Wednesday, February 18, 2015

A Return To Asylums Will Not Stop The Rationing




An article was published in the JAMA recently where three ethicists argue for the return of asylum care.  It has become an expected flash point for the antipsychiatry movement as well as some psychiatrists who still think that the word asylum has some meaning.  I thought I would add a more realistic opinion and solution.  I refer readers to the original article or many that I have written here about the reduction in bed capacity in long term psychiatric care.  The reductions are indisputable and well documented.  I am more interested in elucidating the mechanisms behind this reduction and the lack of effective care in the remaining community hospital beds.  The authors allude to the underlying dynamics as captured in the sentence "For the past 60 years or more, social, political, and economic forces coalesced to move severely mentally ill patients out of mental hospitals."  They discuss the well known euphemism for incarcerating psychiatric patients or "transinstitutionalization" and rotating the chronically mentally ill in and out of emergency departments.

The authors even go so far as pointing out the bloated estimated inpatient costs for care in Michigan at $260,000/year/patient and Washington, DC at $328,000/year/patient.   For comparison they include a state of the art facility the Worcester Recovery Center and Hospital that has 320 beds at a cost of $60 million per year or or $187,500/bed/year.  It is difficult to figure out why what may arguably be the best public hospital in the United States has the lowest cost of care for what may be more comprehensive services.  But that is part of the problem.  Most of these institutions are managed by human services agencies through the states and the real fiscal status is always difficult to ascertain.  State and business accounting frequently provides calculations for bed or per patient rates that seem to include unrealistic estimates of overhead costs (often for subpar facilities).  The administration of many of these facilities also seems to depend on restricting psychiatric care at several levels.  In many cases the managed care concept of "medication management" or a "med check" mentality is applied, often with the overall plan of replacing psychiatrists with "prescribers".  Any notion of quality is trumped by a managed care notion of "cost-effectiveness" that typically includes removing psychiatrists from management positions and delegating policy and management at the institutional level to people with no training in psychiatry.

The authors accurately describe the problems of severe mental illnesses.  People have very complex neuropsychiatric disorders and will either not be getting well soon or will never recover enough functioning to do well in any community setting.  They were some of the first victims of "medical necessity" criteria.  I was a Peer Review Organization (PRO) reviewer for Medicare hospitalizations in the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin in the 1980s and 1990s.  For at least part of that time I was sent boxes of medical records from state hospitals for review.  If I looked the the records and decided the patient should continue to be hospitalized, I would get a call from the Medical Director of the PRO suggesting that I should consider the medical necessity criteria.  In the case of long term care, that meant that the patient was "stable" meaning that I would not expect them to change significantly with additional treatment.  If I could say that, the hospital was notified that the patient did not meet criteria for continued long term hospitalization and they needed to be discharged.  In fact, it was very likely that although they were not changing at a rapid enough pace, they would still present formidable problems for community placement.  It may be impossible to discharge them.  In many cases discharge resulted in almost immediate readmission to an acute care hospital and the cycle emergency department to brief hospital admission to homelessness to jail or readmission occurred.  At least until the person was sent back to the state hospital.

In her opinion piece, Dr. Montross suggests that these patients have been abandoned in the name of autonomy or  treating people in the so-called "least restrictive alternative."  That seems at odds with frequent sustained incarcerations for minor and in some cases trivial offenses.  What is really going on here and why do people continue to ignore it?  I have analyzed the problem many times and it is apparently so institutionalized at this point that nobody sees it as a problem anymore. The problem that I continue to point it out is managed care and all of the rationing mechanisms that they employ.  The very first one in the paragraph above is the so-called medical necessity criteria.  Any managed care company physician reviewer can deny care based on their own proprietary guidelines or a purely arbitrary and subjective interpretations of those guidelines.  Managed care companies can harass physicians with mountains of unnecessary paperwork and deny payment or demand payment back based on more subjective interpretations.  Even more problematic, states have incorporated some of these same management techniques and almost uniformly have completely abandoned quality in favor of "cost-effective" care which is quite frankly - care on the cheap.

The end result of all of this cost cutting, rationing, and insurance company profiteering at the expense of patients with mental illness or substance use problems is extremely poor quality care.  One of the authors suggests longer inpatient treatment may be the solution.  Right now practically every psychiatric hospital does their best to get patients discharged in 5 days or less.  Outpatient psychiatrists see patients who have not been stabilized after a 5 day admission.  That is business as usual in acute care psychiatric hospitals.  If that discharged patient makes it to an out patient clinic, they are seen for 10 - 15 minutes in a medication management visit (another fabrication of the managed care industry and the US government) and if they are lucky they discuss the medication and whether it is effective for symptoms or causing side effects.  The problem is that there are important areas in the patients life - like their cognition and social behavior, that are never discussed or evaluated in any productive way.  Very few patients with severe mental disorders receive any kind of psychotherapy despite the evidence it is useful to them.

Putting all of these problems back into the asylum will have predictable results.  The medication management mentality is basically now inside the walls of an institution. There is no enlightened, research driven treatment that addresses all of the problems that the person has.  The asylum is typically administered by a bureaucrat, bound by the same arbitrary budgeting that comes down from the Governor's office.  Across the board spending cuts by a certain percentage and no adjustments when the cash flow is positive.  Money "saved" on asylum care transferred to the state's general fund and used to build roads or whatever was stated in campaign promises.  Suddenly the asylum is an overcrowded bottleneck due to cost shifting by every county in the state who does not want provide services for serious mental illnesses.

The alternative?  How about doing things the right way for once.  We seem to have people who recognize that mental illnesses are not going away, that the current care is atrocious and inhumane, and that it is time to do something about it.  Estimates for the number of people in each state with severe mental illnesses are out there.  Consistent reasonable funding is necessary.  That includes the state, but also it is time to not allow managed care companies to dodge these costs and transfer them to the tax payers.  Finally, it it time to eliminate stakeholder meetings and develop systems of care for the people who it matters the most to - patients, families, psychiatrists, and the other mental health and medical professionals involved in providing this level of care.

Without those conversations, an asylum is just a poorly managed building.    




George Dawson, MD, DFAPA



References:

1: Sisti DA, Segal AG, Emanuel EJ. Improving long-term psychiatric care: bringback the asylum. JAMA. 2015 Jan 20;313(3):243-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.16088.  PubMed PMID: 25602990.

2:  Christine Montross.  The Modern Asylum.  New York Times February 18, 2015.




Sunday, February 15, 2015

"Junk" Neuroscience?

A recent comment on my observation that normal function of human memory could explain what he considered to be obvious lies prompted a reading suggestion.  The author suggested that I should read a book called "Junk Neuroscience" by Satel. The only book I could find with a similar title was  Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience.   I am reluctant to spend good money on a polemics when I can get as much polemic as I want by reading it for free on the internet.  It turns out I am familiar with the author's work from a Frontiers in Psychiatry series that I reviewed last year before presenting a CME course lecture on the neurobiology of addiction.  There are currently 19 papers collected there including Satel and Lilienfeld's.  It is somewhat ironic that the entire series is based on a what I would see as assumptions that have a faulty historical, medical and certainly neurobiological premise and that is:

"For much of the 20th Century, theories of addictive behavior and motivation were polarized between two models. The first model viewed addiction as a moral failure for which addicts are rightly held responsible and judged accordingly. The second model, in contrast, viewed addiction as a specific brain disease caused by neurobiological adaptations occurring in response to chronic drug or alcohol use, and over which addicts have no choice or control....."

The first few lines captures the main problem with debates about any topic but it is particularly pernicious when it comes to addiction and neuroscience.  It leads to a number of false observations that seem to be cropping up in the popular press at an increased frequency.  The observation that most addictions spontaneously remit is taken as evidence that they do not require treatment or that neurobiological factors do not need to be considered.  There is the idea that you can be a "heavy drinker" without being an alcoholic suggesting that "heavy drinking" is protective against the factors leading excessive mortality and morbidity in alcoholism.  Those same arguments lead back to the idea that addiction is either a choice or a bad habit.  Both are gross oversimplifications of how complex decision-making is affected in addictions.  One of the main diagnostic systems for addiction from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) describes addiction as:  "Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry".  It does not however suggest that addicts "have no choice or control".  In fact, much treatment of addiction depends on a 12-step recovery model that is designed to help learn new controls, improve social affiliation, and re-engineer living environments to remove triggers for relapse.  The learning, affiliation, cravings and relapse triggers all have neurobiological substrates.  Against that backdrop there are 19 papers offered and Satel and Lilienfeld's is one of them.

I happen to be fortunate enough to work at a residential center that specializes in treating addictions.  In addition to the clinical work I present a number of lectures to graduate students, physicians, and residents.  The residents are in primary care and psychiatry.  The two slides that follow are right out of my PowerPoint on the neurobiology of addiction.  The Theories of Addiction slide is intended as a rapid survey of addiction theories.  I put it out there as a warm up and free associate to the theories on the slide.  As an an example, I will look at the nutritional deficiency theory of alcohol or look at alcohol being considered a medicine by itself and how that correlates with per capita alcohol consumption in the US.  I can build on that point by looking at the cultural factors that affect per capita alcohol consumption int he US and the UK.  I might ask groups of physicians if Self Medication is a legitimate theory of addiction.  Practically all physicians have heard: "Listen doc, if you can't do something about my (pain, depression, anxiety, insomnia) - I know what I can do to make it go away for a few hours."  Everybody in the room also knows that in the long run, none of those symptoms/syndromes/disorders can be treated and in fact many become considerably worse as a result of the drug or alcohol use.  Even the example of availability proneness that I typically use only partially accounts for addiction.


Any approach to neurobiology has to account for pathways to recovery as well as pathways to addiction.  In treatment centers most of those pathways are based on learning interventions.  I digress to talk about the how learning occurs both in the addiction process and in the recovery process.  I start out with Kandel's example from his classic New England Journal of Medicine article on plasticity.  His original example talks about two people in a room during a psychotherapy session, and the brain changes that occur in both as a result of that session.  Both people leave the room and their brains have been changed by the discussion.  Experience dependent changes in the brain.  That brief introduction brings me to the four considerations of the neurobiology lecture.  They are listed in the second slide below.  

I think that these are all fairly basic starting points for a lectures on neurobiology and proceed to talk about a number of systems and structures that are thought to be important from a neurobiological standpoint.  I bring in the concept that nobody knows how it all works together by a brief discussion of Chalmers hard problem or the fact that we don't know how anyone's unique conscious state comes about and what that implies.  I am evolving to a new lecture that looks at complex decision making and its roots in the neuroanatomical structures that I discuss in this lecture.  Studying this field is what I consider to be fun.  It brings together a number of concepts from my previous scientific studies.  I would probably be focused on this if I was practicing clinical psychiatry or retired.  I will be the first to admit that I am not a trained neuroscientist, but I have been trained in science and worked in scientific research.

That brings me to Satel and Lilienfeld's paper.  I don't know either author.  If you read the paper it is definitely well written and it has 121 references.  There is a bolded statement before the text begins saying that this paper is excerpted from the book Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience.  As far as I know that is the book that would apparently straighten out my views about neuroscience.  The author's begin with: "The brain-disease model implies erroneously that the brain is necessarily the most important and useful level of analysis for understanding and treating addiction." and build rapidly to a second: "In short, the brain-disease model obscures the dimension of choice in addiction, the capacity to respond to incentives, and also the essential fact people use drugs for reasons (as consistent with a self-medication hypothesis)."

Working at an addiction treatment center and talking with thousands of people in my career with severe addictions leads me to have an explosion of associations whenever I see broad generalizations about the problem.  I don't know that the concept of disease means that an affected organ system is necessarily "the most important and useful level of analysis."  There seem to me to be many diseases where that is not true.  On the issue of "reasons to take drugs" it is seldom as rational as the author's suggest.  A classic example is one that I frequently use when lecturing about the current opioid epidemic.  A significant portion of the population is prone to get a hypomanic euphorigenic effect from taking opioids.  For nonpsychiatrists, that mean the person becomes extremely euphoric, energetic, productive, and socially outgoing.  On the initial night or two, they may engage in work or creative activities at a rate that surprises them.  Many will say: "I thought I had become the person I always wanted to be."  Carefully interviewing that person several months later will get the description that they developed a tolerance to that effect.  Now they were taking the opioid "just to stay well" or prevent withdrawal symptoms.  Koob has described this cycle as  "a chronic relapsing syndrome that moves from an impulse control disorder involving positive reinforcement to a compulsive disorder involving negative reinforcement."  Consistent with this definition is that the drug has both positive (euphoria) and negative (prevents withdrawal) reinforcing effects.  The reason to take the drug is an addiction or the specific match of drug effects on a specific nervous system.  Even in a case when addictive drugs are taken for other reasons (there is a long list) it often is due to the fact that the drug is perceived as having magical qualities or as a rationalization for continuing the addiction.

I could make similar arguments for all of the main points in this paper that I have laid out in the following table.  The authors provide ample details examples to support their contentions.  Part of the problem is that the concept of disease is complex.  When you try to dissect it the problems become apparent.  The other problem is that if this is a disease, it is a disease of complex decision making and very few people focus on that.  



What after all is considered a disease?  Any reader can come up with conditions that they consider diseases for many of the ten points above.  That is easiest for the points involving the clearest comparisons with disease (1, 2, 6, 10).  In other cases (4), their point seems to be somewhat arbitrary.  With any chronic illnesses it is usually possible to function with limited incapacity due to the illness until the late stages.   In some cases the critique has more to do with the unique capacity of the organ than anything else.  For example in point (3), emergent properties that are less obvious can be considered a property an any electrical tissue.  Cardiac tissue can produce electrical patterns of decreasing complexity as a heart ages or is affected by disease.  The brain can produce a very similar pattern (see Supplementary 1).  The only difference is that heart tissue is unable to produce a conscious state.  Two of the points (5, 9) minimize the role of a systems involved in complex decision-making.  This is no trivial matter because it is associated with addictive behaviors that lead most people to classify alcohol and drug use disorders as diseases.  Common examples include people who are unable to stop using drugs and alcohol despite life threatening illnesses, repeated pleas from family members, or repeated problems with relationships, employment or the law.  Deaths due to addiction are common and they impact on a large population.  You are much more likely to see a condition as a disease if you know it has killed somebody.  Point (7) is a curious argument.  In the past several years, I have attended seminars showing for example that in some trials of buprenorphine maintenance for opioid use disorders that the addition of counseling adds nothing to the outcome beyond the medication.   I don't personally believe that, but I am used to seeing people with severe addiction who cannot stop until they are taken out of their using environment.  In every residential treatment center that I am aware of, the main focus is on "personal agency" whether that is 12-step recovery (Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous) or other methods for psychological change.  As part of that process there is often a focus on neurobiology not as an excuse but as an explanation for how people can become somebody that they never thought they could become and how that process can be reversed.  The other reason for a focus on neurobiology is medication assisted treatment and a discussion of how those medications might work as part of both informed consent and interest on the part of the patients.

I wonder if the best characterization of what is going on here has more to do with philosophy than neuroscience.  As I previously pointed out in a critique of a philosopher's attack on psychiatry - a straw man approach was used.  He suggested that something was true about the field and then proceeded with his attack as if it was true.  When confronted with that single fact and asked about any evidence to support the contention - the people supporting that contention drew an apparent blank.  To this day as far as I know there is no rational way to argue that the APA has an implicit position in the DSM-5 that teaches people how to live their lives.  Even as I write it on the page it is absurd and yet that was the form of the argument.   The current paper is much more sophisticated than that.   It points out the limitations of the disease concept and how that can be used rhetorically but then proceeds to eschew what they refer to as a "neurocentric view" of addiction.  I don't think that argument carries the day largely because there is very little evidence that the people who know neuroscience have the adverse effects that the authors suggest.  There is plenty of evidence that the neuroscientist-clinicians are focused on multiple levels of care.  I have a lot more to say about what is a disease and diseases of complex decision-making but I am going to stop here.  Look for those topics to be addressed in individual posts in the future.  In the meantime, read about the neuroscience of addiction.  The field has added more to brain neuroscience than just about any other discipline in the past three decades.  

I think an additional explanation of my intent in the reply is necessary.  I use the term "political" a lot when referring to editorials, rhetoric, and other polemics.  People who should know better seem to respond to a lot of these articles as though they are either the "truth" or the "facts" that happen to support their viewpoint.  I like my science very dry.  I ascribe to Pigliucci's observation that science is a process and if there is a truth it only occurs at the end of a very long process or a series of approximations.

Seeing it any other way shuts down that process and we are left with something that is ideologically based and no longer science.



George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


1: Satel S, Lilienfeld SO. Addiction and the brain-disease fallacy. Front Psychiatry. 2014 Mar 3;4:141. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00141. eCollection 2013.   Review. PubMed PMID: 24624096


Supplementary 1:

I attached these graphics to illustrate that electrically active tissue can have emergent properties that are really unknown by either looking at the tissue or doing other kinds of biological analyses.  That is true for both the brain and the heart.  I don't have the heart graphs but could probably find them.  They are identical.  I do have the graphs of brain activity from a patient with Alzheimer's Disease and a normal control patient.  Recordings are from a single parietal electrode in the delta frequency and show the degree of variability over the same time interval.

Single Electrode EEG - Control

Single Electrode EEG - Alzheimer's Disease

Friday, February 13, 2015

Why The Binge Eating Disorder Banner Ad Is Good Marketing




I noticed a new banner ad for Binge Eating Disorder in my Yahoo pages last night for the first time.  It is one of those sophisticated ads that becomes a video clip when you click on it.  The main message of the video clip is that "Binge Eating Disorder is a real medical disorder" and it provides a link to the web site bingeeatingdisorder.com.  If you go to that site and click on the health care professionals link, you are taken to what is essentially a massive infographic on binge eating disorder with descriptions of  what is known about the epidemiology and theory of B.E.D.  There is no mention of treatment or the specific FDA approved medication from this pharmaceutical company that has been approved for B.E.D.  My speculation is that is coming once the advertisers analyze their web traffic and see how well the ad campaign is accepted.  Specifically will there be the usual outcry that pharmaceutical companies are making up diagnoses in order to sell drugs and of course the evil psychiatrists that are involved.  If a lot of that blowback occurs it would be easy to cancel the campaign, take down the web site and either come up with another campaign or go with more traditional advertising to a much less politically adept audience, namely physicians through medical journals.  I admit, the brain graphic with a slice of pizza replacing the parietal lobe is eye catching.      

This ad allows me to make a couple of points.  The first is the reason that we have epidemics of addictive drugs.  The general process is an increase in availability and exposing more people to the drug.  We do not know the genotypes at risk but in general a significant part of the population will have euphorigenic responses to addictive drugs.  Wider availability generally equates to larger numbers of users and people at risk for addiction.  An example I like to use is growing up in northern Wisconsin.  Back in the 1970s, even though it was the hippie generation, the main exposure in remote areas was alcohol and marijuana.  Flash forward 40 years and now there is widespread availability of practically all drugs of abuse in rural areas, including intravenous heroin.  Anytime an addictive drug comes into the marketplace there is a risk that level of availability will lead to more addiction and complications of addiction.  In the case of the first amphetamine epidemic, it was marketing and general use for a number of disorders that did not respond to the medication and marketing products like benzedrine inhalers that could be easily abused.  In the end there were thousands of amphetamine containing products until all of them were moved to Schedule II and under much tighter regulation.

The second point is that the FDA clearly does an inadequate job of preventing addiction and complications of addiction.  There should be no doubt that the main objective of the FDA is to get pharmaceuticals out into the marketplace as soon as possible.  Although politicians like to grandstand on the idea that the FDA prevents the release of life-saving drugs or builds regulatory hurdles that lead to unnecessary expense there appears to be less and less evidence that is true.  Those same politicians seem to favor quicker release and less regulation.  It is fairly clear that the FDA has minimal scientific requirements.  The release of multiple new opioids during the time of an opioid epidemic of overdose deaths and against the recommendations of the Scientific Committee would be a case in point.  A further case in point is that none of these new opioid drugs is a unique compound.  They are all basically mixes and matches of old compounds in patentable dose sizes and various possibly tamper proof formulations.   Even as I type this note I am being informed that the FDA has accepted an application for reviewing a new drug that is a combination of extended release oxycodone and naltrexone.

The FDA clearly has a lax approach to potentially addictive compounds and they cannot depend on post marketing surveillance or their so-called REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies).  A reasonable approach would be to use a gatekeeper strategy and monitor those physicians for complications from prescribing controlled substances.  Since agencies and regulators at all levels seem to believe that they can teach all physicians to prescribe controlled substances with an equal low level of skill, the time of the gatekeeper option is in the past.  The main FDA approach is post marketing surveillance or basically waiting to see what happens.  In the case of addictive drugs this is even a worse idea than with other risky medications.  The post marketing surveillance depends on reports from physicians, patients or other health care professionals.  Reporting a complication from a controlled substance is much less likely to happen for a number of reasons.  Physicians working in the addiction field may be working in settings where there is a higher standard for confidentiality than typical medical records.  Any time there is the potential interpretation of diversion or inappropriate prescribing reporting is less likely.  For these reasons post marketing surveillance is not a good approach to monitor a new pharmaceutical to see if it is being overprescribed and abused.

What is a good approach?  For decades there have been large databases that compile the prescriptions of all physician in the US.  This data was typically sold to pharmaceutical companies to gauge the success of their marketing efforts by the number of prescriptions written.  It is time that the FDA ran a database and looked at real numbers and trends in prescribing.  They would have first hand knowledge of how many new Vyvanse prescriptions were written for binge-eating disorders and where any potential prescription mills were located.  They could intervene before there was a years long or decades long problem.        

I conclude the Binge-Eating Ad is good advertising.  Someone once said that an addictive drug sells itself.  I think that is true in terms of the place that stimulants have in the collective consciousness of Americans.  They are seen as magical performance enhancing drugs that are good for whatever ails you.  I can see the pressure building in primary care clinics for Vyvanse prescriptions for Binge-Eating Disorder and patients expressing their severe disappointment if they hear their clinic will not prescribe it.  They will not understand that good advertising is not necessarily good medicine.

Creating demand for a medication with definite addictive potential seldom is.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Lies, Damn Lies, And Normal Brain Function



I have listened to the past 48 hours of constant criticism and speculation about the implications of what is generally described as a "lie".  News anchor Brian Williams made a statement about remembering that he was shot at in a helicopter in Iraq and forced down after it was hit by a rocket powered grenade.  That statement occurred on an interview with David Letterman and several other venues over the past 12 years.   The actual section of the video is from the 2:50-7:20 of the 18:14 clip.  In the interview he was entertaining, self effacing and talks about himself as being an "accidental tourist".  He rejects Dave's suggestion that he be looked at in a different light because of this incident and praises the volunteer troops and emphasizes that he hopes the troops get what they need when they return home.    The statement and previous clips (3) have been scrutinized by various sources.  Today there are also a number of places looking closely at other statements for similar errors or possible "lies".  Conspiracy theorists always want to prove that there is a pattern.  The formal press and the blogosphere generally wants to see successful people fail in some way.  There are many stories suggesting that this has implications for Williams credibility as a journalist.

Notice how I slipped the word "error" in there.  One of the preconditions for classifying a statement as a "lie" is that it is a conscious effort to mislead.  Mistakes are not technically lies although I have been in settings in medical training where trainees were punished for mistakes and treated as if those mistakes were lies or at least the product of a significant character flaw. A little context is always relevant.  Williams typically reads the news every night for the past 11 years.  He has read more information during those broadcasts than most people will every speak to their colleagues and coworkers in a lifetime.  All of that information is probably vetted by another editor and the person entering the text.  He has presented that information in a way that has led him to have the reputation as being a very reliable source of news.  Secondly, he is under a great amount of scrutiny, much more scrutiny than an average person would expect because he is constantly recorded and easily recognized as a celebrity.  Finally, what can he be expected to gain from intentionally telling a misleading story.  What is his possible motivation?  He clearly dismissed Letterman's attempt to make it a big deal and immediately made it a story about the volunteer forces and returning veterans.  All of these factors seem to be ignored in the typical analysis of the statement and his apology.    

Mistakes like this are commonplace.  In the past month, I have had two very bright young colleagues recall my unusual eating habits from dinners that recently occurred.  One of them recalled me eating a large piece of prime rib, the other frog legs.  I have not eaten beef in 30 years and have never eaten an amphibian.  In those events my colleagues did not recall a feature of the event and there was a misattribution based on that lack of recall.  In many situations, my usually excellent memory does not match up with the recall of others from the same situation.  In 1975 (or so) I was in the Hotel Jacaranda in Nairobi, Kenya with a few of my Peace Corps friends.  We were all seated around a large rectangular table getting ready to order dinner.  I was particularly jumpy that night and when a waiter bumped into my elbow, I reflexively dumped a cup of cocoa on a friend sitting immediately to my right.  When I say dumped, I mean about 16 ounces of warm liquid poured right on top of his head and over his glasses.  I was very embarrassed at the time, but the incident was apparently forgotten by the other 5 friends sitting at that table.  I tried to revisit that event with my friend a few years ago and according to him - it never happened.  Whose recollection of the incident is likely correct, a person who has an associated memory of being embarrassed about it or the person who would just as soon forget about it?

None of my anecdotes matches one that is probably self aggrandizing to some extent but their are similiar examples in the literature.  Eye witness testimony comes to mind.  You are a star witness in the case and the fate of the defendant hinges on your testimony.  Psychologist Daniel Schacter points out in his book (1) that more than 75,000 criminal trials are decided each year on the basis of eyewitness testimony.  A recent analysis comparing eyewitness testimony to DNA evidence suggested that eyewitness testimony was mistaken in 90% of cases.  A more recent review (2) suggests that the number may be closer to one in three.  I have testified myself in courtroom situations where I was told by attorneys that I would not have to speculate on a specific question.  I was asked that question anyway, but with enough experience I knew the correct response was to say that I could not answer the question.  I have always wondered about what happens when people are witnesses in important cases and they have the expectation that they need to come up with an answer to every question whether they have an answer or not.  I am sure that I have seen this happen in real courtroom testimony.  That stress in combination with imperfect human memory has the potential to create a new story or at the minimum information that creates more noise than signal.

The second aspect of the Williams scenario involves the binding of certain events in the correct order across a number of situations.  Watching the NYTimes montage in reference 3 illustrates what I am  talking about.  Earlier footage clearly illustrates that he was on the ground with helicopters that had taken small arms fire when he landed in a helicopter that was probably doing what he described in the  Letterman clip.  Is it possible that this was binding failure?  Schacter's definition of which would be "the gluing of the various components of an experience into a whole.  When individual parts of an experience are retained but memory binding fails, the stage is set for all kinds of source misattributions....".   It is easier to recall actions and scenes presented together but significantly more difficult to recall which action occurs in which scene (4).  That experimental finding is interpreted to mean that information about scenes and information about actions are stored in different parts of the visual memory system (4).  Further binding is adversely affected by age (5) and other sources of interference (6) with both the features of a scene and the bindings.  Psychiatrists who keep detailed notes on their patient encounters will easily observe these binding failures and different histories being given at different points in time.  It is also likely that the longer you live, the more you will encounter this phenomenon in your own life.

People lie and people forget - so what?  In the final analysis, very few observers have access to all of the information necessary to determine what is a lie and what is not a lie.  By definition the only discriminating factor is a conscious awareness on the part of the liar.  I have no access to information more than anyone else and no conflict of interest when it comes to Mr. Williams or NBC.  The current situation requires some reflection on why it has the appearance of being so important.  Is it possible that this is a case of faulty recall and misattribution?  I think it is and most of the analyses to the contrary are not based on how human memory works.  There are a number of questions that can be asked about these analyses.  Why is there an opinion based on very scant information?  Is it possible that emotional bias is involved in the complex decision-making of the author?  Is the author denying the fact that these kinds of experiences have happened to them?  Or is jumping to conclusions an aspect of the author's character that they would just as soon not look at?  Is it really that surprising that thousands of journalists and bloggers want to add their own sensational spin to this story?

Those may be much more relevant questions than the one being asked today.



George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


References:


1:  Daniel L. Schacter.  The Seven Sins of Memory.  Houghton Mifflin Company; Boston, 2001, 272 pp.

2: Wise RA, Sartori G, Magnussen S, Safer MA.  An examination of the causes and solutions to eyewitness error.  Front Psychiatry. 2014 Aug 13;5:102. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00102. eCollection 2014. Review. PubMed PMID: 25165459

3:  Jonathan Mahler, Ravi Somayia, Emily Steele.   With an Apology, Brian Williams Digs Himself Deeper in Copter Tale.  New York Times February 5, 2015.

4: Urgolites ZJ, Wood JN.  Binding actions and scenes in visual long-term memory.  Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Dec;20(6):1246-52. doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0440-1. PubMed PMID: 23653419.

5: Pertzov Y, Heider M, Liang Y, Husain M.  Effects of healthy ageing on precision and binding of object location in visual short term memory.  Psychol Aging.  2014 Dec 22.  [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25528066.

6: Ueno T, Allen RJ, Baddeley AD, Hitch GJ, Saito S. Disruption of visual feature binding in working memory.  Mem Cognit 2011 Jan;39(1):12-23. doi: 10.3758/s13421-010-0013-8.  PubMed PMID: 21264628.


Supplementary 1:  

It  turns out that I was able to think of a better anecdote after I penned the above post.  On Tuesday September 11, 2001 I was doing what I did every morning as an inpatient psychiatrist for 23 years.  I was sitting in a team meeting with all of the representative disciplines including social work, occupational therapy and nursing.  At about 8:15 a nurse came in to give us a report and she happened to mention:  "We just heard that a plane hit one of the Twin Towers in New York City.  It's on the news right now."  When she said that my recollection was that I said: "If I was there right now I would be trying to get as far away as possible.  That was a terrorist attack and there may have been something else on that plane."  The rest is history, but for the purpose of this post did I really make that statement?  I had just tried to run an early Internet campaign for US Senate and one of my overriding concerns was terrorism.  My campaign could be best described as an abysmal failure.  I seemed to be one of the few people in the state interested in terrorism.  Almost everyone else had been concerned with spending the imaginary federal surplus, something I considered to be the product of capital gains taxes on the Internet stock bubble.  For that matter, do I really remember all of the people in the room at the time?  I am pretty sure I do, but it would not surprise me at all if I struck up a conversation with somebody who I thought was there only to learn that they were not.  Nobody who I thought was in the room ever approached me after the incident and asked me about my statement.  I took that as pretty good evidence that I should keep my mouth shut.  I also remembered something I read about Harry Stack Sullivan.  He was a psychiatrist who specialized in the interpersonal psychotherapy of people with schizophrenia.  He had a number of therapy experiences that he wrote about that were very striking and unique.  In his writing at one point he said that he realized that he just needed to stop writing and talking about those experiences because he could not say for  sure what had actually happened versus what was embellished.  I always remembered that cautionary note as well as the slang term "power story" from my youth in the North.  A power story was assumed to be an embellished story to make one look good.  A typical response might be (in a mildly sarcastic tone): "OK Paul Bunyan - where is Babe the Blue Ox?"  It is probably not a good thing to be remembered as the psychiatrist who tells power stories unless you are retired and sitting in a bar in northern Wisconsin.  


Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Did The FDA Forget About America's First Amphetamine Epidemic?




That was the first thought I had when I read through the FDA release on the approval of Vyvanse for "binge-eating disorder".  I thought of the rotation I did on the Eating Disorder service at the University of Minnesota with some of the top experts in anorexia nervosa and bulimia.  In those days the residents admitted the patients and also rotated through the outpatient clinic where they saw new cases of eating disorders and developed treatment plans with the supervision of the attendings.  We talked about a lot of binge eating, since binge eating was a critical aspect of bulimic behavior.  ""Do you ever consume an amount of food large enough that it might be embarrassing if someone else found out?" and getting the details of that specific behavior was one of my standard interview questions.  It was clear that the binge eating of bulimia was a volume and rate task.  I would hear about large amounts of diet soda and popcorn being consumed in order to complete the cycle.

In the intervening 2 decades the only real changes was the addition of bulimia nervosa a composite of bulimic and anorexic behaviors.  That is until the advent of Binge-Eating Disorder in DSM-5.  In addition to a binge definition not much different from the one I used in 1984 eating an amount of food that is "definitely larger than what most people would ingest in the same period and similar circumstances" there is loss of control, and behavioral specifiers for rapidity, physical sensations, appetite, and psychological reactions to the binge eating.  Marked distress needs to occur and it cannot be part of another eating disorder.  The time specifier is that it needs to occur at least once a week for 3 months.  A summary of the FDA release about the indication states:

 “Binge eating can cause serious health problems and difficulties with work, home, and social life,” said Mitchell Mathis, M.D., director of the Division of Psychiatry Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The approval of Vyvanse provides physicians and patients with an effective option to help curb episodes of binge eating."   

The DSM-5 has a point prevalence estimate of 1-1.5% in women with a peak in late adolescence and early adulthood.  That same section in the DSM-5 suggests that the course is variable:

"However, over longer-term follow-up, the symptoms of many individuals appear to diminish with or without treatment, although treatment clearly impacts outcome. Periods of remission longer than 1 year are associated with better long-term outcome." (DSM-5 p 351-352)

As far as I can tell, the evidence supporting the fast tracked application for Vyvanse is a typical 8 week clinical trial that looked at remission and reduction in binge eating rates in a multicenter study of 255 individuals (1).  Both the 50 and 70 mg doses were effective.  The publication of the research coincides fairly closely with the FDA release.  Searching through the FDA web site reveals no information about the opinion of a Scientific Committee and whether there was any consensus on the decision or concerns about the addictive potential of the drug.  

The pharmacology of the Vyvanse is interesting.  It is a prodrug - lisdexamfetamine that is a conjugate of lysine and amphetamine.  After it is absorbed into the circulation it is hydrolyzed to lysine and amphetamine.  There has always been some debate about whether this prodrug approach confers a decreased likelihood that the compound can be abused or used in an addictive manner.  Most addiction psychiatrists will tell you that it can and  the FDA approved package insert confirms the fact that it has significant abuse potential.   It is a Schedule II drug according to the DEA.

The lesson of the first amphetamine epidemic is that these drugs will be prescribed, to the point that there is very high demand and production of the drug.  Widespread health consequences were noted from overprescribing stimulants for questionable indications (weight loss, nasal congestion, depression, anxiety, psychosomatic complaints).  During the peak of this epidemic (1969) the total number of 10 mg amphetamine doses was about 25 million.  This was not exceeded until about 2005 and then only as a combination of amphetamine and methylphenidate.  As a psychiatry resident in the 1980s, I was still seeing obese people who had not lost a pound using very high doses of amphetamines.  The weight loss indication was subsequently banned in order to establish some limits on the overprescription of these compounds.  In other words, they were taking the drug because of an addiction rather than using it for any therapeutic effect.  It is clear that the prescription of controlled substances for diagnoses that are based on subjective findings is a recipe for epidemics of addictive drugs both in terms of total prescriptions, escalating use, and diversion.  Stimulant medications have the additional allure as possible performance enhancing drugs and are widely diverted for that purpose.

In that context, it would seem that the FDA would need to come up with a clear rationale for using a Schedule II drug to treat what may be a time limited disorder or a disorder that responds to non-medical therapies.  The complex nature of medications that have addictive potential needs to be recognized.  The prescription of these compounds takes more than rote knowledge. At the minimum there needs to be strict pharmacosurveillance on how this drug is prescribed and flags need to be in place for trends indicating that the prescriptions are starting to exceed the known prevalence of the disorder or the dose ranges are higher than recommended and/or combined with short acting stimulants.  These are all common problems seen in the overprescription of controlled substances.

Passive post marketing surveillance can no longer be considered a viable option for stopping the overprescription of controlled substances.   Waiting for intervention by law enforcement when problems have already begun is an approach from the 1960s.  In an era when data mining is commonplace, the FDA can do a lot more than get drugs out into the marketplace and wait to see what happens.         



George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


1: McElroy SL, Hudson JI, Mitchell JE, Wilfley D, Ferreira-Cornwell MC, Gao J, Wang J, Whitaker T, Jonas J, Gasior M. Efficacy and Safety of Lisdexamfetamine for Treatment of Adults With Moderate to Severe Binge-Eating Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 Jan 14. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.2162. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25587645.

2: Nutt, David, Leslie A King, William Saulsbury, Colin Blakemore. Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse. The Lancet 2007; 369:1047-1053. PMID 17382831;doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4








Supplementary 1:  The following graph is from Wikimedia Commons and it is public domain.  It is a derivative work of reference 2 above and a complete description is available at this link.  I could find no author to cite.




Supplementary 2:  Almost on cue I noticed the first banner ads for Binge-Eating Disorder today (2/12/2015).  It is advertised as a "real medical disorder" and is a brief informational film.  It has a spokesperson who talks about her experience with the disorder and refers the interested viewer to the company web site at BingeEatingDisorder.com.  It carefully coaches people in how to talk with their doctor.  The pharmaceutical company and manufacturer is listed at the bottom on the page.  The graphic of a pizza slice over a drawing of a brain varies in different views.  I don't know exactly what that means.  It suggests psychological therapies for B.E.D. and does not mention Vyvanse.  But let's face it - when people read there is a pill for their eating problem and it is an amphetamine - how many people will be asking for the psychological therapies?











Sunday, February 1, 2015

Advice To Residents - continued

A couple of things to add to the previous list:

17.  Information - One of the most formative documents that I ever read was Shannon and Weaver's paper on communication theory.  My only reason for reading this paper in the first place was cultural.  I was an undergrad during tumultuous times and learned about this paper in the Whole Earth Catalogue.  Since it was a technical and engineering document I was very surprised to find it in my liberal arts campus library.  After becoming a psychiatrist I have been very aware of the information content and exchange between physicians and patients.  Despite the lack of any quantitative analysis, there are no big surprises.  The more information exchanges the more accurate the diagnosis and the better the treatment plan.  That has implications for how you approach clinical work.  Physicians interested in information tend to maximize the data points they put into their assessments.  They also make a point of getting plenty of collateral data.  They pay more attention to high signal to noise information and learn to set limits on sources where there the signal is low.  It takes discipline to focus on information optimized exchanges in this day when physicians are often their own transcriptionists.  It is also difficult when electronic health record systems degenerate into binary checklists that do not allow for the documentation of unique data.  A focus on information leads to consistently high quality care.


18.  Suicide - Any finalized version of this list will give suicide a much higher priority.  It is always with us.  I know for a fact that the unpredictable aspect of suicide prevents many excellent physicians from going in to psychiatry.  Any professional guideline states that suicidal ideation and potential needs to be assessed on a longitudinal basis at every meeting with the patient.  Residents are immersed in the treatment of a combination of people who are at very high risk for suicide and/or chronically suicidal.  They are taught the very blunt instrument of risk factor analysis to make those decisions.  They are expected to perform contentious interventions to hold people against their will based on the assessment of suicidal behavior.  Residents in every class will lose patients to suicide and will experience a great deal of emotional turmoil related to that loss.  It is the most difficult aspect of the field to negotiate.

What is the best approach to the problem of providing the best possible care to people with suicidal ideation and behavior and minimizing the emotional toll on yourself?  There are three basic considerations.  The first is technical aspects of assessment and treatment.  There has been a recent revival of interest in suicide as a problem independent of diagnosis so I would follow that area of research.  As far as I can tell, The Harvard Medical School Guide To Suicide Assessment and Treatment is still a unique source of information.  On the assessment side not missing psychotic depression is critical and it can be a subtle finding.  The second is the countertransference aspects of care for the suicidal person.  People who are chronically or recurrently suicidal elicit strong emotions in people.  Some of these emotions are readily observable in their friends and relatives.  Recognize them in yourself and figure out what to do about them.  Finally the single best piece of advice is to always make sure that you have done everything possible to prevent the suicide of a patient.  Suicide is a rare event but if it occurs making sure that you did not miss anything is the best way to moderate your emotional response.  The last few sentences seem a lot more straightforward than they really are.  There are always a number of obstacles to the best possible care that you will not have control over.  It is still important to discuss the optimal plan with the patient.  An additional safeguard as a resident is to ask your supervisor: "Is there anything else that you would do in this case to address the patient's suicide potential?"  As a supervisor, I think that is a fair question that I should be able to answer.

These two points came to me since the original post.  The point about suicide was an obvious omission suggested by a colleague.  It highlights the fact that even a senior psychiatrist like myself can omit important points that can be corrected by collegial consultation.

Please feel free to send me any additional points or sources that you have found useful.  The Harvard Medical School Guide.. is dated at this point and I don't think that there has been an updated edition  or any source that improves upon this information.  I have my own approach to this problem that I think is useful to consider, but I am reluctant to post it here without any peer review.

My pep talk to residents at times involves reminding them how tough this field is.  It is intellectually and emotionally rigorous and to do a good job you have to stay focused and at times be fairly hard on yourself.  You also have to check out what you are doing with other psychiatrists - supervisors as a resident and colleagues when you are in practice.    



George Dawson, MD, DFAPA   


Reference:

1.  Aleman A, Denys D. Mental health: A road map for suicide research and prevention. Nature. 2014 May 22;509(7501):421-3. PubMed PMID: 24860882.

Supplementary:

1.  The first 16 points of this thread are contained in the previous post.


Saturday, January 31, 2015

Advice To Residents

I have been contacted by a number of psychiatry residents lately about this blog.  Their comments are encouraging and remind me that practically everything that I post  here is focused on practicing psychiatrists - especially people on the front lines being exploited by one government or healthcare corporation or the other.  The comments also remind me that in retrospect residency and medical school was an exciting time and that there is really not much time between then and becoming a senior clinician.  The vast majority of us negotiate that turf with very few problems but in some cases glaring mistakes are made that sidetrack careers or stop them in their tracks.  There also seems to be an unnecessary amount of anxiety, typically due to a lack of clarity and plenty of situations without solutions.  It seems to me that there is never enough guidance for psychiatrists in training.  That situation is often made much worse by the fact that psychiatrists in most tertiary care centers are viewed as the physicians who take care of problems that do not neatly fit into other specialty areas.  I thought I would post a few landmarks and tips that can lead to avoiding big problems and facilitate the transition to a practicing psychiatrist.

1.  Boundaries, boundaries,  and more boundaries...... - There is probably nothing more important in training and in the field than maintaining the appropriate boundaries of a professional.  That means with your patients certainly but also with other professionals and medical staff,  colleagues, and even people seemingly peripheral to the treatment process.  There are many definitions of boundaries than invoke psychodynamic terms that are inaccessible to most.  The most basic definition is that the psychiatrist is always aware of their special role in the treatment process and the fact that their behavior is dictated by a professional code that recognizes the physician must act in the interests of the patient.  That certainly involves maintaining confidentiality but also subtleties such as determining why a certain patient evokes an emotional response or reaction that other patients do not.  Most training programs discuss the issue of sexual involvement with patients and why that is absolutely forbidden.   Boundary violations can be as subtle as being more available for one patient relative to the others and rationalizing this as the patient needing crisis intervention that only you can provide.   To a certain extent residency is about picking up these subtleties, but in many cases it takes years of practice to recognize the most subtle boundary problems.  Treating the family member of a friend or colleague is a case in point.  Training staff should always be available for consultation on those issues.  A good general rule is to always see the patient in a designated clinic at the appointed time, for the correct duration, and always document what occurred in the session using standard clinical documentation.  Any unexpected thought or feeling on the part of the resident during the sessions should be considered for discussion with faculty supervisors.  It is advantageous for faculty to describe what those scenarios might be in order to provide more active guidance.  Many boundaries are more clearly delineated now than at any time in the past.  For example, it was common practice in the past to be approached by somebody who was not your patient (usually a friend, relative or coworker) with a request for a prescribed medication.  The usual rationale was it was more convenient to get it from you than their personal physician.  Responding in many cases was problematic.  Today it is quite easy to point out that most boards of medical practice take a negative view of prescribing to people where no physician-patient relationship and no documentation of an encounter exists.  

2.  Therapeutic neutrality -  Figuring out why psychiatrists need to be neutral in their interactions with patients takes some doing.  You may have just finished a rotation with a very demonstrative non-psychiatric physician and seen some interpersonal behaviors that you are not observing in your psychiatry staff.  Asking them why they interact with people in a certain way and why they make specific comments to patients is an important part of the training.  They should be able to explain themselves.

3.  Pattern matching and other skills - The main advantage of physician training is the development of pattern recognition and pattern matching skills that covers a broad range of clinical experiences.  The best way to differentiate between an acute pulmonary embolism, a myocardial infarction, and and a panic attack is to see every possible variation.  That will make your chance of making the correct diagnosis much greater than a person who has read about it in a book.   Some studies have looked at the number of recognizable patterns that can be detected by the human brain.  For visual modalities alone that number approaches about 80,000 patterns.  

4.  Getting on top of the countertransference -  During any training you will see a diverse number of clinicians with diverse theoretical backgrounds demonstrating their techniques.  There may be some confusion about the benefits of therapeutic neutrality.  Some people see it as being non-directive or even confusing to the patient.  The equate neutrality with inaction.  A much better way to look at it is that you will not interact with the patient at the emotional level that he or she expects.  You will not interact with them in the same non-productive way that all of their friends and relatives have been interacting with them.  Your goal is to complete your assessment or treatment intervention and demonstrate that they can interact in a productive way with you.  I have seen some professionals get angry with patients and react emotionally and describe it to me as "reality therapy".  I think that is reality insofar as the significant people in that person's life interact with them in the same way.  I do not see that as providing much guidance on learning new and productive ways to interact.      

5.   Not getting rid of the stethoscope -  Trainees are still responsible for a lot of medical work including admission histories and physicals, understanding the complex medical conditions encountered in tertiary care centers, and gathering and interpreting the medical tests and information necessary for acute psychiatric care.  A big part of that is not missing an acute medical condition that needs immediate care or a medical condition that is causing the psychiatric symptoms.  Some of that is learned in #3 above, but there is also an entirely different set of skills associated with medical diagnostics as it applies to psychiatry.  At the minimum I would include Cardiology skills including the recognition of acute emergencies, common arrhythmias and how urgently they need to be assessed and treated, acute and ambulatory care of hypertension, and how to read electrocardiograms.  All of that knowledge needs to be translated to patient care.  The other areas include Neurology and the same recognition of emergencies, movement disorders especially tardive dyskinesia, but also drug induced problems.  All psychiatrists should know when an electroencephalogram is useful and when to order MRI, CT, and PET imaging.  I have been reading all of the imaging studies that I order throughout my career and with most electronic records systems - this seems like one of the functions that works well.  As a resident you should find out where the Radiologists and Neuroradiologists hang out and ask them questions about images that seem confusing.  Endocrinology and Renal Medicine knowledge has also served me well over the years.  One of the most important aspects whether you are a resident or an attending is what you can learn from your colleagues.  All of the consultants I have worked with have been very bright and highly motivated people.  You acquire an unexpected amount of knowledge from them.  To give one example, a Hematologist taught me a good way to treat sickle cell pain crises in patients with addiction to minimize their exposure to opioids.  His method worked much better than the approach being used by a pain management clinic and stopped frequent admissions in inpatient units for pain crises.

6.  Yes - you need to do talk therapy - I don't know how the myth started that you could be a psychiatrist and not talk to people in therapeutic ways.  That is a completely unrealistic approach to the field.  All of the superb psychiatrists I have known talk to their patients and have excellent skills whether that is in doing psychoanalysis or 10 or 15 minutes associated with a visit that is focused on a medication.  Part of this myth seems to have originated on the inpatient side and the idea that you can't treat psychosis with psychotherapy.  In fact, there are many situations in acute care where the patient may be refusing care or refusing medications and somebody needs to communicate with that person.  Your life will be a lot easier as a psychiatrist if you are that person.

7.  Study human consciousness - Even as a resident in the 1980s, the DSM technology had lost most of its luster when I realized that there were unrealistic categories and the application of diagnostic criteria could rarely be applied as easily as it seemed in the research.  Over the years, it is even more obvious that people do not provide consistent histories over time.  Some people will say that is a failing of the DSM, but it is clearly the real way that people think.  You will certainly have to know the DSM and come up with DSM diagnoses in the foreseeable future, but do yourself a favor and focus at least some of your energy on how people really think.  That includes knowing how human memory really works, being able to do a lot more cognitive screening than the Mini-Mental State Exam, and being able to immediately recognize the pattern of delirium from across the room.  It includes knowing about complex decision making and the neurobiological substrate for those functions.  It applies to how people typically think about whether or not they have any formal psychiatric diagnosis.

8.  Neuroscience -  This is the future of the field.  There will be no demand for psychiatrists in the future who don't know brain science and how it can be applied diagnostically or therapeutically.  It is the logical basis to study human consciousness, complex decision making and psychiatric disorders and contrary to what you might read on many blogs there has already been considerable progress in this area.  There are many excellent psychiatrist-researchers in this area already and I encourage reading their research and some of their popular works as a starting point.  There are any number of Luddites out there who seem to think that psychiatry needs to remain stagnated in the 1950s to provide any value.   I don't think there is a shred of evidence to support that contention or that neuroscience will never be of value to psychiatrists.  A good starting point would be to read Kandel's 1979 article on plasticity,  his recent article on nicotine as as a gateway drug,  and everything that he has written in between.  If your department has a neuroscience section, asking them to compile a reading list of what they consider to be the top neuroscience papers that apply to the field would be an added bonus.

9.  Don't be an overprescriber -  When learning psychopharmacology it is tempting to consider patients to be constellations of biologically treatable syndromes.  There are many problems with that approach.  First and foremost is the inability to recognize the main problems in the context of a comprehensive formulation of the patient's temperament and personality.  The other problems include not recognizing that a patient is unable to take a medication or tolerate it and the basic fact that in many if not most cases there is a psychosocial or psychotherapeutic approach that is on par with medications and it has fewer side effects.  There are many other considerations for overprescribing and this diagram lists a few.

10.  Keep yourself and everyone safe - Every resident is thrown into the breach with inadequate preparation for worst case scenarios.  To prepare me, one of my attendings told me about his experience at the same hospital when he was a resident.  He was called when a patient was discovered on the roof of the hospital and went sprinting up the stairway to intervene.  He discovered a highly agitated patient in hospital clothing standing next to the edge of the roof.  As he tried to calm him, the patient sprinted over and bit my attending on the bicep.  It is hard to figure out how that breach of security could have resulted in a better outcome.  The best way to be prepared is to learn to recognize warning signs and talk that over with the staff ahead of time.  Work with the staff you have to come up with detailed plans to assure everyone's safety ahead of these incidents.  In most training programs nobody ever discusses this problem.

11.  Be a team player -   On both the inpatient and outpatient side you can delude yourself into thinking that you are functioning independently and that you and your patients are in a separate parallel universe.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Other staff talking about you and your behavior can have a profound effect on the kind of care that you can provide to your patients.  It can also impact on your relationship with the patient directly and also on your personal safety.  Think about your relationship with everyone in the treatment environment and how to keep interpersonal conflicts to the minimum.  On the inpatient side, the relationships with nursing staff are critical.  The worst possible scenario is a resident who develops a contentious relationship with nurses and views them as creating extra work for him or her.  Part of any psychiatrists' role on the inpatient side is to make sure that no splitting occurs and that highly problematic dynamics involving staff and patients are avoided.  It is good to keep in mind that the only reason patients are in a hospital setting is that they need 24 hour nursing care.  They are not there to see a psychiatrist once or twice a day.

12.  Know addiction inside and out - It is very tempting to take the same approach to addiction that some people take to medicine and that is:  "I only practice psychiatry.  This is my psychiatric diagnosis and you will have to get your addiction diagnosis and treatment plan from your addiction psychiatrist or addictionologist."  This is less tenable than bailing out on medicine or psychotherapy.  The reasons are fairly clear cut.  Substance use disorders are major sources of differential diagnoses for primary psychiatric conditions.  Substance use disorders also put people at greater risk for developing psychiatric disorders and in many cases the neurobiology of those changes is clear.  Addiction and craving is also another unique conscious state with the opportunity to look at the neurobiology of complex decision making from another perspective.  Most residents are also in training environments where they are responsible for the acute care and detoxification of patients with substance use problems.  In many medical centers that responsibility falls to the psychiatry service.      

13.  See as many patients as you can see in a number of training settings - When you listen to some of the griping that happens as people complain about the number of admissions, the number of inappropriate admissions, conflicts with other medical and surgical services or just the overwhelming amount of work that accumulates it is easy to miss the big picture.  The more patients you see, with more problems, the better doctor you will be in the future.  At some point you will be out in practice and somebody will ask you to evaluate an acute disturbance in a patient and you will remember that immunocompromised patient you saw in a transplant unit as a resident.  You may be the only one able to make that diagnosis - not based on what you read in a book but by being there as a resident.

14.   Organize your study and reading around patient care and dig deep - It is easy to get lost analyzing a single case when you think about everything that involves.  The pharmacology, drug interactions, drug-disease interactions, side effects, unique patient characteristics, phenomenology of the patient's symptoms and what that involves, what the patient is trying to communicate and how you can signal that you not only understand but you can suggest techniques to approach these problems are independent of medications.  You are as comfortable quoting the latest treatment guidelines as the spectrum of medication side effects.  A set approach to that process is useful.  I typically start with Medline, add to existing collections I keep catalogued there, and read through my favorite journals.  For the latest info on medical conditions I subscribe to UpToDate and keep up to date on the medical conditions that my patients have.  I have a good 30 years of reference books in my library and information flagged in those books that I can't find anywhere else.  My prized possession is a copy of Encephalitis Lethargica by Constantin Von Economo.  That interest was based on my exposure to surviving patients with complex neuropsychiatric and movement disorders while I was still a medical student. 

15.  Recognize that there a lot of people out here who hate psychiatrists and that is not your problem - Any casual read through this blog illustrates the problem.  The haters are deep, in multiple settings, and paying attention to them can be draining.  One of the reasons this blog exists is to point out their fallacious arguments and to point out that you can do very well by not paying any attention to them.  In some cases departments of psychiatry have been fooled into bringing in some of these people to give Grand Rounds as though it is a legitimate academic exercise.  That is typically a mistake and it seems so unreasonable to me that I would conclude that people in that department are either incapable of critiquing them or have just run out of things to say and need speakers.  Engaging most of these people is a waste of time.  They have a number of fallacious arguments and the most telling factors include the fact that psychiatrists readily critique the field and do a better job.  Many of the arguments provided by these groups have an obvious lack of scholarship and in some cases are over the top.

16.  Recognize that conflicts of interest are everywhere -  Pharmaceutical company pizza has vanished but it is no worse to me than a blogger claiming that he or she knows what is best for all psychiatrists.  The critical part of residency training is to learn to critique research that impacts your patient care.  I agree with Ioannidis(1) observation that almost all published research is false.  I base that on my reading of medical and psychiatric research for the past 30 years.   That does not mean that you don't have to know that research and how to possibly apply it.  There are also critical delineations in the research literature between basic science and clinical research that nobody seems to talk about.  Practically all of the focus is on imperfect clinical trials, frequently with the implication that somebody is doing something wrong.  Know the difference between the appearance of conflict of interest and conflict of interest.  Reviews and meta-analyses by researchers with clear agendas who are reanalyzing collections of studies are not the same as large clinical trials and generating research findings.  Some of the sites that promote the review methodology do not provide much useful information for clinicians.  At some point in your career you will be treating many more cases than are published in the largest clinical trials so pay attention to what you are doing.  Finally know the political implications of conflict of interest including the new laws about how physicians are reported for the appearance of conflict of interest and the implications that may have for your transition into psychiatric practice.  Get the opinions of your training staff on those issues.

These are a few anchor points that come to mind as I sit here typing on a Friday night.  I hope that they are useful to residents.  Sometimes the most basic idea takes on a great deal of importance. That is especially true when you are in a hospital at night by yourself and trying to keep the place together until sunrise.  There are very few people who know what it is like to be up all night trying to figure out solutions to problems where no clear solutions exist.  Make sure that you don't isolate yourself when faculty backup is available.    

I can remember seeing the sun come up after many of those nights and the tremendous feeling of relief that I had made it through another night of call.

These are some of my ideas.  I would appreciate the opinion of any other training staff about gems that they found most helpful in making the transition to practicing psychiatrists and avoiding land mines along the way.




George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

References:

1:  Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124


Supplementary:

1.  Additional points on Advice To Residents can be found here.