpatient units cannot be run remotely or by administrators.  The medical staff present has to be well trained, comfortable with treating severe psychiatric problems, cohesive, and proactive.

Physical interventions to prevent aggression or self injury are potential flash points for trauma.  Many people who are acutely hospitalized have a high likelihood of past trauma or abuse.  The best overall approach is to keep any physical interventions to the minimum and keep the staff well trained in the concepts or therapeutic neutrality and verbal deescalation. In the cases where physical intervention is required, strict protocols need to be followed and quality assurance programs need to be in place to assure that these measures are kept to the very minimum periods of time.

8.  Relevant demographic factors

The most relevant demographic factor on the part of the patient is a history of abuse, a diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder and how those variables currently affect them.  Some studies suggest that as many as 30-40% of patients have one or both problems.  The is relevant not only in understanding their current presentation but it should also guide how the staff interact with them.  In an informed environment, with resources it can suggest a course of psychotherapy, but very little psychotherapy typically occurs in most inpatient units.  Sociopathy and psychopathy are also relevant variable, since it is unlikely that people with these problems can be integrated into a population of more vulnerable patients without the odds of victimization being very high.  Substance use issues can also be very disruptive, especially in environments that are not very secure and increase the risk of contraband being brought into the hospital.
     

9.  Personality and anger control factors

Anger is an interesting emotion for a number of reasons.  It is hardly mentioned in psychiatric diagnostic manuals but it plays a significant role in inpatient psychiatry.  An inpatient psychiatrist can walk in and find that most or all of the patients to be seen that day have significant problems with anger.  Anger is frequently seen as a non-specific symptom of psychosis, mania, or personality disorders but it is more complicated than that.  There are often different formulations of anger control problems on inpatient units.  Assuming the person is not intoxicated it can be paranoia, projection, projective identification, grandiosity, irritability and various symptoms associated with the psychiatric syndromes that correlate with anger and aggression.  But there is also the element of anger and how it affects decision making.  If you are angry (irrespective of the real cause) you will have a tendency to see your problems as being attributable to another person and to see that other person as being responsible for your problems.  This means that if you were angry before you were hospitalized you will see the inpatient staff as being responsible for your problems, even though they had nothing to do with the circumstances of admission.  It is also true that is almost all of the situations that I have encountered, the inpatient physician did not initiate the emergency hold.  It is typically initiated by an outpatient or ED physician or in some states - law enforcement.  Most people in this situation can recognize what happened, but some cannot.  Some will remain angry the whole time and for a long time after they are discharged.      

10.  Officials who monitor medical staff and hospitals

There is a long line of administrators whose only job is to make sure that patient rights are guaranteed and that no patient is abused or treated in a disrespectful manner.  The first official is usually a patient advocate who is a permanent employee of the hospital or clinic.  In the state where I work the next line of oversight is an Ombudsman for mental health and developmental disabilities appointed by the governor who has investigative oversight into any hospital or clinic activity that a patient or their family finds to be unacceptable.  The Ombudsman can come in to any facility and interview all of the people involved and make their own determination of the merits of the complaint and what corrective action needs to be taken.  In the case of physicians the Board of Medical Practice (BMP) has ultimate authority over any licensed physician in the state.  All it takes is a brief note on a complaint form to initiate a full investigation into a physician's behavior that involves all of the relevant medical records being sent to the BMP.  Complaints are never questioned as far as their accuracy or coherence.  The physician in question needs to respond in detail to the complaint.  Physicians are never exonerated, a complaint is never assessed as to whether or not it had merit, and complaints are kept on permanent file even if the complaint is dismissed.  A finding against a physician can result in fines and restriction or suspension of their license to practice medicine.

11.  A reasonable discharge plan

In the most straightforward scenarios people sober up and/or resolve their crises and they are discharged as soon as any hold can be dropped.  In the case of acute intoxication states that don't require extensive detoxification it could happen in less than a day.  People are frequently discharged as soon as they are admitted from the ED (they are essentially admitted for a second opinion from a psychiatrist).  In more complex crisis situations, collateral information is usually needed to corroborate the patient's baseline behavior and document whether the relatives have had any concern before the hospitalization.  As noted in the family section, relatives have varying degrees of anger.  Some may show up either demanding the immediate release of the patient or threatening to sue the medical staff if the patient is released and not treated.  In some cases there are threats that legal action will be taken if the patient commits suicide or harms someone.  All of these factors and any medical and psychiatric diagnoses and treatment plans have to be negotiated in the discharge planning.

12.  A general lack of knowledge and sophistication about emergency hospitalization

It should be well known in our society that people are conflicted about mental illness and its treatment.  At the level of the healthcare business there is no conflict.  Healthcare companies are in business to make money and to a large extent that is how people keep circulating in and out of psychiatric hospitals and emergency rooms.  To my knowledge, nobody is ever educated about preventing these kinds of emergencies and avoiding contact with the police and hospitalization.  Instead we seem to have plenty of advocates for more risk rather than less.  That includes the recent pendulum swing toward more permissive attitudes involving drug and alcohol use.  Recognizing that a problem exists that could lead to this pathway is critical for prevention of these episodes and by definition prevention of any trauma that might be incurred on inpatient units.

Conclusion:

All things considered, I encountered very few situations where there was a question of a person being traumatized on an inpatient psychiatric unit where I worked.  I agree that this is an area for further study and that study would need to be carefully done.  I know that many people do not disclose what they were thinking or feeling in the hospital until well after they have been discharged.  A possibly useful approach might be to offer a post discharge assessment that focused only on the issue of trauma that occurred in the hospital and was totally independent of a treatment plan for the primary diagnosis.

In any situation this complex is it possible that some people are traumatized by the experience?  Of course it is.  Is it possible that some people actually create trauma for their fellow patients and staff?  Most definitely.  Is it possible that some if not most people recognize that there were major problems before admission that led to this situation and are able to work with the hospital staff to resolve the situation in a timely manner?  The answer is again - very definitely.  There are a number of mechanisms available to people who feel traumatized or treated unfairly as outlined above.  These safeguards vary from state-to-state but similar agencies are available across the United States.  In the case of Medicare patients, each state also has a unit to investigate complaints of Medicare patients if they believe they have received suboptimal care or care that was in any way abusive.  All of the agencies outside of the hospitals are free of conflict of interest and in many cases they consider it a political plus to take action against any abuse that occurs in a health care facility.  As a past Medicare reviewer, all reviews are conducted by physicians who are carefully screened for any potential conflict of interest.

Utilizing these resources and conducting further research on this problem is the best possible approach.  It is far superior to political debates on the Internet or attacking a person who is interested in studying the problem.

    

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA



References:

1:  Bruce M, Laporte D. Childhood trauma, antisocial personality typologies and recent violent acts among inpatient males with severe mental illness: Exploring an explanatory pathway. Schizophr Res. 2015 Mar;162(1-3):285-90. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2014.12.028. Epub 2015 Jan 28. PubMed PMID: 25636995.

Supplementary:

I am interested in any additional factors that I may have missed in terms of sources of trauma on inpatient units.  E-mail me what you think and I may include it in an updated table.

On the dangers of psychiatric diagnosis no longer being a process

I am inspired by a post on another blog having to do with the dangers of “premature psychiatric diagnosis”.  The author uses an anecdote to make a point about how a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder and then mismanagement of the treatment leads to a situation where there is no hope for the person affected.

From my perspective there are very few people with even severe psychiatric disorders who are hopeless.  In fact, people with some of the most severe cases of catatonia that I have treated became fully functional and were restored to their roles in their families and society.  That frequently occurred after months of inpatient treatment by a psychiatrist and staff who were interested and skilled in treating severe psychiatric disorders.  Much of what I did in 22 years of inpatient work was restoring hope and maintaining a hopeful atmosphere on my treatment team.

Diagnostic uncertainty is frequently cited as an area where mistakes are made.  Many studies document the medical comorbidity in patients with psychiatric disorders.  Despite anecdotal cases true medical causes of psychiatric disorders are rare.  I should qualify that by saying a brain disease, neurological or endocrine condition that is a direct cause for the psychiatric disorder is rare and I base that on screening patients and reviewing thousands of negative studies.  That said any acute care psychiatrist should know more about medicine and neurology than psychiatrists in outpatient settings because unlike their outpatient colleagues – they are responsible for making that determination.  On the psychiatric side, the potential list of causes of various syndromes is long and the actual diagnosis may not be evident until something happens on a long term basis.   A good example would be a drug induced psychosis.  In the ideal case, the patient is able to remain sober and any medical treatment for the associated syndrome can be tapered and discontinued.  In the real world, the chances of sobriety or even referral to a functional addiction treatment are low.

   

There are numerous limitations on psychiatrists.  The obvious one that practically all commentators leave out is managed care.  Is it reasonable to think that the diagnosis and treatment of any severe psychiatric problem like a psychotic disorder can be accomplished in 3 – 5 days?  That is the time frame that most managed care case managers are using to get people out of the hospital.  They often refer to purely proprietary guidelines on hospital lengths of stay that were clearly written by business people rather than clinicians.  I have been in the position of having a patient discharged by an administrator against my wishes so I know that it happens.  Managed care coercion is more subtle.  A managed care reviewer sitting at a desk in another state – reads chart notes and presumes to make a remote diagnosis and suggest that the person should leave the hospital.  They have no responsibility to the patient or their family.  Their only job is to get the patient out of the hospital to save the insurance company money.  Another constraint is at the level of public assistance.  Almost incredibly, many states link the availability of case management services to psychiatric diagnoses and they will clearly say in the statute that the person must have schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, or borderline personality disorder in order to qualify.  Having one of those diagnoses at discharge can be crucial to get housing and funded medical rather than be homeless.  That is a strong incentive to get the correct diagnosis sooner rather than later.

The work flow on inpatient units and in clinics is generally not considered.  If you have a psychiatrist seeing 12-15 inpatients and some outpatients and they are seeing 3 – 5 new patients a day that is not a lot of breathing room.  They will be (depending on other members of the team) able to collect collateral information from the family and outside sources, make direct behavioral observations, and relay treatment decisions and recommendations to the family.  In my experience occupational therapists, nurses, and social workers are all indispensable team members and often function in dual roles as a liaison with family members.  They can act as consultants to the family on legal and social issues as well as keeping them apprised of any changes in medical treatment on a day to day basis.

One of the key areas where care becomes fragmented both from a diagnostic and treatment standpoint is anytime there is a transition.  In terms of hospitals that occurs with any admission or discharge.  It also occurs between different outpatient clinics and between psychiatrists and primary care physicians.  I have been in situations where it took me two hours and calls to different physicians, pharmacies and relatives to reconcile a list of 10 medications.  At the end of that two hours I was still not absolutely certain of the patient’s correct medication list. 

The bottom line here is that good psychiatric diagnosis is a process. It is not like taking your car in to a mechanic and the mechanic plugging it in to an analyzer.  The best results occur when the patient and the family can communicate openly with the psychiatrist and any identified treatment team.  The diagnosis needs to take into account all of the available information and by definition it will only be as good as that information.   The critics of psychiatry always seem to think that this is a situation that is unique to psychiatric treatment.  As I have previously discussed it happens in all of medicine.  The basic difference being that many nonpsychiatric conditions lend themselves to analysis by a single observer.  There is something readily visible, audible or palpable that suggests an abnormality.  In psychiatry we are focused on communication, self report, and the observations of others.  We are also generally dealing with more information to make a diagnosis, especially if the patient’s capacity for self report is limited.  Psychiatrists more than anyone else need to be comfortable with diagnostic uncertainty and explaining these nuances to the patient and their family.

When the diagnosis is made it should be fully explainable to the patient and family.  Any stigma or negative reaction to the diagnosis should be discussed.  It should be evident that nobody is reducible to a psychiatric diagnosis given the fact that no two people are alike and each person is a unique individual with unique attributes.  This is true for any medical diagnosis and psychiatric diagnoses do not differ in that regard.   Nobody should leave the encounter with the idea that they are “hopeless”,  particularly in the case of a pure psychiatric diagnosis in the absence of a neurodegenerative disease.

I realize that most of us in one way or another are held hostage by a certain health plan, but if your psychiatrist or more probably your health plan does not follow that basic process – find a new one.  Getting stuck on whether or not a misdiagnosis has occurred without a plausible explanation for what has happened or continues to happen is generally not productive.  If you can’t get out of your health plan talk to the medical director and explain the deficiencies.  If that doesn’t work and you are concerned about the diagnostic and treatment process being rationed, contact your state insurance commissioner and file a complaint against the health plan.

Quality psychiatric care is possible, but it has been demonstrated that in many cases you have to fight for it.

George Dawson, MD. DFAPA

No Time to Heal

I sent an e-mail to one of my colleagues last night about a bill introduced in the state of Minnesota that would potentially allow managed care companies to replace inpatient psychiatrists with nonphysicians. She thought that was consistent with the managed-care model of high volume and low quality inpatient treatment. She also reminded me of the concept that inpatient units used to be a place where people came to heal. Over the years that I worked in inpatient settings it is apparent that severe psychiatric disorders take their toll and it takes a lot to recover.  Many people are admitted with acute hypertension, dehydration, malnutrition and weight loss, tachycardia, acute blood loss, and any number of stressful physical conditions in addition to their primary psychiatric diagnosis. At least half of the patients admitted to the acute psychiatric inpatient units have been using alcohol, cocaine, or other intoxicants that worsen their physiological state. In some cases such as catatonia, the psychiatric illness alone is life-threatening.  Before there were effective treatments some forms of catatonia had an 85% mortality rate.

Not too long ago when we had more functional inpatient treatment people had time to recover. It was not uncommon to see patients with bipolar disorder take at least 2 to 4 weeks to recover from an acute episode. Inpatient psychiatrists and nursing staffs were experts in supportive care and patience invariably left the hospital in much better condition than they came in.  That is no longer the case. Today the artificial pressure to make money restricts inpatient care to a number of days rather than weeks. That is well below the time frame that it takes for any of the known psychiatric medications to actually work. In the case of the patient with mental illness and substance abuse disorder, they may have only completed detoxification stage by the day of discharge. They leave the hospital in only slightly better shape than they came in.  In many cases, their families were trying to assist them prior to admission and they discovered they could not help.

I don't think that there should be any mistake that the current system is driven strictly by cash flow and the cash flow to psychiatry has always been limited. The business of managed care companies is not to give patients with severe psychiatric disorders the time they need to heal. The business of managed care companies is to make money and use any rationalization along the way to do that. Those currently include the idea that you should only be on an inpatient unit if you are acutely suicidal or aggressive.  The other consideration is that the inpatient atmosphere should not be designed with patient comfort in mind, because we all know that if is too comfortable - somebody might want to stay longer than the system wants them to.

George Dawson, MD