In the initial interviews with patients who suffer psychotic symptoms, it might be striking that the usage of terminology of descriptive psychopathology lingers on an arbitration of knowledge of 'truth' by using terms like delusions or hallucinations with their definition as false beliefs or false perceptions (Casey & Kelly 2007). These terms can cause annihilation of value to patient's experience, which may pose an initial strain on the egalitarian patient-doctor relationship. In an era, where deference to experts is dead, it might be worthy on agreeing on the effect of these experiences prior to lablelling them. Delusions can not be objectively detected and described, because it evolves and exists within subjective and interpersonal dimensions. Severe psycopathological symptoms share the fact that they are statistically deviant, and thus can be labeled as 'unshared'. Symptoms may be perceived as 'distressing' and they might be 'disabling' to them. The outcome behaviour which may raise concern can be a 'dysfunctional' behaviour (Adams & Sutker 2004). Jaspers considered the lack of understandability of how the patient reached conclusion to be the defining factor of a delusional idea. The notion of defining 'delusion' as false belief was challenged by Jaspers. Sims gives the example of a man who believed his wife was unfaithful to him because the fifth lamp-post alone on the left was unlit. What makes it a delusion is the methodology not the conclusion which may be right (Sims 1991). Some delusions might be mundane in their content, others may not be falsifiable. Dereistic thinking is not based on logic but rather on feelings. It is possible to find ways to evade falsification; an ad hoc hypotheses may also be part of the presentation. Fish stated that delusional elaboration may follow delusion and/or hallucination which may have convergence with the concept of the ad hoc hypothesis. Absence of verification from the patient's side does not lead to deductive falsification (Casey & Kelly 2007). Otherwise, the doctor-patient relationship carry the risk to transform to detective-suspect relationship, where the latter may perceive the need to present evidence of innocence. Mental health professionals are usually encountered by people who suffer to various degrees or make others suffer, and not because of various degrees of conviction. The primary role of the therapist is to be defined as some one who tries to alleviate the sufferings of others rather than correcting their beliefs. Communicating with patients in terms of how functional is their belief rather than it's truth may prove to be more egalitarian and clinically tuned. This may provide some middle ground in communication, without having to put an effort on defining the differences between what is 'true' and what is 'real'. The criterion for demarcation between what is real and what is pathologic may be different in the patient-doctor relationship. The assertion on the clinician's part on the falsity of a belief or experience can have the risk of dogmatism. The statistical deviance of symptoms, their distressing nature, disabling consequences, the resultant dysfunctional behaviour and apparent leap from evidence to conclusion may be a more agreeable surrogate starting points. This might be more in line with essence of medicine or 'ars medicina' (art of healing). Concordance with patients on their suffering may serve as an egalitarian platform prior to naming the symptoms. The term delusion commonly identified as false fixed belief, when used by a psychiatrist, it does not address only a symptom. It rather puts the interviewer in the position of an all knowing judge. After all, a service-user may argue that how come a doctor who never encountered or experienced any of the service-user's aspects of the problem as being persecuted at work and home, as plainly false. Then, does the psychiatrist know the truth. From a service-user point of view what he/she experience is real; which might not necessarily be true. The same applies for people who lead an average life, people who go to work bearing with them their superstitions, beliefs about ghosts, luck, horoscopes, zodiacs, or various revered beliefs. This term has the risk of creating a temporary crack in the mutual sense of equality between the therapist and the service-user. This may be due to the labelling of certain dysfunctional belief as unreal by one side. It has the potential for a subtle change in the relationship to the mental health professional placing himself/herself in the omniscient position and it contrasts with the essence of medical practice where practitioners assume the truth in what the patients say as in the rest of subjective symptoms as headache for example. The subsequent sequel of this is other labels such as 'bizarre delusions' or 'systematised delusions', further add to the deviation of the role of the professional therapist to an investigator in the domain of 'Truth' and architecture of 'Truth'. Furthermore, it might be strenuous to the relationship when the therapist - based on skeptic enquiry - starts explaining such symptoms. For example, if the service-user believes that Martians have abducted him, implanted a device in his brain and sent him/her back to earth, and the response communicated back is the 'delusional'. It could be argued by the service-user that the therapist who had not seen a Martian or a brain device before, labelled the whole story as 'delusion' in a rather perceived dismissive labelling with no intention to check on the existence of Martians or the device. In other words, the healer became the arbiter of truth, where both lack evidence for or against the whole thing; one member in the relationship stepped into power on basis of subjective view of plausibility or lack of thereof. In the case of hallucinations, the clinician labelling the patient's experience as hallucinations can be imposing fundamental dilemma for the patient. For example, if a patient hears a voice that says that everything is unreal apart from the voice, and the clinician says that the voice is the thing that is unreal. Both do not give evidence to their 'truth' apart from their statement. The clinician's existence to the patient's subjective reality is distorted by the multiple realities of the patient, and arguing on basis of mere existence that the 'voice' is the one that is 'false', does not give the patient a clue of the future methodology to discern from both, since percetption is deceived and/or distorted. In this case, another tool of the mind can be employed to address the patient. The same can be applied to a concept like 'over valued ideas', where the clinician decides that this particular idea is 'over valued', or that this 'idea' is 'over valued' in a pathological way. The value put on these ideas or not the patient values but the clinician's evaulation of 'value' and 'pathology'. The cut of point of 'value' and 'over value' seems to be subjective from the clinician's perspective. Also, 'derailment' pauses the notion of expecting a certain direction of talk. The concepts of 'grooming' and 'eye contact' implicitly entail the reference to a socio-cultural normative values. Thus, deviation from the normative value is reflected to the patient as pathology, which is an ambiguous definition, in comparison to the clarity of pathology. The usage of terms like 'dysfunctional unshared belief' or 'distressing auditory perception' or other related terms that address the secondary effect of a pathologic experience may be helpful to engage with the patient, and may be more logically plausible and philosophically coherent yet require empirical validation of beneficence. Taylor and Vaidya mention that it is often helpful to normalise, but this is not to minimise or be dismissive of patient's delusional beliefs.(Taylor & Vaidya 2009). The concept can be extended to cover other terms such as 'autistic thinking, 'apathy', 'blunting of affect', 'poor grooming', 'over-valued ideas', other terms can be applied to communicate these terms with service-users with minimal deviation from the therapeutic relationship. The limitation of these terms in communication of psychopathology are special circumstances as folie a deux, where a dysfunctional belief seems to be shared with others Also, symptoms such as Charles-Bonnet syndrome; usually does not have negative consequences. The proposed terms are not intended for use as a replacement to well carved descriptive psychopathological terms. Terms like 'delusion' or 'hallucination' are of value in teaching psychopathology. However in practice, meaningful egalitarian communication may require some skill in selecting suitable terms that is more than simplifying jargon. They also may carry the burden of having to add to the psychiatric terminology with subsequent effort in learning them. They can also be viewed as 'euphemism' or 'tautology'. However, this has been the case from 'hysteria' to 'medically unexplained symptoms' which seems to match with the zeitgeist of an era where 'Evidence Based Medicine' is its mantra; regardless advances in treatment. Accuracy of terminology might be necessary to match with essence of scientific enquiry; systematic observation and accurate taxonomy. The author does not expect that such proposal would be an easy answer to difficulties in communication during practice. This article may open a discussion on the most effective and appropriate terms that can be used while communicating with patients. Also, it might be more in-line with an egalitarian approach to seek to the opinion of service-users and professional bodies that represent the opinions of service-users. Empirical validation and subjection of the concept to testing is necessary. Patient's care should not be based on logic alone but rather on evidence. Despite the limitations of such proposal with regards to completeness, it's hoped that the introduction of any term may help to add to the main purpose of any classification or labelling that is accurate egalitarian communication. DISCLAIMER This blog is adapted from BMJ doc2doc clinical blogs Philosophical Streamlining of Psychopathology and its Clinical Implications http://doc2doc.bmj.com/blogs/clinicalblog/_philosophical-streamlining-of-psychopathology-its-clinical-implications The blog is based on an article named 'Towards a More Egalitarian Approach to Communicating Psychopathology' which is published in the Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, 2013 http://www.jemh.ca/issues/v8/documents/JEMHVol8Insight_TowardsaMoreEgalitarianApproachtoCommunicatingPsychopathology.pdf Bibliography Adams, H. E., Sutker P.B. (2004). Comprehensive Handbook of Psychopathology. New York: Springer Science Casey, P., Kelly B., (2007). Fish's Clinical Psychopathology: Signs and Symptoms in Psychiatry, Glasgow: Bell & Bain Limited Kingdon and Turkington (2002), The case study guide to congitive behavior therapy for psychosis, Wiley Kiran C. and Chaudhury S. (2009). Understanding delusion, Indian Journal of Psychiatry Maddux and Winstead (2005). Psychopathology foundations for a contemporary understanding, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Popper (2005) The logic of scientific discovery, Routledge, United Kingdom Sidhom, E. (2013) Towards a More Egalitarian Approach to Communicating Psychopathology, JEMH · 2013· 8 | 1 © 2013 Journal of Ethics in Mental Health (ISSN: 1916-2405) Sims A., Symptoms in the mind, (1991) an introduction to psychopathology, Baillere Tindall Taylor and Vaidya (2009), Descriptive psychopathology, the signs and symptoms of behavioral disorders, Cambridge university press
Dr Emad Sidhom
about 7 years ago
The book of the week this week has been Chris Patten’s “Not quite the diplomat” – part autobiography, half recent history and a third political philosophy text. It is a fascinating insight into the international community of the last 3 decades. The book has really challenged some of my political beliefs – which I thought were pretty unshakeable – and one above all others, the EU. I read this book to help me decide who I should vote for in the upcoming MEP elections. I have to make a confession, my political views are on the right of the centre and I have always been quite a strong “Eurosceptic”. Although recently, I have found myself drifting further and further into the camp of “we must pull out of Europe at all costs” but Mr Patten’s arguments and insights have definitely made me question this stance. With the European Parliamentary elections coming up, I thought it might be an interesting time to put some ideas out there for discussion. From a young age, I have always been of the opinion that Great Britain is a world leading country, a still great power, one of the best countries in the world - democratic, tolerant, fair, sensible - and that we don’t need anyone else’s “help” or interference in how our country is run. I believe that British voters should have a democratic input on the rules that govern them. To borrow an American phrase “No taxation without representation!” I believe that democracy is not perfect but that it is the best system of government that humans have been able to develop. For all of its faults, voters normally swing back to the centre ground eventually and any silly policies can be undone. This system has inherently more checks and balances than any meritocracy, oligarchy or bureaucracy (taking it literally to mean being ruled by unelected officials). This is one of my major objections to how the European Union currently works. For all intents and purposes, it is not democratic. Institutions of the EU include the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the Court of Auditors, and the European Parliament. Only one of these institutions is elected by the European demos (the parliament) and that institution doesn’t really make any changes to any policies – “the rubber stamp brigade”. The European Council is made up of the President of the European Council (Unelected), President of the European commission (Unelected) and the heads of the member states (elected) and is where quite a lot of the "major" policies come from but not all of the read tape (the European Commission and Parliament). I am happy to be proved wrong but it just seems that the EU, as a whole, is made up of unelected officials who increasing try to make rules that apply to all 28 member states without any consent from the voters in those states – it looks like the rule of “b-euro-crats” (bureaucrats – this version has far too many vowels for a dyslexic person to use). A beurocratic rule which many of us do not agree with but seemingly have to succumb to, a good example for medics is the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) which means that junior doctors only get paid for working 48h a week when they may spend many, many more hours in work. The EWTD has also made training a lot more difficult for many junior doctors and has many implications for how the health service is now run. Is it right that this law was imposed on us without our consent? If we imposed a treatment on a patient without their consent then we would be in very big trouble indeed! I cannot deny that the EU has done some good in the world and I cannot deny that Britain has benefited from being a member. I just wish that we could pay to have access to the markets, while retaining control over the laws in our lands. I want us to be in Europe, as a partner but not as a vassal. In short, I would like us to stay within the EU but with major reforms. I know that any reforms I suggest will not be read by anyone in power and I know they are probably unrealistic but I thought I would put it out there just to see what people think. I would like to see a NICE’er European Union. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is a Non Departmental Public Body (NDPB), part of the UK Department of Health but a separate organisation (http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/whoweare/who_we_are.jsp). NICE’s role is to advise the UK health service and social services. It does this by assessing the available evidence for treatments/ therapies/ policies etc and then by producing guidelines outlining the evidence and the suggested best course of action. None of these guidelines are enforced by law, for example, as a doctor you do not have to follow the NICE recommendations but if you ignore them and your patient suffers as a consequence then you are likely to be in big trouble with the General Medical Council. So, here would be my recommendations for EU reform: First, we all pay pretty much the same as we do now for access to the European market. We continue with free movement and we keep the European Council but elect the President. This way all the member states can meet up and decide if they want to share any major policies. We all benefit from free movement and we all benefit from a larger free trade area. Second, we get rid of most of the rest of the EU institutions and replace them with an institute a bit like NICE. The European Institute for Policy Excellence (EIPE) would be (hopefully) quite a small department that looks at the best available evidence and then produces guidance on the policy. A shorter executive summary would hopefully also be available for everyday people to read and understand what the policy is about - just like how patients can read NICE executive summaries to understand their condition better. Then any member state could choose to adopt the policy if their parliaments think it worthwhile. This voluntary opt-in system would mean that states retain control of their laws, would probably adopt the policies voluntarily (eventually) and that the European citizens might actually grow to like the EU laws if they can be shown to be evidence based, in the public’s best interests, in the control of the public and not just a law/red tape imposed from above. The European Union should be a place where our elected officials go to debate and agree policies in the best interests of their electorates. There should therefore be an opt-out of any policy for any member state that does not think it will benefit from a policy. This looser union that I would like to see will probably not happen and I do worry that one day we will wake up in the undemocratic united federal states of Europe but this worry should not force us to make an irrational choice now. We should not be voting to "leave the EU at all costs" but we should be voting for reform and a better more co-operative international community. I would not dare suggest who any of you should vote for but I hope you use your vote for change and reform and not more of the same.
almost 7 years ago
Doctors are witnessing increasing numbers of patients seeking referrals to food banks in the United Kingdom. Rachel Loopstra and colleagues ask, is this due to supply or demand?
almost 6 years ago
A government policy designed to reduce the regulatory burden on business is making it increasingly difficult to introduce measures to improve public health in the United Kingdom, such as steering people away from unhealthy foods, a group of medical bodies and charities has warned.
over 5 years ago
Review of orthopaedic services: Prepared for the Auditor General for Scotland. March 2010. Website http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/media/article.php?id=128 "In recent years, the National Health Service (NHS) in Scotland has significantly reduced the length of time people are waiting to receive orthopaedic procedures such as hip replacements and knee operations. Over 95% of patients are now treated within 26 weeks of referral, compared to only 66% in 2003. But there is scope to make savings by working more efficiently. An Audit Scotland report, Review of orthopaedic services, says there is high demand for these services. Orthopaedic care is particularly important for older people, who have the highest rates of fractures and joint replacement."
almost 11 years ago
A case report surrounding a “A dangerous cough” which highlights the importance of healthcare advertising and describes how a fairly innocent presentation can later turn out to be a more sinister pathology.
over 8 years ago
This poster is aimed towards the lay person to inform people about the draft 'Human Transplantation (Wales) Bill) that was published in June 2012. It proposes that people living in Wales give presumed consent for organ donation unless they opt out of the system. My poster highlights the main facts about the bill, and the controversial views surrounding it.
over 8 years ago
Comparison of hospital variation in acute myocardial infarction care and outcome between Sweden and United Kingdom
Objective To assess the between hospital variation in use of guideline recommended treatments and clinical outcomes for acute myocardial infarction in Sweden and the United Kingdom.
over 5 years ago
NHS Direct Wales is a health advice and information service available 24 hours a day, every day. You can call us on 0845 46 47 if you are feeling ill and are unsure what to do, or for health information on a wide range of conditions, treatments and local health services.
about 7 years ago
A major overhaul of the way ambulance service and A&E department performance in Wales is monitored and measured will be trialled next month.
almost 7 years ago
Denis Campbell: With staffing problems, low morale, the need to move services out of hospitals, a £30bn funding gap and little room for manoeuvre, the incoming chief executive will need all his skills
almost 7 years ago
This was passed in 1983, and amended in 2007. . It is rather long and detailed. It allows for the compulsory admission of those who are mentally ill. In practical circumstances, doctors and social workers will try to persuade patients to be admitted voluntarily, but in some circumstances, you may have to ‘section’ them to allow treatment against their will. The most important parts are 2,3,4,5 & 135 and 136.
almostadoctor.com - free medical student revision notes
almost 7 years ago