The New York Times - Steers Mental Health Conversation In the Wrong Direction

An editorial came out today in the New York Times entitled The Crazy Talk About Bringing Back Asylums.  They took a line from President Trump that the Parkland shootings could have prevented if there were more psychiatric beds.  I am  sure was intended to temper any anti-gun sentiment rather than suggest the need for reform of mental health services, but the editorial suggests that this triggered a new debate about the need for asylum beds and looks at (on the negative side) a caricatured extreme view of increased bed capacity.  This political approach to mental health care is exactly what is wrong with policy for the past three decades.

The first mistake in the article is the following sentence:

"Psychiatric facilities are unlikely to prevent crimes similar to the Parkland shooting because people are typically not committed until after a serious incident."

Any acute care psychiatrist can attest to the fact that this is incorrect.  A considerable amount of mayhem, violence and aggression is prevented by the availability of both acute care inpatient beds and psychiatrists treating potentially aggressive people in both inpatient and outpatient settings.  There are no controlled studies of the problem because they would be unethical.  You can't randomly assign homicidal or suicidal people to placebo treatments.  They all have to be actively treated.  At times courts release people who have threatened suicide, violence or homicide without treatment for the associated mental illness and they go on to complete exactly what they said they were going to do.  At other times patients will say that they are very satisfied that they were treated because they recognized they were irrational and about to commit an irreversible act.  The clearest example is the person who is aggressive form the time of admission and the aggression does not abate until they have been actively treated for several days.  People are committed on the basis of all of these scenarios and before serious incidents occur.

Instead of Bring back the asylums they thought they would attempt other slogans to "steer the conversation" presumably about improving the care of mental illnesses in the United States.

1. Demand sensible commitment standards:  

There are essentially just three commitment standards:  dangerousness to self (or suicide potential), dangerousness to others (or aggression and in some cases homicide potential), and grave disability (or an inability to care for oneself).  What could be more sensible?  The problem is that the law is subjective and there is always a way around sensibility.  That workaround could involve a highly aggressive defense attorney with a goal to get the patient "off" rather than worry about any consequences. It could involve a number of administrative issues like the cost of civil commitment (obviously cheaper to not try) or an arbitrary decision by a hospital or court administrator that there are just "too many commitments" and it is time to roll them back- at least until the next adverse outcome.  Another common way around commitment is just to ignore the grave disability standard and in effect say commitment will occur only for dangerousness. If someone really wants to split hairs - the dangerousness has to be "imminent" and it can always be not imminent enough.  For commitment standards to have any meaning at all - they have to be implemented by sensible people.  We need to demand sensible people. More importantly there needs to be accountability and available data from commitment courts on outcomes.

The other part of the problem is that psychiatric beds are so rationed that in order to get into one - managed care organizations say that you need to be dangerous in order to get admitted.  That creates a false burden on court systems who may not be sensible about commitment in the first place.  In the context of this demand they are even less sensible.     

2.  Create a continuum of care:

The NYTimes takes a historical approach going back to the Kennedy era and the deinstitutionalization argument.  First of all there are places that have a continuum of care. The community psychiatry movement was highly successful in following people outside of state hospitals and supporting them in independent living.  Some cities like Madison, WI have a large community mental health center as well as several assertive community treatment (ACT) teams that follow people with serious mental illnesses.

The reason why there is no followup similar to medical and surgical patients with significant disabilities is several fold.  Rationing by the insurance industry and federal and state governments is the primary cause.  It is easy to save money by denying equivalent care to the mentally ill and people with severe addictions.  Over time this has led to separate acute care services in some community hospitals and long term care facilities that are typically run by the state. The large majority of hospitals in most states do not provide acute psychiatric care.  Both acute care and state systems are rationed to provide as little care as possible. It is currently in the financial interest of every managed care and insurance company in the country to maintain this fragmented system of care because it saves them all money.  In the meantime disproportionate amounts of money and resources are funneled to very other type of specialty care.

At the state level, the bed situation is so dire or nonexistent in state hospitals that it should be very clear that they have adopted the managed care rationing plan to eliminate care for the mentally ill.  That is the reason that jails are the defacto psychiatric hospitals at this time.  There is of course no standard for psychiatric care in jails and most people tell me they do not get their prescribed medications.  This is also the reason why asylum care does not work.  Asylums were basically buildings that were poorly managed by the state.

3. Stand up for insurance parity:  

Parity is a joke.  Insurance industry rationing and micromanagement of mental health treatment has continued unabated since the passage of the  Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.  After watching professional organizations and  mental health advocacy organizations patting themselves on the back after this legislation was passed - it has been more than a little depressing for psychiatrists on the front lines to watch as the denials of care are unchanged from before the bill.  Those organizations have been standing up for parity and against stigma for about 20 years with no results.

It is difficult to get parity when most states have an insurance industry friendly complaint system and the physicians who want to complain are either employees of a managed care company or limited by confidentiality laws.  Standing up for parity is meaningless symbolism at this point. It doesn't require a complicated HHS investigation.  What is needed is a review panel in every state - staffed by psychiatrists who have no financial conflicts with the insurance companies being complained about.  The precedent for those review panels was the Peer Review Organization (PRO) panels that were set up to review all Medicare financed care in the 1980s and 1990s. There is no reason why those reviews should occur today.  The only really effective alternative has been an activist attorney general ordering some of these companies to correct egregious denials of care.  Activist attorney generals do not occur frequently enough to make a sustained difference.

The larger problem is the way that healthcare is funded in the USA. I will add an illustrative post later in the week, but the percentage of the health care dollar dedicated to the treatment of mental illness is at an all time low.  The Hay Report of the 1990s documented the disproportionate drop in health care funding and it seems that governments and insurance companies expect it to stay at that level.

The NYTimes says that all it will take is a "collective will and a decency to act".  Are they serious?  Isn't that all it will take to end mass shootings in public schools?  This is just another naive approach to public policy written by people with no expertise who are ignoring the political landscape.  It is fashionable to call those people stakeholders these days.

As usual the real stakeholders - people with mental illness, their families, and psychiatrists are left out.  The suggested slogans are as problematic as the one about bringing back asylums that the NYTimes was concerned about.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA



Supplementary:

For detailed information about this problem go to the pinned Tweet at the top of this feed and all of the links.


References:

1.  The New York Times Editorial Board.  The Crazy Talk About Bringing Back Asylums.  New York Times June 2, 2018.


Graphics:

Kodachrome slide shot by me in 1982 of Milwaukee County Hospital.  Not an asylum but it looked like one.

           

       

The Victim Meme In Addiction and Recovery

The popular press has created a victim meme in discussing addiction and the recovery process.  An example would be the popular quote from the NYTimes: "Only in death do drug users become victims. Until then, they are criminals".  I have problems with these quotes that have become memes in social media because the idea that people with substance use disorders are victims does not seem to originate in either the medical field and the physicians who treat them or the recovery literature written by the affected people themselves.  The other operative word in this quote is "users".  To me that means that nobody here is forced to initiate drug use or assaulted and forcibly given addictive drugs.

My first year as a psychiatry resident, I can recall a fellow resident presenting a patient to the senior attending.  He used the term unfortunate to describe the patient, a homeless middle aged man with a chronic psychosis and alcoholism.  The attending cut him off and said "What do you mean by unfortunate?"  In the next ten minutes or so, we learned that the patient was no more unfortunate than any of the other 20 men with severe psychiatric disorders on that unit. By extension the term was essentially meaningless, because it did not discriminate that person from any one else and it was irrelevant to the diagnosis and treatment planning. Years later, I learned it could also be an impediment to the treatment relationship.  A ban on smoking rapidly went into effect and the staff were split on what that meant. Many believed that it would result in more violence and aggression. Part of the ensuing rhetoric was "That is all that these unfortunate people have.  If we take smoking away from them - what's left?"  A very dim view of a person's life is required to see it as existence for the sake of smoking.  I would go so far to say it is blatantly dehumanizing.

The idea of patient as victims occurred again in psychiatry during the satanic ritualistic abuse phase and more recently during the patients are all victims of childhood abuse phase.  In the former case it lead to a proliferation of multiple personality disorder diagnoses and encouraging the proliferation of this myth with the associated unnecessary treatment.  In the case of treating everyone like a victim,  that program was correlated with an increase in aggression and staff assaults in state hospital settings and an eventual abandonment of the program.  Somewhere along the way, the application of a broad implementation of treatment based on whether or not a person is a victim is problematic from a programmatic standpoint, as well as the individual treatment relationship.

In terms of the individual evaluation, being victimized is a part of the clinical history.  Like grief, practically everyone has a history of some type of physical, emotional, verbal, or sexual abuse in the past.  The psychiatrists job is determining if it is relevant to the current problem and how it has impacted the patient's long term conscious state on an ongoing basis.  At a practical level it has resulted in an  ICD-11 diagnostic criteria set that identifies fewer patients as having PTSD compared with DSM-5.  From the linked reference it appears that there will be concern over identification of PTSD as well as under identification.  It is a more difficult task than just matching clinical criteria.  In many cases, PTSD symptoms recur in the context of depressive episodes and significant episodes of anxiety and resolve again when those episodes are treated.  In acute situations like intimate partner violence, advocates can provide a valuable function until a patient's living situation has been stabilized.  If victimization is a relevant clinical theme, it is addressed by addressing the associated syndromes and psychotherapy that is focused on maintaining safety, alleviating symptoms, and facilitating relevant lifestyle changes.           

Apart from victims the concept of the criminalization of the drug user is also a popular meme.  Simplified it is that drug users and alcoholics should be treated and not incarcerated.  It is based on the assumption that most of these folks are incarcerated on trivial drug or alcohol charges or probation violations from those trivial charges.  That can certainly happen.  Unfortunately real crimes involving loss of life, serious injury, and property crimes also happen.  I recently heard a District Attorney talk about the scope of the problem at the Minnesota Society of Addiction Medicine May 30 meeting.  He was keenly aware of the problem because law enforcement resources are currently flooded with opioid and methamphetamine users as well as people with severe mental illnesses.  He presented the problem to his prosecuting attorney and asked them to come up with a solution for people being prosecuted for drug crimes.   They ended up with a three step plan for sentencing offenders to maximize the likelihood of treatment and the ability to change felony crimes to misdemeanors after adjudication. The main message was that there is no interest on the part of prosecutors to incarcerate drug offenders, but there is clearly a limit with the associated crimes.

In the recovery literature, victim is rarely seen.  The Narcotics Anonymous book uses it in one place in the Eighth Step:  "Many of us have difficulty admitting that we caused harm for others, because we thought that we were victims of our addiction.  Avoiding this rationalization is crucial to the Eighth Step"  (p 38).  The AA 12 and 12 (2) contains the words victim in Steps 1, 3, 4, 10 and 12.  The term is used to make the general argument for powerlessness (Step 1), to discuss the effects of remorse and guilt (Step 3), to discuss the effects of erratic emotions (Step 4),  to illustrate the problem with resentments (Step 10), and how the program can free members from irrational fears (Step 12).  The bedrock of 12-step recovery is powerlessness and that is not the same thing as being a victim even though that word is used in Step 1. 

I don't think that I am going too far out on a limb in suggesting that the victim meme is not relevant in addiction, addiction psychiatry, or recovery. The importance of powerlessness as opposed to being a victim is captured from reference 2:

"Our admissions of personal powerlessness finally turn out to be the firm bedrock upon which happy and purposeful lives can be built."  (p. 21).


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


Supplementary:

For other variations on the victim meme see these previous posts:


The Whitening of the Opioid Epidemic:

https://real-psychiatry.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-whitening-of-opioid-epidemic.html

Addiction Narratives Versus Reality:
https://real-psychiatry.blogspot.com/2018/05/addiction-narratives-versus-reality.html



References:

1.  Narcotics Anonymous (6th Edition).  World Service Office.  California, USA 2008, p 38.

2.  12 Steps and 12 Traditions.  AA World Services, Inc.  New York City 2007.

Synthetic Cannabinoids and Life Threatening Coagulopathy

Just when I thought that renal failure was the only unexpected complication of synthetic cannabinoids - it turns out they can also cause bleeding or more specifically Vitamin K dependent antagonist coagulopathy.   The basic mechanism of action is noted in the above diagram on the action of warfarin on Vitamin K dependent mechanisms that can lead to an anticoagulated state.  Warfarin and similar Vitamin K antagonists block the function of the vitamin K epoxide reductase complex.  That blocks the recycling of Vitamin K epoxide and eventual depletion of Vitamin K.  That is turn leads to no gamma carboxylation of Vitamin K dependent coagulation factors (depicted here as descarboxy prothrombin being converted to prothrombin (Factor II), but factors VII, IX, and X are also involved).  

The anticoagulated state can be used therapeutically to prevent embolic strokes or recurrent pulmonary emboli, but warfarin has a very narrow therapeutic index and it needs to be monitored closely in patients who are also watching their diet and drug interactions to prevent excessive anticoagulation and bleeding that can be fatal. The warfarin effect can be reversed by Vitamin K administration.

The CDC issued an outbreak alert last month about an outbreak that occurred in the midwest - largely Illinois about unexplained bleeding.  The time frame where this was noted was the previous year.  People were presenting to emergency departments with unexplained bleeding ( no exposure to anticoagulants or anticoagulant containing rat poison and no medical explanation for the bleeding).  In their Clinical Action Alert they explain the symptoms of coagulopathy including bleeding from the gums, nose, gastrointestinal tract, genitourinary tract, excessive bruising, unexplained abdominal of flank pain, mental status change, feeling faint, and collapse.  There were a total of two fatalities at the time of the alert and medical evaluation and treatment with Vitamin K and fresh frozen plasma suggested that the toxicity was due to brodifacoum a long acting Vitamin K antagonist found in rat poison.

Ninety four people were involved through April 5, 2018.  Since that time the Illinois web site following this outbreak reports 164 cases including 4 deaths since March 2018.  They name a few of the brands commonly sold including K2, Spice, Black Mamba, Bombay Blue, Genie, and Zohai but emphasize that there are a large number of these compounds as listed in a previous post on this blog.  As previously noted, synthetic cannabinoids are basically highly concentrated organic chemical that are sprayed in plant material to facilitate smoking.  When I checked the medical literature to see if these cases were written up and specific biochemical analyses done - I found the only reference brodifacoum was a study done (1) that looked at the results of applications to areas around marijuana growing operations.  Anticoagulant based rodenticides are apparently used to prevent damage to the crop and are described as being used extensively.  This study looked at marijuana growers on California and the relationship to wildlife species.  In this case a threatened species the northern spotted owl was necropsied and it was demonstrated that the liver and blood contained high concentrations of brodifacoum.  The authors point out a basic ecological principle that if the target of the rodenticide is rodent - it will be concentrated to higher levels in the predators higher in the food chain.  The alarming situation here is the fact that dead wildlife from rodenticide poisoning have been found around 22% of 41 marijuana growers in 3 California counties.

The message from the CDC and the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) was clear.  Be aware of the problem, recognize coaglopathies, and be prepared to intervene.  The IDPH advises consumers to watch for bleeding and bruising if they have used these compounds and if it occurs to seek emergency assistance.  The CDC discusses the high cost of Vitamin K therapy and possible shortages, the need to warn post op patients not to use these compounds, and concern that some of the affected patients may be plasma donors.

Addiction docs and acute care psychiatrists need to have a higher index of suspicion, especially in settings where people are admitted rapidly for detoxification and stabilization and if the patient gives a history of synthetic cannabinoid use.  The commonest current coagulopathy in those settings is probably alcohol related and that is relatively rare.

Additional concerns would include the possibilities that the rodenticide could be sprayed on some cannabis plants and be ingested or smoked by people who believe they are using cannabis.  An associated concern is that the contaminated synthetic material was considered plant waste from cannabis products and just used as a carrier for the synthetic cannabinoids.  That is a potential reason why the synthetics were contaminated with brodifacoum in the first place.

As far as I know there have been no reports of the problem in cannabis smokers who were not using synthetic cannabinoids.

The authors of reference 1 point out that since cannabis is not regulated as an agricultural product there are no regulations about what can be applied to it when it is grown.  It seems like another disadvantage of a laissez-faire approach to drug regulation.

Coagulopathy is just another in a long list of reasons to stay away from synthetic cannabinoids and to beware of other toxic effects from street drugs.  There has always been some concern over what chemicals and biologicals end up in smoked or ingested cannabis. Rodenticide should be added to that list until it is effectively ruled out by sampling and testing of the products being sold.




George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


References:

1:  Franklin AB, Carlson PC, Rex A, Rockweit JT, Garza D, Culhane E, Volker SF,Dusek RJ, Shearn-Bochsler VI, Gabriel MW, Horak KE. Grass is not always greener: rodenticide exposure of a threatened species near marijuana growing operations. BMC Res Notes. 2018 Feb 2;11(1):94. doi: 10.1186/s13104-018-3206-z. PubMed PMID: 29391058;

2: Brodifacoum on ToxNet.

Brodifacoum

3: Minnesota Department of Health.  Health Advisory: Significant Bleeding Associated with Contaminated Synthetic Cannabinoids. April 5, 2018.

4:  Minnesota Department of Health.  Health Advisory Network.  See additional links.  





Graphics:


1:   Mechanism of warfarin slide at the top is from Visiscience slides online per their user agreement.

2:  Brodifacoum chemical structure from PubChem.








 

Relief For the Sleep Deprived?

Sleep is a major problem for the majority of people who I see in clinical practice.  It is both a diagnostic feature and a primary disorder.  It is not uncommon for me to see people in their 30s or 40s who have had consistent sleep problems since childhood.  Environmental, medical problems, and alcohol/substance use are also common causes of insomnia.  After cessation of opioids, cannabis, or alcohol there can be disrupted sleep that lasts for months or longer. The treatment of insomnia is partially effective.  Behavioral methods like sleep hygiene measures and CBTi are useful for some people.  Medications can be helpful but they are a mixed bag for practitioners.  Sleep medications that are typically recommended have significant side effects including tolerance to the sedative effects that can lead to dose escalation and addiction.  The non-FDA approved medications like trazodone are widely used but routinely criticized in the literature for not having enough of an evidence base.  Physicians often face patients who are not sleeping well and ask for practical ways on catching up.  The news media lately has a lot of stories about the dangers of sleep deprivation creating some desperation in the sleep deprived population.  A common question is: "Can a sleep deprived person make up for lost sleep?" 

There was a very interesting study released by a research group this month on sleep and whether or not the sleep deprived can make up for lost sleep on the weekends.  The study looked at 38,015 participants in the Swedish National March Study who returned a general health questionnaire on medical history and lifestyle in 1997.  There were two questions about sleep:

How many hours  approximately, do you sleep during a workday/weekday night?

How many hours approximately, do you sleep per night on days off? 

The authors considered short sleep < 5 hours per night and long sleep > 9 hours per night.  The considered days off to be the equivalent of weekend sleep and simplified the response categories to reduce cells with low numbers of subjects.  The reference category was considered to be 7 hours.  The formed the following 6 categories based on that sleep classification and the pattern over the weekday/weekend (S=short, M=medium, L=-long):  SS, MM, LL, SML, ML, and LS.  Patient were following to the endpoints of death, emigration or study termination on December 31, 2010.

The authors used a Cox proportional hazards model with attained age to estimate mortality hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for each group adjusted for a number of variables including sex, BMI, smoking status,  physical activity, alcohol intake, educational level, shift work, and a weighted index based on an inpatient register.

The main finding with the correlations of mortality with short weekend sleep.  For subjects less that the age of 65, short weekend sleep was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) or 1.52 95% CI 1.15-2.02.  In other words subjects with short weekend sleep had a 52% greater mortality rate.  There was no different in mortality for short weekend sleep in subjects older than 65 years of age.  Forest plots were provided to look at adjusted and unadjusted HR across 5 sleep categories (≤ 5 hrs, 6 hrs, 7 hours, 8 hrs, ≥ 9 hrs).  A weekend sleep duration of ≤ 5 hours in subjects less than 65 clearly had the highest mortality ratio. In other analyses short sleep on both the weekdays and weekends and consistently long sleep were also associated with higher mortality.

Interestingly from a psychiatric perspective self reported sleep medication use did not alter the outcomes.  Sleep medication use was reported in every sleep category by 9.5 to 28% of the subjects in those categories (the short sleepers reporting more medication use).  Snoring, napping, restorative sleep, general health and high work demand did not affect results.  The initial model also corrected for shift work.

This is very interesting research because it suggests that there is a way to catch up on sleep debt at least on a short term basis.  Chronic sleep debt like the kind that physicians endure in medical school and residency training is probably gone forever.  But in clinical practice, it is theoretically possible to sleep in on the weekends after getting 5 hour blocks during the week and erase that debt - at least from  mortality standpoint.  Even though the authors seem to be doing a lot of analysis from 12 data points on a survey - the  structure of that data allowed them to look at sleep from a different perspective than it is typically analyzed from.  In their introductory section, they discuss the typical analysis focuses on typical sleep patterns and there are no distinctions between weekday and weekend hours.  Analyzing that data typically results in a J-shaped mortality curve with the highest mortality for too little sleep or a U-shaped mortality curve with highest mortality for too little and too much sleep.

The authors discuss the strength of their study (large N, good follow-up) and the potential weaknesses (misinterpretation of the questions by some subjects). From their exclusion process they did a good job of cleaning up the sample.  Their recommendation for closer follow-up studies on a longitudinal basis with more frequent data points is a good one.  From a clinical perspective, it would be useful to know what the time frame is that would allow for the cancellation of sleep debt.  Does it all have to happen in the space of a week or can you sleep very long at the end of two or three weeks and get back on track?  There may be some insights from people with prolonged insomnia from substance use (cannabis, methamphetamine, opioids, alcohol) and how they recover.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

References:

1:  Åkerstedt T, Ghilotti F, Grotta A, Zhao H, Adami HO, Trolle-Lagerros Y, Bellocco R. Sleep duration and mortality - Does weekend sleep matter? J Sleep Res. 2018 May 22:e12712. doi: 10.1111/jsr.12712. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 29790200.



Graphic:

Sleep duration on successive nights from the smartphone of a person who is off work on the 19th and the 24th and works 20-23 - showing total hours of sleep as 8.19, 5.15, 5.51, 5.45, 5.49, 8.17.  This is a workday/weekend pattern described by the authors in the study.

Wish I Had Said Some More About The Violence......

I shot a video for the 100 Miles 100 Stories charity yesterday.  Their mission is raise awareness for violence against healthcare workers.  They found me through a nurse that I used to work with who sustained a traumatic brain injury when she was assaulted in an emergency department.  The sequelae of that injury ended her career in nursing. The focus of this charity is to raise public awareness of the problem and hopefully find some solutions.  As I have posted on this blog many times, these incidents are generally preventable, but it requires both expertise and a major revision of the systems that most health professional work in every day. I had a meeting two weeks ago on the comments I could make in this area and the interview questions were based on that meeting.  I don't have a transcript or tape and the final version will be edited.  This is my recollection of what happened:

Q:  Tell us about your experience.

A:  I have been a psychiatrist for 32 years and about 22 of those years have been in acute care psychiatric settings at what is now called Regions Hospital.  It used to be St. Paul-Ramsey Medical Center before it was acquired by HealthPartners.  For about 8 of those years a neurologist and I ran a clinic for Alzheimer's Disease and other dementias.

Q:  What kind of psychiatric diagnoses did you see?

A:  Bipolar disorder, major depression, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, personality disorders with a significant overlay of alcohol and substance use.

Q:  Were you ever assaulted?

A:  I was punched three times but there was no serious injury.  Threatening behavior was more a problem.  There were homicidal threats that had the most significant impact on me long term.  As an example, I started to be more conscious of home security and have home security and close circuit TV cameras installed.

The interview is biased on a personal point of view.  If I had been thinking more I could have mentioned what I had seen.  One psychiatrist punched and knocked out.  Another psychiatrist beaten up with a resulting career ending traumatic brain injury. Various injuries to nursing staff and nursing assistants who have the majority of contact with agitated and potentially aggressive patients.  One evening I was talking with nursing staff behind a window that we believed was shatterproof glass. Without warning the window exploded as a heavy chair sailed through it.  Being one step away from very serious injuries and deaths in many situations, but the downside is that may have seemed like an embellishment so I left it out.

Q:  Why do you think it is happening?

There are several reasons.  The lengths of stays in psychiatric units these days is either too long or too short.  People are discharged in 3 or 4 days or they are waiting there for weeks or months to go to a state hospital bed because they are committed.  Acute care inpatient units are not set up to accommodate people staying there that long.  When I interview people have been discharged from inpatients units they typically tell me that they were sitting around watching TV until they could convince somebody that they are not suicidal.

If we consider a person who is experiencing auditory hallucinations who goes to the emergency department for help they might not get admitted for that problem.  They will probably be told to go to an outpatient appointment in a month or two.  In the meantime - they are untreated and that symptoms gets worse.  If they come into the emergency department again, they may angry the second time.  The current system of care has a large circulating pool of partially stabilized or unstable patients that go between the ED, homelessness and homeless shelters, and acute care hospitals.

I should have used the term dangerousness.  I have written about it countless times on this blog but not in the interview.  Dangerousness is essentially the only way that people get admitted to inpatient psychiatric units any more.  That arbitrary business decision rations access to care for people who have also experienced rationing at a both the community level with less housing and at the state hospital level with a marked reduction is state hospital beds.

Q:  What do you think can be done about it?

Changes have to occur at two levels.  Government and business administrators have to open up access to more beds in both state hospitals and community housing.  There has has to be more enlightened management of those beds.  At the service provider level there needs to be a team approach to the problem.  Frequently if there is an assault related injury, there is a lot of silence and nobody talks about it.  Some splitting can occur and some disciplines may think that it can't happen to them.  The victims may blame themselves and become very isolated.  Administrators at every level need to support clinical teams to address this problem.  There needs to be in house experts to fix the problem and not outside consultants who typically know a lot less about problems and solutions.

Q:  What do you think is important about the 100 Miles 100 Stories Walk?

It raises public awareness about this issue and how it impacts health care workers. It might raise awareness about the expectation that it is part of the job and that many people expect health acre workers to accept it.  Hopefully it will also increase solidarity on this issue.

I should have added my opinion that there needs to be a zero tolerance rule for violence and aggression to healthcare workers.  They are after all doing their job taking care of people.

Q:  Is there anything else that you would like to cover?

I would like to mention that there are basically three groups the become violent in health care settings.  The first is people with severe mental illnesses who are making decisions based on a delusional thought process.  The second are people with acute or chronic intoxication states who are agitated or aggressive based on their use of an intoxicant.  The third group are people with personality disorders where aggression is a strategy or way of life.  Limits needs to be established with this group and they must be held accountable.

The interview ended at that point but there was obviously a lot more that could be said.  Like most people - I write a lot better than I speak.  I am sure that if you see the eventual clips I will be much less articulate and probably confabulated much of what I just wrote.

There is also a time constraint for these interviews and the consideration that the public probably wants to hear about the  general rather than the specific problems or proposed solutions. Certainly nobody has been flocking to this blog over the past years for my suggestions about violence or homicide prevention. 

I doubt that many people are aware of the fact that it is common that patients need to be physically restrained so that they don't injure themselves or anyone else.  I can recall being in an ICU setting when a young man suddenly got out of bed and started swinging an IV pole around his head.  An IV pole has a heavy metal base and anyone struck by that base would have been seriously injured.  He was doing this within a few feet of critically ill patients and the ICU nursing staff.  He was also delirious and completely unable to respond to verbal requests or guidance.  That is an illustration of how rapidly one of these situations can develop and also why there is a necessity for being able to respond to the problem rapidly.

I also might have discussed the informal triage system for dealing with violence or aggression.  In Minnesota not all hospitals will receive patients with this kind of problem.  Not all hospitals train their staff to physically intervene in an appropriate way.  In most health care facilities the training ends at how to approach the potentially aggressive patient and it assumes that the verbal intervention will be successful.  That will not work with very aggressive patients and training needs to include more specific physical measures.

There is also a lot of room to discuss environmental safety plans.  What is the physical design of the clinic or hospital ward?  Can changes in the design configuration provide additional safety for patients and staff.  In some cases it is just putting receptionists in safe areas where they are not in danger from walk ins or aggressive patients.  Does there need to be a law enforcement presence?  What about internal security?  What kind of plan needs to be in place to coordinate all of the personnel in emergencies?

Whatever the focus - these discussions need to get out there for the general public to consider.  The level of injuries to hospital staff and in some cases patients needs to improve greatly.  I emphasize again that the majority of these injuries affect nurses and nursing assistants.  Physicians have been  homicide victims as the result of some of this aggression.

In the cases of conscious directed violence - the perpetrators of that violence need to be prosecuted.  No health care employee should go to work every day fearing assault and in some cases disabling and career ending injuries.   



George Dawson, MD, DFAPA



Supplementary 1:

I was sent this link to an incident of emergency department violence from 1993.  That highlights the chronicity of the problem and the lack of effective solutions.  Quotes from the article:

"Health care workers noted, however, that the incident is only the most recent example of the rising tide of violence that has spilled over into the nation's urban emergency rooms."
and:

"County-USC has been no exception. During the first six months of 1991, for example, security guards at the hospital responded to 1,400 reports of threats or attacks, six of which led to arrests. Among the assailants was a panhandler who approached four nurses in the cafeteria and plunged a pair of suture-removal scissors deep into one nurse's neck."

Supplementary 2:

Here is a link to the video I recorded that was the basis for this post.  It is a 4 minute clip edited down from about 20 minutes of interview material.  I had no role in the recording or editing of the clip.

George Dawson, MD on violence toward healthcare workers in psychiatric settings. Clip. 

Addiction Narratives Versus Reality.......

I recently posted my take on this issue of race in addiction treatment. The main argument that I was responding to was that the current opioid epidemic is whitewashed so to speak. In other words white opioid addicts are considered to be "victims" of the opioid epidemic and black addicts are considered just to be addicts at best and criminalized at worst.  Part of the way that white people are framed as victims is by calling addiction a disease.  The author who I was critiquing at the time suggested that the opioid epidemic was marketed to white people along with the medication (buprenorphine) that would "cure" them.  Further, that buprenorphine was more easily available to white people by the nature of the prescribing requirements.  The article went on to selectively highlight one segment of the population where "non-Hispanic blacks" had a higher rate of overdose deaths, despite the fact that the majority of people dying in most categories were white.  I consider my counterargument to be a solid one and that is - there is no known difference in the biological predisposition to addiction of any kind that is based on race and if that likelihood is equal - the only consideration is who is exposed to the drug.

The racialization of the opioid epidemic picked up more speed over the weekend.  One of the theories proposed was that there were no previous "epidemics" of opioid use and that this is another way to sanitize the problem and make it more acceptable to white people.  The article was written for a newspaper - the Guardian and the headline says it all:  "Amid the opioid epidemic, white means victim, black means addict."  That is the basic thesis that runs through the entire essay.  You are either a white, Christian, Republican racist, who considers himself to be a victim of prescription opioid tablets or drug dealers or the hypocritical structure of American society insults you for being black and an addict.  It is suggested directly in the article that common rationalizations of addicts - the ones that everybody uses irrespective of race or substance are the exclusively used by whites to deny responsibility for addiction.  Self-loathing of the addict is described as though that never happens with white people.  Guilt, shame, and self loathing happens to everyone with an alcohol or drug misuse problem.
          
A couple of the arguments can be debunked at the outset. The idea that the term epidemics is applied only to white people so that they can rationalize being victims ignores the medical literature of the 1970s.  In those days researchers were using the terms epidemics and microepidemics and applying the terms across racial groups (3-6).  Successful naturalistic studies were conducted in both white and black neighborhoods and the success in a Chicago study (6) was  correlated with use of the term medical management.  Those same authors used what they called an infectious disease model for intervening in heroin epidemics (5).  The Chicago study was so successful that it was suggested as an alternative to involuntary treatment (4):

 "This work suggests that heroin addiction can be prevented in many who are at risk; it further suggests that prevention may be possible by using psychological and social concepts based on humanist principles without the use of coercion. The authors' approach deserves close attention not only because it offers hope in the face of a mounting national tragedy but also because of its relevance in the current high-level and little-publicized debate over the use of compulsory urine testing and compulsory treatment of drug dependent persons."   - p.1156
     
It appears that at least in psychiatry - humanism was emphasized as the critical element in treating drug dependent persons (not addicts) as far back as 46 years ago.  The design of the naturalistic study in question was impressive and methadone maintenance treatment was used in a majority of the patients.

The issue of differences in the story about the self perception of a white versus black addict does not have the equivalent empirical basis.  I can say unequivocally that any attitude in treatment about being a "victim" of substance use of any type  would be vigorously confronted by treatment staff.  It is not possible to actively participate in treatment with that attitude.  The same is true of the self loathing patient.  Guilt, shame, and self loathing need to be actively explored and corrected to allow participation in the recovery process.  Both attitudes can lead to distress or increased cravings to use drugs and alcohol and relapse.

What about the contention that cultural differences and disparities are the primary problem with treatment differences.  I refer any interested reader to an in depth analysis of the issues by Coleman Hughes (2) and what he describes as the disparity fallacy - in other words that the difference in outcomes between blacks and whites (or any two groups) is due to discrimination being the causal factor.  He lists an impressive number of examples, but I see the underlying principle as being one of undeterminism (7) that is there are multiple theories to account for differences, and people tend to have a favorite and ignore all of the other possibilities.  There is probably no better example than the race rhetoric around addiction.  The promotion of these arguments ignores the primary causes of addiction - a biological predisposition and exposure to the addictive substance.  I am not suggesting disparities are irrelevant to exposure or treatment access but focusing on them as casual ignores the major factors.           

The continued stories about racial differences in treatment and self perception are not really conducive to reshaping America's addiction treatment landscape.  It misses the big picture that there are no differences in race when it comes to addiction.  Any reasonable treatment approach would disabuse anybody coming through the door who believed they were either a victim or a self-loathing addict.  Identical treatment modalities should be offered irrespective of race and that includes medication assisted treatment of all types, necessary psychiatric and psychological treatment, medical evaluation and treatment, and drug and alcohol counseling focused on recovery.  One of the reasons why addiction is viewed as a chronic illness is the high likelihood of relapse and need for ongoing recovery services and support.  One of the main tenets of any 12-step recovery program based on the AA model is that nobody is turned away. The only requirement for membership is a desire to get sober.   

The real problem with drug and alcohol treatment is not racial disparity. It would be fairly obvious if racial discrimination was occurring in any comprehensive treatment program.  The real problem with drug and alcohol treatment is the lack of standards and consistency in treatment.  The most clear cut example is the availability of detox services.  Some forms of withdrawal are life threatening and need to be immediately recognized and treated.  I doubt that the majority of treatment programs in any state have that capability.  Hospitals have been defunded from providing detox services from anyone who is not experiencing life threatening withdrawal for about 30 years now. That has led to a proliferation of subpar and non-medical county detox facilities where limited to no medical care is rendered.  These kinds of inconsistencies in care occur across the board and it is common to see patients who have not received even basic addiction care - completing a treatment program and being released back to their home setting.

Racism has no place in medicine.  I have discussed the advantages of therapeutic neutrality on these pages before and certainly any physician who is not able to do that should not be practicing medicine in the 21st century.  The psychiatric standard for neutrality is higher.  Psychiatrists in particular are trained to understand cultural differences, but it is not possible to be an expert on every culture.  It is possible to appreciate the person in the room and proceed cautiously enough to assure that culturally sensitive care is being provided.         

In the end, there are clearly ways to prevent and treat addiction. Suggesting that race and the narratives around race are the primary factors that account for addiction or recovery is unfounded.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


References:

1:  Brian Broome.  Amid the opioid epidemic, white means victim, black means addict.  April 28, 2018.

2:  Coleman Hughes.  The Racism Treadmill.  Quillette May 14, 2018.

3: DuPont RL, Greene MH. The dynamics of a heroin addiction epidemic. Science.1973 Aug 24;181(4101):716-22. PubMed PMID: 4724929.

4: Freedman DX, Senay EC. Heroin epidemics. JAMA. 1973 Mar 5;223(10):1155-6. PubMed PMID: 4739378. 

5: Hughes PH, Crawford GA. A contagious disease model for researching and intervening in heroin epidemics. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1972 Aug;27(2):149-55. PubMed PMID: 5042822.

6: Hughes PH, Senay EC, Parker R. The medical management of a heroin epidemic. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1972 Nov;27(5):585-91. PubMed PMID: 5080286.

7:  Stanford, Kyle, "Underdetermination of Scientific Theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/scientific-underdetermination/.

A Psychiatric Perspective on Beatdowns

My opinion on this is probably long overdue.

A beatdown is popular vernacular for beating someone mercilessly - often into an unconscious state. From the video I have seen of these scenarios - it is at least implicit that the person had done something to "deserve" the beatdown.  The best source of this video materiel is TMZ.com that follows the hip hop culture more closely than most mainstream television.  In watching those videos it is apparent that even the wealthiest and most influential celebrities are not averse to being affiliated with these activities, encouraging them, or even commenting on them.  Any casual observation of what happens during a beatdown illustrates that it is a situation with a very high likelihood of serious injury or death to the person who is being assaulted.

Take for example this TMZ clip entitled Cardi B Security Accused of Post-Met Gala Beatdown.  You see two young men punching a man who is on his back on the ground.  They are punching him rapidly and repeatedly.  When they finish another man runs in and kicks the victim as hard as he can while the victim is still laying defenseless on the ground.  I listened to the TMZ pundits analyze the situation.  One of those pundits is Harvey Levin who is the co-host and is also an attorney.  The consensus seemed to be that nobody had any problem with this man being repeatedly punched by two men when he was paying defenseless on the ground.  Only Harvey Levin thought that the kick was a little extreme and could result in legal charges.

The very first assault case that I was involved in occurred at a University Hospital outpatient clinic.  I was on the consult team and the clinic called to say that they had detained an outpatient who assaulted one of their clerical staff.  When she wasn't looking the patient hit her over the head with a cane as hard as he could.  I went down to assess the patient.  He was very calm and had no evidence of major psychiatric disorder.  He explained that he got impatient because the receptionist was not working fast enough and that was why he struck her. He had absolutely no remorse for injuring her. He minimized the potential for injury by hitting someone over the head with a relatively heavy object when they were not expecting to be hit.  He used the familiar rationalization: "If she didn't want to get hit she should have worked a little faster."  He was not intoxicated at the time.  I discussed the case with my attending and we both agreed that there was no psychiatric disorder and no reason why he should not go to jail to be charged for assault.

My attending psychiatrists at the time always tended to analyze the aggression. Punching or kicking someone when they were unable to protect themselves was viewed as a particularly negative sign and an event more commonly seen in antisocial individuals.  It led me to reflect on people I had known in my peer group who had been killed in fights.  One guy I played sports with who went away to college and ended up getting in a brawl at a large college bar.  He was apparently kicked in the side when he was on the ground. He went back to his dorm room and died that night of a ruptured spleen.  In another fight resulting in a kick to the head - that student went home and expired from a cerebral hemorrhage.  Both students were very bright, full of promise, well-liked and had no history of aggressive behavior but they were killed by blows that are commonly observed in movies and television shows. There are thousands of men incarcerated in this country for punching or kicking someone in a fight and killing them.  I can almost guarantee that at some point in their court proceeding somebody said: "I did not believe that hitting him that way could kill him."

There are mitigating factors in some of these situations.  Psychiatric disorders usually are not.  Personality disorders and intoxicated states are but not from a legal standpoint. Being intoxicated or a sociopath is not a defense in the American legal system.  The best chance to beat the charge is to appeal to sub-cultural mores: "Boys will be boys - it was just a fight gone bad and somebody died.  Nobody is to blame here!"  Or claim it was an accident or there was no intent to do harm.  In both of the cases I was personally aware of there was no case in one and in the other charges were dismissed by the court even though the victim in the case never threw a punch or acted in an aggressive manner.  American law is highly subjective and it is not likely that these cases can be decided in a consistent or necessarily rational manner. 

A medical and psychiatric perspective allows a different analysis.  The human brain has a gel like consistency and it floats inside the skull in cerebrospinal fluid. Any sudden force applied to the skull leads to a shock wave that is initially dispersed as the brain impacts the inside of the skull where the forces was applied (coup injury)  and then when the brain rebounds and strikes the opposite inside area of the skull (contre coupe injury).  Which each violent movement thousands of axons are sheared off in the white matter adjacent to cortical areas.  Some forces shear veins and even arteries that can lead to very rapid death if not treated.  Treatment may consist of neurosurgery that requires opening the skull to remove large blood clots and repair blood vessels.  In extreme cases a piece of bone needs to be removed and stored to allow for the expansion of brain swelling to reduce the chances of death.   Lesser forces lead to more persistent cognitive, personality, and neurological changes.  From a strictly medical perspective - given the amount of damage, morbidity, and mortality that a beatdown can cause it is obviously not a good idea to engage in this kind of activity.  Even widely approved activities like football and boxing can lead to brain damage and death from severe brain  injuries.

I have seen plenty of the victims in clinical practice.  People whose lives has been altered by being exposed to this kind of violence.  Traumatic brain injuries, cognitive disabilities, and post traumatic stress disorder.  Careers and marriages lost from these effects. 

From a psychiatric standpoint, the only acceptable reasons for using force against another are self-defense and stepping in to assist a person who cannot defend themselves.  The latter situation can be difficult to assess and personal safety is always a priority. Those criteria rule out a lot of common altercations based on insults or taunts.  If that happens -  the safest solution is to walk away.  These criteria also rule out violence and aggression as a solution to problems.  If that is an issue, find help for anger control and problems with aggression.  The criteria rule out intoxicants as a reason for using physical force.  If that happened repeatedly with alcohol or drug induced intoxication states - get help with the drug or alcohol problem.  Even self defense may not be an adequate excuse for becoming aggressive and injuring or killing someone.  If you are bigger, stronger, a better fighter, or armed and you can easily handle the aggressor - killing or injuring them might make a self defense strategy less likely to succeed.  The initial example would appear to be a case in point.  Two men on top of the man vigorously punching him at the outset of this clip for pursuing an autograph would violate the acceptable reasons. The next man kicking him is far worse if these blows resulted in significant injury. It is tempting to put these situations in a legal framework - an individual's conscious state is probably more applicable. If you kill or permanently disable someone as the aggressor in one of these situations your conscious state is permanently altered.  You have become a person who is capable of excessive violence and that is remembered the rest of your life. Your entire moral development up until the time of that incident is called into question.  Guilt, shame, doubt, and regret become a major part of your life.

Age is certainly a factor in these situations. I have not seen any statistics but most of the protagonists seem to be in their 20s and 30s.  That is not universal.  I have seen many videos of older assailants beating the elderly or assaulting people randomly on the street.  The vigor, poor judgment, problematic peer pressure, and excessive use of intoxicants make this demographic group the likely perpetrators of beatdowns.

If you like my standard spread the word. There should be no beatdowns of any kind.  They endanger lives, lead to disability, and and can have far ranging effects for perpetrators and victim - both physically and  psychologically. They are unnecessary in what are typically nuisance situations where there are better ways to resolve the problem, including just walking away.

Beatdowns can kill people. They are a throwback to ancient civilizations when conflicts were resolved by violence and the object was to kill all of the adjacent tribes members.  The toll is great and the next time somebody asks you if someone "deserved a beatdown" - let them know that nobody does.

And let them know that two or three people hitting someone when they are down and vulnerable is unconscionable.       



George Dawson, MD, DFAPA