User login
Psychiatrists urged to look beyond the ‘monoamine island’
Now that 2019 has passed us by, it is a time for reflection for most of us. We can think about the state of our important relationships, perhaps the growth of our children or other loved ones, the trajectory of our practices, and ideas for the future. Most commonly, I would wager, we likely think about how we might do things differently in the new year.
Applying this lens to our chosen profession, the practice of clinical psychiatry, I hope 2020 brings real, or at least, incremental change. Our profession has evolved markedly over the last several decades, from psychoanalysis to the psychopharmacology revolution, to a now largely multimodal approach. Our treatment of psychiatric illness has evolved and, for the most part, improved the lives of millions across the country and around the world.
However, in so doing, we have, perhaps inadvertently, or maybe out of necessity, found ourselves on an allegorical island that we, as clinical, everyday psychiatrists defend to the death. Surrounded by an ocean of psychiatric disorders, illnesses, and symptomatology, we wave our prescription pads (or e-pads), like wands, hoping to calm the torrents of the psychiatric sea with yet another prescription. However, I’m not writing this to bemoan modern psychopharmacology, for it has saved and improved lives and led to a fruitful practice and livelihood for me and most of my colleagues. As the torrents of illness continue to flare around us, I’m not advocating that we put down our wands and become strictly therapists. What I am advocating for is the use of different wands, as it were.
Our chosen wand is undoubtedly largely composed of monoamine-based remedies – most involving the holy trinity of serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine. As we stand on our island, trying to quell hurricane-force winds, shark-infested waters, or a tidal wave, we wave the same wand – hoping that a dash of monoamine will slow down winds, scare away sharks, and reduce the destructive capacity of water.
We, more than those in any other medical profession, use the same basic treatments for heterogeneous disorders, whose true underlying physiology, despite important progress over the years, remains elusive and only partly understood. We see improvement and even resolution sometimes, but, for the most part, our treatments keep our patients going, so they can continue to sail, just avoiding being capsized by the psychiatric torrents beneath the surface. When the torrents flare, we wave the same wand again, hoping that another dash of monoamine modulation, this time, maybe in a new wrapper, or with a new name, will keep the ocean calm for a bit longer. Now, this has worked for decades to keep many ships from being capsized and our island still largely habitable, but this strategy is akin to building a shelter out of twigs and leaves and grasses, and never advancing to permanent construction techniques, and just replacing broken branches and leaves that will, undoubtedly, break again.
As we stand on our island, I say, we use the branches, leaves, and twigs to build a bridge to another island, and, there, we can make new wands.
In 2020, the materials for these new wands are readily available, but we have to be willing to trust these new wands, and yet not completely discard the old wands we have used for so long. These new wands are the nonmonoamine-based treatments, which have shown remarkable efficacy and safety in patients across the country and the world. We must accept that we, as a species, are remarkably complex creatures, and the disorders we try to treat have their origins in the most complex part of our being: the brain. Therefore, considering the complexity, it is only reasonable to think that there is more to our illnesses than modulating monoamines.
In 2020, I challenge every day, clinical psychiatrists to embrace these new treatments and wave these new wands. As someone who has been fortunate enough to prescribe ketamine infusion and nasal sprays in the clinic, I can say we must gravitate toward these new treatments when clinically appropriate. While ketamine treatment is no panacea, its use, and the adoption of other nonmonoamine-based treatments, hopefully will fuel the development, use, and perhaps, most importantly, novel thinking about new biological treatment of psychiatric illness.
Dr. Shroff is board-certified in psychiatry in sleep medicine, and practices in Smyrna, Ga. He is a fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
Now that 2019 has passed us by, it is a time for reflection for most of us. We can think about the state of our important relationships, perhaps the growth of our children or other loved ones, the trajectory of our practices, and ideas for the future. Most commonly, I would wager, we likely think about how we might do things differently in the new year.
Applying this lens to our chosen profession, the practice of clinical psychiatry, I hope 2020 brings real, or at least, incremental change. Our profession has evolved markedly over the last several decades, from psychoanalysis to the psychopharmacology revolution, to a now largely multimodal approach. Our treatment of psychiatric illness has evolved and, for the most part, improved the lives of millions across the country and around the world.
However, in so doing, we have, perhaps inadvertently, or maybe out of necessity, found ourselves on an allegorical island that we, as clinical, everyday psychiatrists defend to the death. Surrounded by an ocean of psychiatric disorders, illnesses, and symptomatology, we wave our prescription pads (or e-pads), like wands, hoping to calm the torrents of the psychiatric sea with yet another prescription. However, I’m not writing this to bemoan modern psychopharmacology, for it has saved and improved lives and led to a fruitful practice and livelihood for me and most of my colleagues. As the torrents of illness continue to flare around us, I’m not advocating that we put down our wands and become strictly therapists. What I am advocating for is the use of different wands, as it were.
Our chosen wand is undoubtedly largely composed of monoamine-based remedies – most involving the holy trinity of serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine. As we stand on our island, trying to quell hurricane-force winds, shark-infested waters, or a tidal wave, we wave the same wand – hoping that a dash of monoamine will slow down winds, scare away sharks, and reduce the destructive capacity of water.
We, more than those in any other medical profession, use the same basic treatments for heterogeneous disorders, whose true underlying physiology, despite important progress over the years, remains elusive and only partly understood. We see improvement and even resolution sometimes, but, for the most part, our treatments keep our patients going, so they can continue to sail, just avoiding being capsized by the psychiatric torrents beneath the surface. When the torrents flare, we wave the same wand again, hoping that another dash of monoamine modulation, this time, maybe in a new wrapper, or with a new name, will keep the ocean calm for a bit longer. Now, this has worked for decades to keep many ships from being capsized and our island still largely habitable, but this strategy is akin to building a shelter out of twigs and leaves and grasses, and never advancing to permanent construction techniques, and just replacing broken branches and leaves that will, undoubtedly, break again.
As we stand on our island, I say, we use the branches, leaves, and twigs to build a bridge to another island, and, there, we can make new wands.
In 2020, the materials for these new wands are readily available, but we have to be willing to trust these new wands, and yet not completely discard the old wands we have used for so long. These new wands are the nonmonoamine-based treatments, which have shown remarkable efficacy and safety in patients across the country and the world. We must accept that we, as a species, are remarkably complex creatures, and the disorders we try to treat have their origins in the most complex part of our being: the brain. Therefore, considering the complexity, it is only reasonable to think that there is more to our illnesses than modulating monoamines.
In 2020, I challenge every day, clinical psychiatrists to embrace these new treatments and wave these new wands. As someone who has been fortunate enough to prescribe ketamine infusion and nasal sprays in the clinic, I can say we must gravitate toward these new treatments when clinically appropriate. While ketamine treatment is no panacea, its use, and the adoption of other nonmonoamine-based treatments, hopefully will fuel the development, use, and perhaps, most importantly, novel thinking about new biological treatment of psychiatric illness.
Dr. Shroff is board-certified in psychiatry in sleep medicine, and practices in Smyrna, Ga. He is a fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
Now that 2019 has passed us by, it is a time for reflection for most of us. We can think about the state of our important relationships, perhaps the growth of our children or other loved ones, the trajectory of our practices, and ideas for the future. Most commonly, I would wager, we likely think about how we might do things differently in the new year.
Applying this lens to our chosen profession, the practice of clinical psychiatry, I hope 2020 brings real, or at least, incremental change. Our profession has evolved markedly over the last several decades, from psychoanalysis to the psychopharmacology revolution, to a now largely multimodal approach. Our treatment of psychiatric illness has evolved and, for the most part, improved the lives of millions across the country and around the world.
However, in so doing, we have, perhaps inadvertently, or maybe out of necessity, found ourselves on an allegorical island that we, as clinical, everyday psychiatrists defend to the death. Surrounded by an ocean of psychiatric disorders, illnesses, and symptomatology, we wave our prescription pads (or e-pads), like wands, hoping to calm the torrents of the psychiatric sea with yet another prescription. However, I’m not writing this to bemoan modern psychopharmacology, for it has saved and improved lives and led to a fruitful practice and livelihood for me and most of my colleagues. As the torrents of illness continue to flare around us, I’m not advocating that we put down our wands and become strictly therapists. What I am advocating for is the use of different wands, as it were.
Our chosen wand is undoubtedly largely composed of monoamine-based remedies – most involving the holy trinity of serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine. As we stand on our island, trying to quell hurricane-force winds, shark-infested waters, or a tidal wave, we wave the same wand – hoping that a dash of monoamine will slow down winds, scare away sharks, and reduce the destructive capacity of water.
We, more than those in any other medical profession, use the same basic treatments for heterogeneous disorders, whose true underlying physiology, despite important progress over the years, remains elusive and only partly understood. We see improvement and even resolution sometimes, but, for the most part, our treatments keep our patients going, so they can continue to sail, just avoiding being capsized by the psychiatric torrents beneath the surface. When the torrents flare, we wave the same wand again, hoping that another dash of monoamine modulation, this time, maybe in a new wrapper, or with a new name, will keep the ocean calm for a bit longer. Now, this has worked for decades to keep many ships from being capsized and our island still largely habitable, but this strategy is akin to building a shelter out of twigs and leaves and grasses, and never advancing to permanent construction techniques, and just replacing broken branches and leaves that will, undoubtedly, break again.
As we stand on our island, I say, we use the branches, leaves, and twigs to build a bridge to another island, and, there, we can make new wands.
In 2020, the materials for these new wands are readily available, but we have to be willing to trust these new wands, and yet not completely discard the old wands we have used for so long. These new wands are the nonmonoamine-based treatments, which have shown remarkable efficacy and safety in patients across the country and the world. We must accept that we, as a species, are remarkably complex creatures, and the disorders we try to treat have their origins in the most complex part of our being: the brain. Therefore, considering the complexity, it is only reasonable to think that there is more to our illnesses than modulating monoamines.
In 2020, I challenge every day, clinical psychiatrists to embrace these new treatments and wave these new wands. As someone who has been fortunate enough to prescribe ketamine infusion and nasal sprays in the clinic, I can say we must gravitate toward these new treatments when clinically appropriate. While ketamine treatment is no panacea, its use, and the adoption of other nonmonoamine-based treatments, hopefully will fuel the development, use, and perhaps, most importantly, novel thinking about new biological treatment of psychiatric illness.
Dr. Shroff is board-certified in psychiatry in sleep medicine, and practices in Smyrna, Ga. He is a fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
Study simplifies bladder cancer molecular subtypes
Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) can be divided into six molecular classes that may eventually guide clinical decision making, according to an international consensus group.
The six classes are based on a variety of disease factors, including immune and stromal cell infiltration, oncogenic mechanisms, histologic features, and clinical characteristics, reported lead author Aurélie Kamoun, PhD, of Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer in Paris, and colleagues.
Although several molecular classification systems for MIBC have been previously published, subtypes have varied widely, the investigators explained in European Urology.
“This diversity has impeded transferring subtypes into clinical practice and highlights that establishing a single consensus set of molecular subtypes would facilitate achieving such a transfer,” the investigators wrote.
In order to reach a consensus, the investigators drew data from the six previously published classification systems, including 1,750 transcriptomic profiles from 16 published datasets and 2 additional patient populations.
Using a network-based approach, the investigators identified consensus classes that reconciled differences between the previously published systems. This process revealed a core set of 1,084 consensus samples, from which the investigators built a single-sample transcriptomic classifier. This free tool is now available online at https://github.com/cit-bioinfo/consensusMIBC.
The six consensus molecular classes (with prevalence among samples) are basal/squamous (35%), luminal papillary (24%), luminal unstable (15%), luminal nonspecified (8%), stroma rich (15%), and neuroendocrine like (3%).
The investigators described a number of disease characteristics that correlate with each molecular class, from the genomic to the clinical level. For example, basal/squamous tumors were associated with TP53 mutations and immune infiltration involving natural killer cells and cytotoxic lymphocytes.
Similar conclusions were described at the clinical level.
Consensus class predicted overall survival, with neuroendocrine-like tumors having the worst prognosis relative to luminal papillary tumors (hazard ratio, 2.34; P less than .03).
The investigators also highlighted some possible treatment implications related to subtype. For example, patients with basal/squamous or luminal nonspecified tumors derived benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Similarly, patients with luminal nonspecified, luminal unstable, or neuroendocrine-like tumors were more likely to respond when given atezolizumab.
“We expect that this consensus classification will help the development of MIBC precision medicine by providing a robust framework to connect clinical findings to molecular contexts and to identify clinically relevant biomarkers for patient management,” Dr. Kamoun and coauthors concluded.
The investigators reported relationships with Bayer, Astellas, Genentech, and others.
SOURCE: Kamoun A et al. Eur Urol. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.006.
Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) can be divided into six molecular classes that may eventually guide clinical decision making, according to an international consensus group.
The six classes are based on a variety of disease factors, including immune and stromal cell infiltration, oncogenic mechanisms, histologic features, and clinical characteristics, reported lead author Aurélie Kamoun, PhD, of Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer in Paris, and colleagues.
Although several molecular classification systems for MIBC have been previously published, subtypes have varied widely, the investigators explained in European Urology.
“This diversity has impeded transferring subtypes into clinical practice and highlights that establishing a single consensus set of molecular subtypes would facilitate achieving such a transfer,” the investigators wrote.
In order to reach a consensus, the investigators drew data from the six previously published classification systems, including 1,750 transcriptomic profiles from 16 published datasets and 2 additional patient populations.
Using a network-based approach, the investigators identified consensus classes that reconciled differences between the previously published systems. This process revealed a core set of 1,084 consensus samples, from which the investigators built a single-sample transcriptomic classifier. This free tool is now available online at https://github.com/cit-bioinfo/consensusMIBC.
The six consensus molecular classes (with prevalence among samples) are basal/squamous (35%), luminal papillary (24%), luminal unstable (15%), luminal nonspecified (8%), stroma rich (15%), and neuroendocrine like (3%).
The investigators described a number of disease characteristics that correlate with each molecular class, from the genomic to the clinical level. For example, basal/squamous tumors were associated with TP53 mutations and immune infiltration involving natural killer cells and cytotoxic lymphocytes.
Similar conclusions were described at the clinical level.
Consensus class predicted overall survival, with neuroendocrine-like tumors having the worst prognosis relative to luminal papillary tumors (hazard ratio, 2.34; P less than .03).
The investigators also highlighted some possible treatment implications related to subtype. For example, patients with basal/squamous or luminal nonspecified tumors derived benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Similarly, patients with luminal nonspecified, luminal unstable, or neuroendocrine-like tumors were more likely to respond when given atezolizumab.
“We expect that this consensus classification will help the development of MIBC precision medicine by providing a robust framework to connect clinical findings to molecular contexts and to identify clinically relevant biomarkers for patient management,” Dr. Kamoun and coauthors concluded.
The investigators reported relationships with Bayer, Astellas, Genentech, and others.
SOURCE: Kamoun A et al. Eur Urol. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.006.
Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) can be divided into six molecular classes that may eventually guide clinical decision making, according to an international consensus group.
The six classes are based on a variety of disease factors, including immune and stromal cell infiltration, oncogenic mechanisms, histologic features, and clinical characteristics, reported lead author Aurélie Kamoun, PhD, of Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer in Paris, and colleagues.
Although several molecular classification systems for MIBC have been previously published, subtypes have varied widely, the investigators explained in European Urology.
“This diversity has impeded transferring subtypes into clinical practice and highlights that establishing a single consensus set of molecular subtypes would facilitate achieving such a transfer,” the investigators wrote.
In order to reach a consensus, the investigators drew data from the six previously published classification systems, including 1,750 transcriptomic profiles from 16 published datasets and 2 additional patient populations.
Using a network-based approach, the investigators identified consensus classes that reconciled differences between the previously published systems. This process revealed a core set of 1,084 consensus samples, from which the investigators built a single-sample transcriptomic classifier. This free tool is now available online at https://github.com/cit-bioinfo/consensusMIBC.
The six consensus molecular classes (with prevalence among samples) are basal/squamous (35%), luminal papillary (24%), luminal unstable (15%), luminal nonspecified (8%), stroma rich (15%), and neuroendocrine like (3%).
The investigators described a number of disease characteristics that correlate with each molecular class, from the genomic to the clinical level. For example, basal/squamous tumors were associated with TP53 mutations and immune infiltration involving natural killer cells and cytotoxic lymphocytes.
Similar conclusions were described at the clinical level.
Consensus class predicted overall survival, with neuroendocrine-like tumors having the worst prognosis relative to luminal papillary tumors (hazard ratio, 2.34; P less than .03).
The investigators also highlighted some possible treatment implications related to subtype. For example, patients with basal/squamous or luminal nonspecified tumors derived benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Similarly, patients with luminal nonspecified, luminal unstable, or neuroendocrine-like tumors were more likely to respond when given atezolizumab.
“We expect that this consensus classification will help the development of MIBC precision medicine by providing a robust framework to connect clinical findings to molecular contexts and to identify clinically relevant biomarkers for patient management,” Dr. Kamoun and coauthors concluded.
The investigators reported relationships with Bayer, Astellas, Genentech, and others.
SOURCE: Kamoun A et al. Eur Urol. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.006.
FROM EUROPEAN UROLOGY
Aligning scheduling and satisfaction
Research reveals counterintuitive results
Hospitalist work schedules have been the subject of much reporting – and recent research. Studies have shown that control over work hours and schedule flexibility are predictors of clinicians’ career satisfaction and burnout, factors linked to quality of patient care and retention.
Starting in January 2017, an academic hospital medicine group at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, undertook a scheduling redesign using improvement methodology, combined with purchased scheduling software. Tyler Anstett, DO, a hospitalist and assistant professor at the university, and colleagues presented the results in an abstract published during the SHM 2019 annual conference last March.
“We wrote this abstract as a report of the work that we did over several years in our hospital medicine group to improve hospitalist satisfaction with their schedules,” said Dr. Anstett. “We identified that, despite not following the traditional seven-on, seven-off model and 100% fulfillment of individual schedule requests, the majority of clinicians were dissatisfied with the scheduling process and their overall clinical schedules. Further, building these complex, individualized schedules resulted in a heavy administrative burden. We strove to provide better alignment of schedule satisfaction and the administrative burden of incorporating individualized schedule requests.”
Prior to January 2017, service stretches had ranged from 5 to 9 days, and there were few limits on time-off requests.
“Through sequential interventions, we standardized service stretches to 7 days (Tuesday-Monday), introduced a limited number of guaranteed 7-day time-off requests (Tuesday-Monday), and added a limited number of nonguaranteed 3-day flexible time-off requests,” according to the authors. “This simplification improved the automation of the scheduling software, which increased the schedule release lead time to an average of 16 weeks. Further, despite standardizing service stretches to 7 days and limiting time-off requests, physicians surveyed reported improved satisfaction with both their scheduling process (34% of participants ‘satisfied’ in 2017 to 67% in 2018) and their overall clinical schedules (50% of participants ‘satisfied’ in 2017 to 75% in 2018).”So counterintuitively, creating individualized schedules may not result in improved satisfaction and likely results in heavy administrative burden, Dr. Anstett said. “Standardization of schedule creation with allowance of a ‘free-market’ system, allowing clinicians to self-individualize their schedules may also result in less administrative burden and improved satisfaction.”
Reference
1. Anstett T et al. K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple … Schedules): How Standardization and Simplification Can Improve Scheduling and Physician Satisfaction. SHM 2019, Abstract 112. Accessed June 4, 2019.
Research reveals counterintuitive results
Research reveals counterintuitive results
Hospitalist work schedules have been the subject of much reporting – and recent research. Studies have shown that control over work hours and schedule flexibility are predictors of clinicians’ career satisfaction and burnout, factors linked to quality of patient care and retention.
Starting in January 2017, an academic hospital medicine group at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, undertook a scheduling redesign using improvement methodology, combined with purchased scheduling software. Tyler Anstett, DO, a hospitalist and assistant professor at the university, and colleagues presented the results in an abstract published during the SHM 2019 annual conference last March.
“We wrote this abstract as a report of the work that we did over several years in our hospital medicine group to improve hospitalist satisfaction with their schedules,” said Dr. Anstett. “We identified that, despite not following the traditional seven-on, seven-off model and 100% fulfillment of individual schedule requests, the majority of clinicians were dissatisfied with the scheduling process and their overall clinical schedules. Further, building these complex, individualized schedules resulted in a heavy administrative burden. We strove to provide better alignment of schedule satisfaction and the administrative burden of incorporating individualized schedule requests.”
Prior to January 2017, service stretches had ranged from 5 to 9 days, and there were few limits on time-off requests.
“Through sequential interventions, we standardized service stretches to 7 days (Tuesday-Monday), introduced a limited number of guaranteed 7-day time-off requests (Tuesday-Monday), and added a limited number of nonguaranteed 3-day flexible time-off requests,” according to the authors. “This simplification improved the automation of the scheduling software, which increased the schedule release lead time to an average of 16 weeks. Further, despite standardizing service stretches to 7 days and limiting time-off requests, physicians surveyed reported improved satisfaction with both their scheduling process (34% of participants ‘satisfied’ in 2017 to 67% in 2018) and their overall clinical schedules (50% of participants ‘satisfied’ in 2017 to 75% in 2018).”So counterintuitively, creating individualized schedules may not result in improved satisfaction and likely results in heavy administrative burden, Dr. Anstett said. “Standardization of schedule creation with allowance of a ‘free-market’ system, allowing clinicians to self-individualize their schedules may also result in less administrative burden and improved satisfaction.”
Reference
1. Anstett T et al. K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple … Schedules): How Standardization and Simplification Can Improve Scheduling and Physician Satisfaction. SHM 2019, Abstract 112. Accessed June 4, 2019.
Hospitalist work schedules have been the subject of much reporting – and recent research. Studies have shown that control over work hours and schedule flexibility are predictors of clinicians’ career satisfaction and burnout, factors linked to quality of patient care and retention.
Starting in January 2017, an academic hospital medicine group at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, undertook a scheduling redesign using improvement methodology, combined with purchased scheduling software. Tyler Anstett, DO, a hospitalist and assistant professor at the university, and colleagues presented the results in an abstract published during the SHM 2019 annual conference last March.
“We wrote this abstract as a report of the work that we did over several years in our hospital medicine group to improve hospitalist satisfaction with their schedules,” said Dr. Anstett. “We identified that, despite not following the traditional seven-on, seven-off model and 100% fulfillment of individual schedule requests, the majority of clinicians were dissatisfied with the scheduling process and their overall clinical schedules. Further, building these complex, individualized schedules resulted in a heavy administrative burden. We strove to provide better alignment of schedule satisfaction and the administrative burden of incorporating individualized schedule requests.”
Prior to January 2017, service stretches had ranged from 5 to 9 days, and there were few limits on time-off requests.
“Through sequential interventions, we standardized service stretches to 7 days (Tuesday-Monday), introduced a limited number of guaranteed 7-day time-off requests (Tuesday-Monday), and added a limited number of nonguaranteed 3-day flexible time-off requests,” according to the authors. “This simplification improved the automation of the scheduling software, which increased the schedule release lead time to an average of 16 weeks. Further, despite standardizing service stretches to 7 days and limiting time-off requests, physicians surveyed reported improved satisfaction with both their scheduling process (34% of participants ‘satisfied’ in 2017 to 67% in 2018) and their overall clinical schedules (50% of participants ‘satisfied’ in 2017 to 75% in 2018).”So counterintuitively, creating individualized schedules may not result in improved satisfaction and likely results in heavy administrative burden, Dr. Anstett said. “Standardization of schedule creation with allowance of a ‘free-market’ system, allowing clinicians to self-individualize their schedules may also result in less administrative burden and improved satisfaction.”
Reference
1. Anstett T et al. K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple … Schedules): How Standardization and Simplification Can Improve Scheduling and Physician Satisfaction. SHM 2019, Abstract 112. Accessed June 4, 2019.
Top AGA Community patient cases
Physicians with difficult patient scenarios regularly bring their questions to the AGA Community (https://community.gastro.org) to seek advice from colleagues about therapy and disease management options, best practices, and diagnoses. In case you missed it, here are the most popular clinical discussions shared in the forum recently:
1. Possible congestive heart failure, tuberculosis (http://ow.ly/QdmG30pZqqo) – Join the GI community in discussing the echocardiogram results of a Holocaust survivor with a history of diabetes, hypothyroidism, benign prostate hyperplasia and hypercholesterolemia, and whose daughter was recently found to be QuantiFERON Gold positive.
2. Recurrent diarrhea in Behcet’s disease patient (http://ow.ly/YX6L30pZqws) – A 42-year-old patient diagnosed with Behcet’s disease at age 13 presented with recurrent diarrhea; a colonoscopy revealed terminal ileal and cecal ulcerations.
3. Gastroparesis patient unable to take anti-emetics (http://ow.ly/E5jD30pZqw4) – Help your colleague address a tricky patient with prolonged QT and gastroparesis.
Access these clinical cases and more discussions at https://community.gastro.org/discussions.
Physicians with difficult patient scenarios regularly bring their questions to the AGA Community (https://community.gastro.org) to seek advice from colleagues about therapy and disease management options, best practices, and diagnoses. In case you missed it, here are the most popular clinical discussions shared in the forum recently:
1. Possible congestive heart failure, tuberculosis (http://ow.ly/QdmG30pZqqo) – Join the GI community in discussing the echocardiogram results of a Holocaust survivor with a history of diabetes, hypothyroidism, benign prostate hyperplasia and hypercholesterolemia, and whose daughter was recently found to be QuantiFERON Gold positive.
2. Recurrent diarrhea in Behcet’s disease patient (http://ow.ly/YX6L30pZqws) – A 42-year-old patient diagnosed with Behcet’s disease at age 13 presented with recurrent diarrhea; a colonoscopy revealed terminal ileal and cecal ulcerations.
3. Gastroparesis patient unable to take anti-emetics (http://ow.ly/E5jD30pZqw4) – Help your colleague address a tricky patient with prolonged QT and gastroparesis.
Access these clinical cases and more discussions at https://community.gastro.org/discussions.
Physicians with difficult patient scenarios regularly bring their questions to the AGA Community (https://community.gastro.org) to seek advice from colleagues about therapy and disease management options, best practices, and diagnoses. In case you missed it, here are the most popular clinical discussions shared in the forum recently:
1. Possible congestive heart failure, tuberculosis (http://ow.ly/QdmG30pZqqo) – Join the GI community in discussing the echocardiogram results of a Holocaust survivor with a history of diabetes, hypothyroidism, benign prostate hyperplasia and hypercholesterolemia, and whose daughter was recently found to be QuantiFERON Gold positive.
2. Recurrent diarrhea in Behcet’s disease patient (http://ow.ly/YX6L30pZqws) – A 42-year-old patient diagnosed with Behcet’s disease at age 13 presented with recurrent diarrhea; a colonoscopy revealed terminal ileal and cecal ulcerations.
3. Gastroparesis patient unable to take anti-emetics (http://ow.ly/E5jD30pZqw4) – Help your colleague address a tricky patient with prolonged QT and gastroparesis.
Access these clinical cases and more discussions at https://community.gastro.org/discussions.
Simple ways to create your legacy
Creating a legacy of giving is easier than you think. As the new year begins, take some time to start creating your legacy while supporting the AGA Research Foundation. Gifts to charitable organizations, such as the AGA Research Foundation, in your future plans ensure your support for our mission continues even after your lifetime.
Here are two ideas to help you get started.
Name the AGA Research Foundation as a beneficiary. This arrangement is one of the most tax-smart ways to support the AGA Research Foundation after your lifetime. When you leave retirement plan assets to us, we bypass any taxes and receive the full amount.
Include the AGA Research Foundation in your will or living trust. This gift can be made by including as little as one sentence in your will or living trust. Plus, your gift can be modified throughout your lifetime as circumstances change.
Want to learn more about including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your future plans? Visit our website at https://gastro.planmylegacy.org or contact Harmony Excellent at 301-272-1602 or [email protected].
Creating a legacy of giving is easier than you think. As the new year begins, take some time to start creating your legacy while supporting the AGA Research Foundation. Gifts to charitable organizations, such as the AGA Research Foundation, in your future plans ensure your support for our mission continues even after your lifetime.
Here are two ideas to help you get started.
Name the AGA Research Foundation as a beneficiary. This arrangement is one of the most tax-smart ways to support the AGA Research Foundation after your lifetime. When you leave retirement plan assets to us, we bypass any taxes and receive the full amount.
Include the AGA Research Foundation in your will or living trust. This gift can be made by including as little as one sentence in your will or living trust. Plus, your gift can be modified throughout your lifetime as circumstances change.
Want to learn more about including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your future plans? Visit our website at https://gastro.planmylegacy.org or contact Harmony Excellent at 301-272-1602 or [email protected].
Creating a legacy of giving is easier than you think. As the new year begins, take some time to start creating your legacy while supporting the AGA Research Foundation. Gifts to charitable organizations, such as the AGA Research Foundation, in your future plans ensure your support for our mission continues even after your lifetime.
Here are two ideas to help you get started.
Name the AGA Research Foundation as a beneficiary. This arrangement is one of the most tax-smart ways to support the AGA Research Foundation after your lifetime. When you leave retirement plan assets to us, we bypass any taxes and receive the full amount.
Include the AGA Research Foundation in your will or living trust. This gift can be made by including as little as one sentence in your will or living trust. Plus, your gift can be modified throughout your lifetime as circumstances change.
Want to learn more about including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your future plans? Visit our website at https://gastro.planmylegacy.org or contact Harmony Excellent at 301-272-1602 or [email protected].
Talk to your patients about the current state of prebiotics
Bridgette Wilson, PhD, RD, postdoctoral research associate in nutritional sciences, and Kevin Whelan, PhD, RD, professor of dietetics, King’s College London, England, share talking points to help your patients understand what is currently known about the use of prebiotics for GI disorders.
Explaining prebiotics for GI disorders
Different prebiotic supplements have different effects on gut symptoms. For example, lower doses of noninulin type fructans (e.g., beta-galacto-oligosaccharides [GOS], pectin, partially hydrolyzed guar gum) are likely to be better tolerated in patients with functional gut symptoms, including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).
Though prebiotic-containing foods are thought to benefit gut health in general, some prebiotics are FODMAPs that have been associated with symptoms in IBS patients. Individual patients on restrictive diets should systematically introduce prebiotic foods to identify the type and quantity they can tolerate.
Prebiotic supplementation of more than 10 g/d may soften stools and increase bowel movements in patients with defecation difficulty or constipation.
Prebiotic supplementation may worsen symptoms in Crohn’s disease but is well tolerated in ulcerative colitis, although there is no effect on disease activity.
These tips are from “The current state of prebiotics,” the third article of a four-part CME series on prebiotics. This activity is supported by an educational grant from GlaxoSmithKline. Part one, “Prebiotics 101,” and part two, “Diet vs. Prebiotics,” are available through AGA University (agau.gastro.org).
AGA also has educational materials for patients on probiotics, which can be accessed at www.gastro.org/probiotics in English and Spanish.
Bridgette Wilson, PhD, RD, postdoctoral research associate in nutritional sciences, and Kevin Whelan, PhD, RD, professor of dietetics, King’s College London, England, share talking points to help your patients understand what is currently known about the use of prebiotics for GI disorders.
Explaining prebiotics for GI disorders
Different prebiotic supplements have different effects on gut symptoms. For example, lower doses of noninulin type fructans (e.g., beta-galacto-oligosaccharides [GOS], pectin, partially hydrolyzed guar gum) are likely to be better tolerated in patients with functional gut symptoms, including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).
Though prebiotic-containing foods are thought to benefit gut health in general, some prebiotics are FODMAPs that have been associated with symptoms in IBS patients. Individual patients on restrictive diets should systematically introduce prebiotic foods to identify the type and quantity they can tolerate.
Prebiotic supplementation of more than 10 g/d may soften stools and increase bowel movements in patients with defecation difficulty or constipation.
Prebiotic supplementation may worsen symptoms in Crohn’s disease but is well tolerated in ulcerative colitis, although there is no effect on disease activity.
These tips are from “The current state of prebiotics,” the third article of a four-part CME series on prebiotics. This activity is supported by an educational grant from GlaxoSmithKline. Part one, “Prebiotics 101,” and part two, “Diet vs. Prebiotics,” are available through AGA University (agau.gastro.org).
AGA also has educational materials for patients on probiotics, which can be accessed at www.gastro.org/probiotics in English and Spanish.
Bridgette Wilson, PhD, RD, postdoctoral research associate in nutritional sciences, and Kevin Whelan, PhD, RD, professor of dietetics, King’s College London, England, share talking points to help your patients understand what is currently known about the use of prebiotics for GI disorders.
Explaining prebiotics for GI disorders
Different prebiotic supplements have different effects on gut symptoms. For example, lower doses of noninulin type fructans (e.g., beta-galacto-oligosaccharides [GOS], pectin, partially hydrolyzed guar gum) are likely to be better tolerated in patients with functional gut symptoms, including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).
Though prebiotic-containing foods are thought to benefit gut health in general, some prebiotics are FODMAPs that have been associated with symptoms in IBS patients. Individual patients on restrictive diets should systematically introduce prebiotic foods to identify the type and quantity they can tolerate.
Prebiotic supplementation of more than 10 g/d may soften stools and increase bowel movements in patients with defecation difficulty or constipation.
Prebiotic supplementation may worsen symptoms in Crohn’s disease but is well tolerated in ulcerative colitis, although there is no effect on disease activity.
These tips are from “The current state of prebiotics,” the third article of a four-part CME series on prebiotics. This activity is supported by an educational grant from GlaxoSmithKline. Part one, “Prebiotics 101,” and part two, “Diet vs. Prebiotics,” are available through AGA University (agau.gastro.org).
AGA also has educational materials for patients on probiotics, which can be accessed at www.gastro.org/probiotics in English and Spanish.
Step Therapy National Day of Advocacy
AGA and 17 other specialty physician and patient advocacy organizations partnered with the Digestive Disease National Coalition (DDNC) on an advocacy day focused on the need for step therapy reform.
We met with congressional offices to seek support for patient protection guardrails in step therapy and to encourage co-sponsorship of the Safe Step Act. This bipartisan legislation would create a clear process for a patient or physician to request an exception to a step therapy protocol. It also would require insurers to grant exemptions to step therapy in the following situations:
- Patient already tried and failed on a required treatment
- Delayed treatment will cause irreversible damage
- Required treatment will cause harm to the patient
- Required treatment will prevent a patient from working or fulling daily activities
- Patient is stable on their current treatment
AGA representatives and patient advocates met with the congressional offices of these legislators who serve on key committees that have jurisdiction over this issue.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-N.C.
Rep. Alma Adams, D-N.C.
Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C.
Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich
A special thanks to AGA members who contacted your legislators online. A combination of 344 tweets and emails were sent urging federal legislators to support the Safe Step Act.
Sharing is caring
Legislators and their staff are always asking us for real-life examples from constituents about step therapy burdens to humanize the issue. Contact AGA staff at [email protected] to share your story.
AGA and 17 other specialty physician and patient advocacy organizations partnered with the Digestive Disease National Coalition (DDNC) on an advocacy day focused on the need for step therapy reform.
We met with congressional offices to seek support for patient protection guardrails in step therapy and to encourage co-sponsorship of the Safe Step Act. This bipartisan legislation would create a clear process for a patient or physician to request an exception to a step therapy protocol. It also would require insurers to grant exemptions to step therapy in the following situations:
- Patient already tried and failed on a required treatment
- Delayed treatment will cause irreversible damage
- Required treatment will cause harm to the patient
- Required treatment will prevent a patient from working or fulling daily activities
- Patient is stable on their current treatment
AGA representatives and patient advocates met with the congressional offices of these legislators who serve on key committees that have jurisdiction over this issue.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-N.C.
Rep. Alma Adams, D-N.C.
Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C.
Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich
A special thanks to AGA members who contacted your legislators online. A combination of 344 tweets and emails were sent urging federal legislators to support the Safe Step Act.
Sharing is caring
Legislators and their staff are always asking us for real-life examples from constituents about step therapy burdens to humanize the issue. Contact AGA staff at [email protected] to share your story.
AGA and 17 other specialty physician and patient advocacy organizations partnered with the Digestive Disease National Coalition (DDNC) on an advocacy day focused on the need for step therapy reform.
We met with congressional offices to seek support for patient protection guardrails in step therapy and to encourage co-sponsorship of the Safe Step Act. This bipartisan legislation would create a clear process for a patient or physician to request an exception to a step therapy protocol. It also would require insurers to grant exemptions to step therapy in the following situations:
- Patient already tried and failed on a required treatment
- Delayed treatment will cause irreversible damage
- Required treatment will cause harm to the patient
- Required treatment will prevent a patient from working or fulling daily activities
- Patient is stable on their current treatment
AGA representatives and patient advocates met with the congressional offices of these legislators who serve on key committees that have jurisdiction over this issue.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-N.C.
Rep. Alma Adams, D-N.C.
Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C.
Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich
A special thanks to AGA members who contacted your legislators online. A combination of 344 tweets and emails were sent urging federal legislators to support the Safe Step Act.
Sharing is caring
Legislators and their staff are always asking us for real-life examples from constituents about step therapy burdens to humanize the issue. Contact AGA staff at [email protected] to share your story.
GI societies advise FDA on duodenoscope reprocessing
AGA, ACG, ASGE and SAGES were represented by three physicians who made oral remarks to the panel: Michael Kochman, MD, AGAF, Wilmott Professor of Medicine and Surgery at the University of Pennsylvania; Bret Petersen, MD, FASGE, professor of medicine and advanced endoscopist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. and Danielle Walsh, MD, associate professor of surgery at East Carolina University.
The GI societies over-arching goal is to ensure patient safety and ready access to clinically indicated procedures employing duodenoscopes and other elevator-channel endoscopes.
The panel discussed the adequacy/margin of safety for high-level disinfection, as well as the challenges and benefits of sterilization for routine for duodenoscope reprocessing. The panel’s consensus was that cleaning is the most important step in duodenoscope reprocessing. The panel noted that in properly cleaned duodenoscopes, high-level disinfection is appropriate; however, panel members acknowledged that reports indicate that duodenoscopes are not properly cleaned. The panel also discussed the challenges of implementing sterilization of duodenoscopes, such as potential decreased patient access to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and increased costs.
On behalf of the GI societies, Dr. Kochman and Dr. Petersen proposed several overarching principles for the future evolution of our clinical practices focusing on patient safety and outcomes:
We encourage embracing multiple solutions, using a measured step-wise approach to the transition with both iterative and novel devices and processes.
We encourage data-based solutions addressing real-world efficacy while incorporating ongoing surveillance of processes and performance to ensure that early trouble signals are detected.
We believe that device or reprocessing transitions can be incorporated over the lifecycle of current instrumentation, to eliminate the potential for gaps in accessibility of care and to ensure that there is adequate efficacy and safety data to support the adoption of new technology.
We accept minimizing extensive premarket studies, while expecting vigilant post-market surveillance, for technologies or device changes made exclusively with intent to convert to conceptually more safe designs without significant changes in mechanism or function.
We support the addition of durability testing for devices undergoing both standard reprocessing and, in particular, those undergoing sterilization.
Our societies are prepared to support and participate in continued discussion regarding:
Mandatory servicing and inspections.
Mandatory device retirement for reusable devices.
Assessment of the role and standards for third-party inspection and repair.
Our societies strongly support the importance and oversight of succinct, practical, reproducible, user-friendly guidance in manufacturers’ instructions for use (IFUs), which should incorporate post-market validation studies and updates.
We recommend that devices that incorporate programmable features (AERs, washers, sterilizers) should have lock-down mechanisms in place to prevent both user and manufacturer from deviating from the FDA-cleared IFU parameters for the device.
Our societies, as well as numerous guidelines, include high-level disinfection as a currently acceptable option for endoscope reprocessing, assuming use of enhanced washing and drying standards of practice.
Finally, we support the FDA in its efforts to convey to companies the necessary endpoints and goals for performance and expectations relative to post-market review and development of new data to ensure efficacy in the community.
Our societies appreciated this opportunity to comment on the complex and critical topic at hand. Our over-arching goal as physicians remains that of ensuring patient safety and ready access to clinically indicated procedures employing duodenoscopes and other elevator-channel endoscopes.
AGA, ACG, ASGE and SAGES were represented by three physicians who made oral remarks to the panel: Michael Kochman, MD, AGAF, Wilmott Professor of Medicine and Surgery at the University of Pennsylvania; Bret Petersen, MD, FASGE, professor of medicine and advanced endoscopist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. and Danielle Walsh, MD, associate professor of surgery at East Carolina University.
The GI societies over-arching goal is to ensure patient safety and ready access to clinically indicated procedures employing duodenoscopes and other elevator-channel endoscopes.
The panel discussed the adequacy/margin of safety for high-level disinfection, as well as the challenges and benefits of sterilization for routine for duodenoscope reprocessing. The panel’s consensus was that cleaning is the most important step in duodenoscope reprocessing. The panel noted that in properly cleaned duodenoscopes, high-level disinfection is appropriate; however, panel members acknowledged that reports indicate that duodenoscopes are not properly cleaned. The panel also discussed the challenges of implementing sterilization of duodenoscopes, such as potential decreased patient access to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and increased costs.
On behalf of the GI societies, Dr. Kochman and Dr. Petersen proposed several overarching principles for the future evolution of our clinical practices focusing on patient safety and outcomes:
We encourage embracing multiple solutions, using a measured step-wise approach to the transition with both iterative and novel devices and processes.
We encourage data-based solutions addressing real-world efficacy while incorporating ongoing surveillance of processes and performance to ensure that early trouble signals are detected.
We believe that device or reprocessing transitions can be incorporated over the lifecycle of current instrumentation, to eliminate the potential for gaps in accessibility of care and to ensure that there is adequate efficacy and safety data to support the adoption of new technology.
We accept minimizing extensive premarket studies, while expecting vigilant post-market surveillance, for technologies or device changes made exclusively with intent to convert to conceptually more safe designs without significant changes in mechanism or function.
We support the addition of durability testing for devices undergoing both standard reprocessing and, in particular, those undergoing sterilization.
Our societies are prepared to support and participate in continued discussion regarding:
Mandatory servicing and inspections.
Mandatory device retirement for reusable devices.
Assessment of the role and standards for third-party inspection and repair.
Our societies strongly support the importance and oversight of succinct, practical, reproducible, user-friendly guidance in manufacturers’ instructions for use (IFUs), which should incorporate post-market validation studies and updates.
We recommend that devices that incorporate programmable features (AERs, washers, sterilizers) should have lock-down mechanisms in place to prevent both user and manufacturer from deviating from the FDA-cleared IFU parameters for the device.
Our societies, as well as numerous guidelines, include high-level disinfection as a currently acceptable option for endoscope reprocessing, assuming use of enhanced washing and drying standards of practice.
Finally, we support the FDA in its efforts to convey to companies the necessary endpoints and goals for performance and expectations relative to post-market review and development of new data to ensure efficacy in the community.
Our societies appreciated this opportunity to comment on the complex and critical topic at hand. Our over-arching goal as physicians remains that of ensuring patient safety and ready access to clinically indicated procedures employing duodenoscopes and other elevator-channel endoscopes.
AGA, ACG, ASGE and SAGES were represented by three physicians who made oral remarks to the panel: Michael Kochman, MD, AGAF, Wilmott Professor of Medicine and Surgery at the University of Pennsylvania; Bret Petersen, MD, FASGE, professor of medicine and advanced endoscopist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. and Danielle Walsh, MD, associate professor of surgery at East Carolina University.
The GI societies over-arching goal is to ensure patient safety and ready access to clinically indicated procedures employing duodenoscopes and other elevator-channel endoscopes.
The panel discussed the adequacy/margin of safety for high-level disinfection, as well as the challenges and benefits of sterilization for routine for duodenoscope reprocessing. The panel’s consensus was that cleaning is the most important step in duodenoscope reprocessing. The panel noted that in properly cleaned duodenoscopes, high-level disinfection is appropriate; however, panel members acknowledged that reports indicate that duodenoscopes are not properly cleaned. The panel also discussed the challenges of implementing sterilization of duodenoscopes, such as potential decreased patient access to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and increased costs.
On behalf of the GI societies, Dr. Kochman and Dr. Petersen proposed several overarching principles for the future evolution of our clinical practices focusing on patient safety and outcomes:
We encourage embracing multiple solutions, using a measured step-wise approach to the transition with both iterative and novel devices and processes.
We encourage data-based solutions addressing real-world efficacy while incorporating ongoing surveillance of processes and performance to ensure that early trouble signals are detected.
We believe that device or reprocessing transitions can be incorporated over the lifecycle of current instrumentation, to eliminate the potential for gaps in accessibility of care and to ensure that there is adequate efficacy and safety data to support the adoption of new technology.
We accept minimizing extensive premarket studies, while expecting vigilant post-market surveillance, for technologies or device changes made exclusively with intent to convert to conceptually more safe designs without significant changes in mechanism or function.
We support the addition of durability testing for devices undergoing both standard reprocessing and, in particular, those undergoing sterilization.
Our societies are prepared to support and participate in continued discussion regarding:
Mandatory servicing and inspections.
Mandatory device retirement for reusable devices.
Assessment of the role and standards for third-party inspection and repair.
Our societies strongly support the importance and oversight of succinct, practical, reproducible, user-friendly guidance in manufacturers’ instructions for use (IFUs), which should incorporate post-market validation studies and updates.
We recommend that devices that incorporate programmable features (AERs, washers, sterilizers) should have lock-down mechanisms in place to prevent both user and manufacturer from deviating from the FDA-cleared IFU parameters for the device.
Our societies, as well as numerous guidelines, include high-level disinfection as a currently acceptable option for endoscope reprocessing, assuming use of enhanced washing and drying standards of practice.
Finally, we support the FDA in its efforts to convey to companies the necessary endpoints and goals for performance and expectations relative to post-market review and development of new data to ensure efficacy in the community.
Our societies appreciated this opportunity to comment on the complex and critical topic at hand. Our over-arching goal as physicians remains that of ensuring patient safety and ready access to clinically indicated procedures employing duodenoscopes and other elevator-channel endoscopes.
Caution about ‘miracle cures’; more
Caution about ‘miracle cures’
I thank Drs. Katherine Epstein and Helen Farrell for the balanced approach in their article “‘Miracle cures’ in psychiatry?” (Psychiatry 2.0,
We need to pay serious attention to the small sample sizes and limited criteria for patient selection in trials of ketamine and MDMA, as well as to what sort of “psychotherapy” follows treatment with these agents. Many of us in psychiatric practice for the past 40 years have been humbled by patients’ idiosyncratic reactions to standard medications, let alone novel ones. Those of us who practiced psychiatry in the heyday of “party drugs” have seen many idiosyncratic reactions. Most early research with cannabinoids and lysergic acid diethylamide (and even Strassman’s trials with N,N-dimethyltryptamine [DMT]1-5) highlighted the significance of response by drug-naïve patients vs drug-savvy individuals. Apart from Veterans Affairs trials for posttraumatic stress disorder, many trials of these drugs for treatment-resistant depression or end-of-life care have attracted non-naïve participants.6-8 Private use of entheogens is quite different from medicalizing their use. This requires our best scrutiny. Our earnest interest in improving outcomes must not be influenced by the promise of a quick fix, let alone a miracle cure.
Sara Hartley, MD
Clinical Faculty
Interim Head of Admissions
UC Berkley/UCSF Joint Medical Program
Berkeley, California
Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
References
1. Strassman RJ. Human psychopharmacology of N,N-dimethyltryptamine. Behav Brain Res. 1996;73(1-2):121-124.
2. Strassman RJ. DMT: the spirit molecule. A doctor’s revolutionary research into the biology of near-death and mystical experiences. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press; 2001.
3. Strassman RJ, Qualls CR. Dose-response study of N,N-dimethyltryptamine in humans. I. Neuroendocrine, autonomic, and cardiovascular effects. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51(2):85-97.
4. Strassman RJ, Qualls CR, Berg LM. Differential tolerance to biological and subjective effects of four closely spaced doses of N,N-dimethyltryptamine in humans. Biol Psychiatry. 1996;39(9):784-795.
5. Strassman RJ, Qualls CR, Uhlenhuth EH, et al. Dose-response study of N,N-dimethyltryptamine in humans. II. Subjective effects and preliminary results of a new rating scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51(2):98-108.
6. Albott CS, et al. Improvement in suicidal ideation after repeated ketamine infusions: Relationship to reductions in symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and pain. Presented at: The Anxiety and Depression Association of America Annual Conference; Mar. 28-31, 2019; Chicago.
7. Abdallah CG, Sanacora G, Duman RS, et al. Ketamine and rapid-acting antidepressants: a window into a new neurobiology for mood disorder therapeutics. Annu Rev Med. 2015;66:509-523.
8. Mithoefer MC, Mithoefer AT, Feduccia AA, et al. 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted psychotherapy for post-traumatic stress disorder in military veterans, firefighters, and police officers: a randomised, double-blind, dose-response, phase 2 clinical trial. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018;5(6):486-497.
Continue to: Physician assistants and the psychiatrist shortage
Physician assistants and the psychiatrist shortage
J. Michael Smith’s article “Physician assistants in psychiatry: Helping to meet America’s mental health needs” (Commentary,
There needs to be a multifocal approach to incentivize medical students to choose psychiatry as a specialty. Several factors have discouraged medical students from going into psychiatry. The low reimbursement rates by insurance companies force psychiatrists to not accept insurances or to work for hospital or clinic organizations, where they become a part of the “medication management industry.” This scenario was created by the pharmaceutical industry and often leaves psychotherapy to other types of clinicians. In the not-too-distant future, advances in both neuroscience and artificial intelligence technologies will further reduce the role of medically trained psychiatrists, and might lead to them being replaced by other emerging professions (eg, psychiatric PAs) that are concentrated in urban settings where they are most profitable.
What can possibly be left for the future of the medically trained psychiatrist if a PA can diagnose and treat psychiatric patients? Why would we need more psychiatrists?
Marco T. Carpio, MD
Psychiatrist, private practice
Lynbrook, New York
Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
The author responds
I appreciate Dr. Carpio’s comments, and I agree that the shortage of psychiatrists will not be addressed solely by the addition of other types of clinicians, such as PAs and nurse practitioners. However, the use of well-trained health care providers such as PAs will go a long way towards helping patients receive timely and appropriate access to care. Unfortunately, no single plan or method will be adequate to solve the shortage of psychiatrists in the United States, but that does not negate the need for utilizing all available options to improve access to quality mental health care. Physician assistants are well-trained to support this endeavor.
J. Michael Smith, DHSc, MPAS, PA-C, CAQ-Psychiatry
Post-Graduate PA Mental Health Residency Training Director
Physician Assistant, ACCESS Clinic, GMHC
Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center
Houston, Texas
Continue to: Additional anathemas in psychiatry
Additional anathemas in psychiatry
While reading Dr. Nasrallah’s “Anathemas of psychiatric practice” (From the Editor,
- Cash-only suboxone clinics. Suboxone was never intended to be used in “suboxone clinics”; it was meant to be part of an integrated treatment provided in an office-based practice. Nevertheless, this treatment has been used as such in this country. As part of this trend, an anathema has grown: cash-only suboxone clinics. Patients with severe substance use disorders can be found in every socioeconomic layer of our society, but many struggle with significant psychosocial adversity and outright poverty. Cash-only suboxone clinics put many patients in a bind. Patients spend their last dollars on a needed treatment or sell these medications to maintain their addiction, or even to purchase food.
- “Medical” marijuana. There is no credible evidence based upon methodologically sound research that cannabis has benefit for treating any mental illness. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.1 Yet, in many states, physicians—including psychiatrists—are supporting the approval of medical marijuana. I remember taking my Hippocratic Oath when I graduated from medical school, pledging to continue educating myself and my patients about evidenced-based medical science that benefits us all. I have not yet found credible evidence supporting medical marijuana.
Greed in general is a strong anathema in medicine.
Leo Bastiaens, MD
Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
Reference
1. Radhakrishnan R, Ranganathan M, D'Souza DC. Medical marijuana: what physicians need to know. J Clin Psychiatry. 2019;80(5):45-47.
Caution about ‘miracle cures’
I thank Drs. Katherine Epstein and Helen Farrell for the balanced approach in their article “‘Miracle cures’ in psychiatry?” (Psychiatry 2.0,
We need to pay serious attention to the small sample sizes and limited criteria for patient selection in trials of ketamine and MDMA, as well as to what sort of “psychotherapy” follows treatment with these agents. Many of us in psychiatric practice for the past 40 years have been humbled by patients’ idiosyncratic reactions to standard medications, let alone novel ones. Those of us who practiced psychiatry in the heyday of “party drugs” have seen many idiosyncratic reactions. Most early research with cannabinoids and lysergic acid diethylamide (and even Strassman’s trials with N,N-dimethyltryptamine [DMT]1-5) highlighted the significance of response by drug-naïve patients vs drug-savvy individuals. Apart from Veterans Affairs trials for posttraumatic stress disorder, many trials of these drugs for treatment-resistant depression or end-of-life care have attracted non-naïve participants.6-8 Private use of entheogens is quite different from medicalizing their use. This requires our best scrutiny. Our earnest interest in improving outcomes must not be influenced by the promise of a quick fix, let alone a miracle cure.
Sara Hartley, MD
Clinical Faculty
Interim Head of Admissions
UC Berkley/UCSF Joint Medical Program
Berkeley, California
Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
References
1. Strassman RJ. Human psychopharmacology of N,N-dimethyltryptamine. Behav Brain Res. 1996;73(1-2):121-124.
2. Strassman RJ. DMT: the spirit molecule. A doctor’s revolutionary research into the biology of near-death and mystical experiences. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press; 2001.
3. Strassman RJ, Qualls CR. Dose-response study of N,N-dimethyltryptamine in humans. I. Neuroendocrine, autonomic, and cardiovascular effects. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51(2):85-97.
4. Strassman RJ, Qualls CR, Berg LM. Differential tolerance to biological and subjective effects of four closely spaced doses of N,N-dimethyltryptamine in humans. Biol Psychiatry. 1996;39(9):784-795.
5. Strassman RJ, Qualls CR, Uhlenhuth EH, et al. Dose-response study of N,N-dimethyltryptamine in humans. II. Subjective effects and preliminary results of a new rating scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51(2):98-108.
6. Albott CS, et al. Improvement in suicidal ideation after repeated ketamine infusions: Relationship to reductions in symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and pain. Presented at: The Anxiety and Depression Association of America Annual Conference; Mar. 28-31, 2019; Chicago.
7. Abdallah CG, Sanacora G, Duman RS, et al. Ketamine and rapid-acting antidepressants: a window into a new neurobiology for mood disorder therapeutics. Annu Rev Med. 2015;66:509-523.
8. Mithoefer MC, Mithoefer AT, Feduccia AA, et al. 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted psychotherapy for post-traumatic stress disorder in military veterans, firefighters, and police officers: a randomised, double-blind, dose-response, phase 2 clinical trial. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018;5(6):486-497.
Continue to: Physician assistants and the psychiatrist shortage
Physician assistants and the psychiatrist shortage
J. Michael Smith’s article “Physician assistants in psychiatry: Helping to meet America’s mental health needs” (Commentary,
There needs to be a multifocal approach to incentivize medical students to choose psychiatry as a specialty. Several factors have discouraged medical students from going into psychiatry. The low reimbursement rates by insurance companies force psychiatrists to not accept insurances or to work for hospital or clinic organizations, where they become a part of the “medication management industry.” This scenario was created by the pharmaceutical industry and often leaves psychotherapy to other types of clinicians. In the not-too-distant future, advances in both neuroscience and artificial intelligence technologies will further reduce the role of medically trained psychiatrists, and might lead to them being replaced by other emerging professions (eg, psychiatric PAs) that are concentrated in urban settings where they are most profitable.
What can possibly be left for the future of the medically trained psychiatrist if a PA can diagnose and treat psychiatric patients? Why would we need more psychiatrists?
Marco T. Carpio, MD
Psychiatrist, private practice
Lynbrook, New York
Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
The author responds
I appreciate Dr. Carpio’s comments, and I agree that the shortage of psychiatrists will not be addressed solely by the addition of other types of clinicians, such as PAs and nurse practitioners. However, the use of well-trained health care providers such as PAs will go a long way towards helping patients receive timely and appropriate access to care. Unfortunately, no single plan or method will be adequate to solve the shortage of psychiatrists in the United States, but that does not negate the need for utilizing all available options to improve access to quality mental health care. Physician assistants are well-trained to support this endeavor.
J. Michael Smith, DHSc, MPAS, PA-C, CAQ-Psychiatry
Post-Graduate PA Mental Health Residency Training Director
Physician Assistant, ACCESS Clinic, GMHC
Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center
Houston, Texas
Continue to: Additional anathemas in psychiatry
Additional anathemas in psychiatry
While reading Dr. Nasrallah’s “Anathemas of psychiatric practice” (From the Editor,
- Cash-only suboxone clinics. Suboxone was never intended to be used in “suboxone clinics”; it was meant to be part of an integrated treatment provided in an office-based practice. Nevertheless, this treatment has been used as such in this country. As part of this trend, an anathema has grown: cash-only suboxone clinics. Patients with severe substance use disorders can be found in every socioeconomic layer of our society, but many struggle with significant psychosocial adversity and outright poverty. Cash-only suboxone clinics put many patients in a bind. Patients spend their last dollars on a needed treatment or sell these medications to maintain their addiction, or even to purchase food.
- “Medical” marijuana. There is no credible evidence based upon methodologically sound research that cannabis has benefit for treating any mental illness. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.1 Yet, in many states, physicians—including psychiatrists—are supporting the approval of medical marijuana. I remember taking my Hippocratic Oath when I graduated from medical school, pledging to continue educating myself and my patients about evidenced-based medical science that benefits us all. I have not yet found credible evidence supporting medical marijuana.
Greed in general is a strong anathema in medicine.
Leo Bastiaens, MD
Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
Reference
1. Radhakrishnan R, Ranganathan M, D'Souza DC. Medical marijuana: what physicians need to know. J Clin Psychiatry. 2019;80(5):45-47.
Caution about ‘miracle cures’
I thank Drs. Katherine Epstein and Helen Farrell for the balanced approach in their article “‘Miracle cures’ in psychiatry?” (Psychiatry 2.0,
We need to pay serious attention to the small sample sizes and limited criteria for patient selection in trials of ketamine and MDMA, as well as to what sort of “psychotherapy” follows treatment with these agents. Many of us in psychiatric practice for the past 40 years have been humbled by patients’ idiosyncratic reactions to standard medications, let alone novel ones. Those of us who practiced psychiatry in the heyday of “party drugs” have seen many idiosyncratic reactions. Most early research with cannabinoids and lysergic acid diethylamide (and even Strassman’s trials with N,N-dimethyltryptamine [DMT]1-5) highlighted the significance of response by drug-naïve patients vs drug-savvy individuals. Apart from Veterans Affairs trials for posttraumatic stress disorder, many trials of these drugs for treatment-resistant depression or end-of-life care have attracted non-naïve participants.6-8 Private use of entheogens is quite different from medicalizing their use. This requires our best scrutiny. Our earnest interest in improving outcomes must not be influenced by the promise of a quick fix, let alone a miracle cure.
Sara Hartley, MD
Clinical Faculty
Interim Head of Admissions
UC Berkley/UCSF Joint Medical Program
Berkeley, California
Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
References
1. Strassman RJ. Human psychopharmacology of N,N-dimethyltryptamine. Behav Brain Res. 1996;73(1-2):121-124.
2. Strassman RJ. DMT: the spirit molecule. A doctor’s revolutionary research into the biology of near-death and mystical experiences. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press; 2001.
3. Strassman RJ, Qualls CR. Dose-response study of N,N-dimethyltryptamine in humans. I. Neuroendocrine, autonomic, and cardiovascular effects. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51(2):85-97.
4. Strassman RJ, Qualls CR, Berg LM. Differential tolerance to biological and subjective effects of four closely spaced doses of N,N-dimethyltryptamine in humans. Biol Psychiatry. 1996;39(9):784-795.
5. Strassman RJ, Qualls CR, Uhlenhuth EH, et al. Dose-response study of N,N-dimethyltryptamine in humans. II. Subjective effects and preliminary results of a new rating scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51(2):98-108.
6. Albott CS, et al. Improvement in suicidal ideation after repeated ketamine infusions: Relationship to reductions in symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and pain. Presented at: The Anxiety and Depression Association of America Annual Conference; Mar. 28-31, 2019; Chicago.
7. Abdallah CG, Sanacora G, Duman RS, et al. Ketamine and rapid-acting antidepressants: a window into a new neurobiology for mood disorder therapeutics. Annu Rev Med. 2015;66:509-523.
8. Mithoefer MC, Mithoefer AT, Feduccia AA, et al. 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted psychotherapy for post-traumatic stress disorder in military veterans, firefighters, and police officers: a randomised, double-blind, dose-response, phase 2 clinical trial. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018;5(6):486-497.
Continue to: Physician assistants and the psychiatrist shortage
Physician assistants and the psychiatrist shortage
J. Michael Smith’s article “Physician assistants in psychiatry: Helping to meet America’s mental health needs” (Commentary,
There needs to be a multifocal approach to incentivize medical students to choose psychiatry as a specialty. Several factors have discouraged medical students from going into psychiatry. The low reimbursement rates by insurance companies force psychiatrists to not accept insurances or to work for hospital or clinic organizations, where they become a part of the “medication management industry.” This scenario was created by the pharmaceutical industry and often leaves psychotherapy to other types of clinicians. In the not-too-distant future, advances in both neuroscience and artificial intelligence technologies will further reduce the role of medically trained psychiatrists, and might lead to them being replaced by other emerging professions (eg, psychiatric PAs) that are concentrated in urban settings where they are most profitable.
What can possibly be left for the future of the medically trained psychiatrist if a PA can diagnose and treat psychiatric patients? Why would we need more psychiatrists?
Marco T. Carpio, MD
Psychiatrist, private practice
Lynbrook, New York
Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
The author responds
I appreciate Dr. Carpio’s comments, and I agree that the shortage of psychiatrists will not be addressed solely by the addition of other types of clinicians, such as PAs and nurse practitioners. However, the use of well-trained health care providers such as PAs will go a long way towards helping patients receive timely and appropriate access to care. Unfortunately, no single plan or method will be adequate to solve the shortage of psychiatrists in the United States, but that does not negate the need for utilizing all available options to improve access to quality mental health care. Physician assistants are well-trained to support this endeavor.
J. Michael Smith, DHSc, MPAS, PA-C, CAQ-Psychiatry
Post-Graduate PA Mental Health Residency Training Director
Physician Assistant, ACCESS Clinic, GMHC
Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center
Houston, Texas
Continue to: Additional anathemas in psychiatry
Additional anathemas in psychiatry
While reading Dr. Nasrallah’s “Anathemas of psychiatric practice” (From the Editor,
- Cash-only suboxone clinics. Suboxone was never intended to be used in “suboxone clinics”; it was meant to be part of an integrated treatment provided in an office-based practice. Nevertheless, this treatment has been used as such in this country. As part of this trend, an anathema has grown: cash-only suboxone clinics. Patients with severe substance use disorders can be found in every socioeconomic layer of our society, but many struggle with significant psychosocial adversity and outright poverty. Cash-only suboxone clinics put many patients in a bind. Patients spend their last dollars on a needed treatment or sell these medications to maintain their addiction, or even to purchase food.
- “Medical” marijuana. There is no credible evidence based upon methodologically sound research that cannabis has benefit for treating any mental illness. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.1 Yet, in many states, physicians—including psychiatrists—are supporting the approval of medical marijuana. I remember taking my Hippocratic Oath when I graduated from medical school, pledging to continue educating myself and my patients about evidenced-based medical science that benefits us all. I have not yet found credible evidence supporting medical marijuana.
Greed in general is a strong anathema in medicine.
Leo Bastiaens, MD
Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
Reference
1. Radhakrishnan R, Ranganathan M, D'Souza DC. Medical marijuana: what physicians need to know. J Clin Psychiatry. 2019;80(5):45-47.
Called to court? Tips for testifying
As a psychiatrist, you could be called to court to testify as a fact witness in a hearing or trial. Your role as a fact witness would differ from that of an expert witness in that you would likely testify about the information that you have gathered through direct observation of patients or others. Fact witnesses are generally not asked to give expert opinions regarding forensic issues, and treating psychiatrists should not do so about their patients. As a fact witness, depending on the form of litigation, you might be in one of the following 4 roles1:
- Observer. As the term implies, you have observed an event. For example, you are asked to testify about a fight that you witnessed between another clinician’s patient and a nurse while you were making your rounds on an inpatient unit.
- Non-defendant treater. You are the treating psychiatrist for a patient who is involved in litigation to recover damages for injuries sustained from a third party. For example, you are asked to testify about your patient’s premorbid functioning before a claimed injury that spurred the lawsuit.
- Plaintiff. You are suing someone else and may be claiming your own damages. For example, in your attempt to claim damages as a plaintiff, you use your clinical knowledge to testify about your own mental health symptoms and the adverse impact these have had on you.
- Defendant treater. You are being sued by one of your patients. For example, a patient brings a malpractice case against you for allegations of not meeting the standard of care. You testify about your direct observations of the patient, the diagnoses you provided, and your rationale for the implemented treatment plan.
Preparing yourself as a fact witness
For many psychiatrists, testifying can be an intimidating process. Although there are similarities between testifying in a courtroom and giving a deposition, there are also significant differences. For guidelines on providing depositions, see Knoll and Resnick’s “Deposition dos and don’ts: How to answer 8 tricky questions” (
Don’t panic. Although your first reaction may be to panic upon receiving a subpoena or court order, you should “keep your cool” and remember that the observations you made or treatment provided have already taken place.1 Your role as a fact witness is to inform the judge and jury about what you saw and did.1
Continue to: Refresh your memory and practice
Refresh your memory and practice. Gather all required information (eg, medical records, your notes, etc.) and review it before testifying. This will help you to recall the facts more accurately when you are asked a question. Consider practicing your testimony with the attorney who requested you to get feedback on how you present yourself.1 However, do not try to memorize what you are going to say because this could make your testimony sound rehearsed and unconvincing.
Plan ahead, and have a pretrial conference. Because court proceedings are unpredictable, you should clear your schedule to allow enough time to appear in court. Before your court appearance, meet with the attorney who requested you to discuss any new facts or issues as well as learn what the attorney aims to accomplish with your testimony.1
Speak clearly in your own words, and avoid jargon. Courtroom officials are unlikely to understand psychiatric jargon. Therefore, you should explain psychiatric terms in language that laypeople would comprehend. Because the court stenographer will require you to use actual words for the court transcripts, you should answer clearly and verbally or respond with a definitive “yes” or “no” (and not by nodding or shaking your head).
Testimony is also not a time for guessing. If you don’t know the answer, you should say “I don’t know.”
1. Gutheil TG. The psychiatrist in court: a survival guide. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.; 1998.
2. Knoll JL, Resnick PJ. Deposition dos and don’ts: how to answer 8 tricky questions. Current Psychiatry. 2008;7(3):25-28,36,39-40.
As a psychiatrist, you could be called to court to testify as a fact witness in a hearing or trial. Your role as a fact witness would differ from that of an expert witness in that you would likely testify about the information that you have gathered through direct observation of patients or others. Fact witnesses are generally not asked to give expert opinions regarding forensic issues, and treating psychiatrists should not do so about their patients. As a fact witness, depending on the form of litigation, you might be in one of the following 4 roles1:
- Observer. As the term implies, you have observed an event. For example, you are asked to testify about a fight that you witnessed between another clinician’s patient and a nurse while you were making your rounds on an inpatient unit.
- Non-defendant treater. You are the treating psychiatrist for a patient who is involved in litigation to recover damages for injuries sustained from a third party. For example, you are asked to testify about your patient’s premorbid functioning before a claimed injury that spurred the lawsuit.
- Plaintiff. You are suing someone else and may be claiming your own damages. For example, in your attempt to claim damages as a plaintiff, you use your clinical knowledge to testify about your own mental health symptoms and the adverse impact these have had on you.
- Defendant treater. You are being sued by one of your patients. For example, a patient brings a malpractice case against you for allegations of not meeting the standard of care. You testify about your direct observations of the patient, the diagnoses you provided, and your rationale for the implemented treatment plan.
Preparing yourself as a fact witness
For many psychiatrists, testifying can be an intimidating process. Although there are similarities between testifying in a courtroom and giving a deposition, there are also significant differences. For guidelines on providing depositions, see Knoll and Resnick’s “Deposition dos and don’ts: How to answer 8 tricky questions” (
Don’t panic. Although your first reaction may be to panic upon receiving a subpoena or court order, you should “keep your cool” and remember that the observations you made or treatment provided have already taken place.1 Your role as a fact witness is to inform the judge and jury about what you saw and did.1
Continue to: Refresh your memory and practice
Refresh your memory and practice. Gather all required information (eg, medical records, your notes, etc.) and review it before testifying. This will help you to recall the facts more accurately when you are asked a question. Consider practicing your testimony with the attorney who requested you to get feedback on how you present yourself.1 However, do not try to memorize what you are going to say because this could make your testimony sound rehearsed and unconvincing.
Plan ahead, and have a pretrial conference. Because court proceedings are unpredictable, you should clear your schedule to allow enough time to appear in court. Before your court appearance, meet with the attorney who requested you to discuss any new facts or issues as well as learn what the attorney aims to accomplish with your testimony.1
Speak clearly in your own words, and avoid jargon. Courtroom officials are unlikely to understand psychiatric jargon. Therefore, you should explain psychiatric terms in language that laypeople would comprehend. Because the court stenographer will require you to use actual words for the court transcripts, you should answer clearly and verbally or respond with a definitive “yes” or “no” (and not by nodding or shaking your head).
Testimony is also not a time for guessing. If you don’t know the answer, you should say “I don’t know.”
As a psychiatrist, you could be called to court to testify as a fact witness in a hearing or trial. Your role as a fact witness would differ from that of an expert witness in that you would likely testify about the information that you have gathered through direct observation of patients or others. Fact witnesses are generally not asked to give expert opinions regarding forensic issues, and treating psychiatrists should not do so about their patients. As a fact witness, depending on the form of litigation, you might be in one of the following 4 roles1:
- Observer. As the term implies, you have observed an event. For example, you are asked to testify about a fight that you witnessed between another clinician’s patient and a nurse while you were making your rounds on an inpatient unit.
- Non-defendant treater. You are the treating psychiatrist for a patient who is involved in litigation to recover damages for injuries sustained from a third party. For example, you are asked to testify about your patient’s premorbid functioning before a claimed injury that spurred the lawsuit.
- Plaintiff. You are suing someone else and may be claiming your own damages. For example, in your attempt to claim damages as a plaintiff, you use your clinical knowledge to testify about your own mental health symptoms and the adverse impact these have had on you.
- Defendant treater. You are being sued by one of your patients. For example, a patient brings a malpractice case against you for allegations of not meeting the standard of care. You testify about your direct observations of the patient, the diagnoses you provided, and your rationale for the implemented treatment plan.
Preparing yourself as a fact witness
For many psychiatrists, testifying can be an intimidating process. Although there are similarities between testifying in a courtroom and giving a deposition, there are also significant differences. For guidelines on providing depositions, see Knoll and Resnick’s “Deposition dos and don’ts: How to answer 8 tricky questions” (
Don’t panic. Although your first reaction may be to panic upon receiving a subpoena or court order, you should “keep your cool” and remember that the observations you made or treatment provided have already taken place.1 Your role as a fact witness is to inform the judge and jury about what you saw and did.1
Continue to: Refresh your memory and practice
Refresh your memory and practice. Gather all required information (eg, medical records, your notes, etc.) and review it before testifying. This will help you to recall the facts more accurately when you are asked a question. Consider practicing your testimony with the attorney who requested you to get feedback on how you present yourself.1 However, do not try to memorize what you are going to say because this could make your testimony sound rehearsed and unconvincing.
Plan ahead, and have a pretrial conference. Because court proceedings are unpredictable, you should clear your schedule to allow enough time to appear in court. Before your court appearance, meet with the attorney who requested you to discuss any new facts or issues as well as learn what the attorney aims to accomplish with your testimony.1
Speak clearly in your own words, and avoid jargon. Courtroom officials are unlikely to understand psychiatric jargon. Therefore, you should explain psychiatric terms in language that laypeople would comprehend. Because the court stenographer will require you to use actual words for the court transcripts, you should answer clearly and verbally or respond with a definitive “yes” or “no” (and not by nodding or shaking your head).
Testimony is also not a time for guessing. If you don’t know the answer, you should say “I don’t know.”
1. Gutheil TG. The psychiatrist in court: a survival guide. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.; 1998.
2. Knoll JL, Resnick PJ. Deposition dos and don’ts: how to answer 8 tricky questions. Current Psychiatry. 2008;7(3):25-28,36,39-40.
1. Gutheil TG. The psychiatrist in court: a survival guide. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.; 1998.
2. Knoll JL, Resnick PJ. Deposition dos and don’ts: how to answer 8 tricky questions. Current Psychiatry. 2008;7(3):25-28,36,39-40.
