User login
Fasting can have beneficial effects in cancer setting
in the bone marrow
New research indicates that cycles of prolonged fasting may prevent chemotherapy-induced immunosuppressive toxicity and induce regeneration of the hematopoietic system.
Long periods of fasting reduced damage in bone marrow stem and progenitor cells and protected both mice and humans from chemotoxicity.
In mice, the fasting cycles “flipped a regenerative switch,” changing the signaling pathways for hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs).
Researchers reported these results in Cell Stem Cell.
“We could not predict that prolonged fasting would have such a remarkable effect in promoting stem cell-based regeneration of the hematopoietic system,” said study author Valter Longo, PhD, of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
“When you starve, the system tries to save energy, and one of the things it can do to save energy is to recycle a lot of the immune cells that are not needed, especially those that may be damaged. What we started noticing in both our human work and animal work is that the white blood cell count goes down with prolonged fasting. Then, when you re-feed, the blood cells come back. So we started thinking, well, where does it come from?”
The researchers found that prolonged fasting reduced the enzyme PKA, which regulates HSC self-renewal and pluripotency.
“PKA is the key gene that needs to shut down in order for these stem cells to switch into regenerative mode,” Dr Longo said. “It gives the ‘okay’ for stem cells to go ahead and begin proliferating and rebuild the entire system.”
Prolonged fasting also lowered levels of IGF-1, a growth-factor hormone that has been linked to aging, tumor progression, and cancer risk.
In addition to downregulating the IGF-1/PKA pathway in HSCs, prolonged fasting protected hematopoietic cells from chemotoxicity and promoted HSC self-renewal to reverse immunosuppression.
Experiments revealed that inhibiting IGF-1 or PKA signaling mimicked the effects of prolonged fasting.
The researchers also analyzed a small group of patients from a pilot study evaluating the effects of fasting before chemotherapy. Fasting for 72 hours, but not 24 hours, ensured that patients had normal lymphocyte counts and maintained a normal lineage balance in white blood cells after chemotherapy.
Dr Longo’s lab is now conducting further research on controlled dietary interventions and stem cell regeneration in both animal and clinical studies.
in the bone marrow
New research indicates that cycles of prolonged fasting may prevent chemotherapy-induced immunosuppressive toxicity and induce regeneration of the hematopoietic system.
Long periods of fasting reduced damage in bone marrow stem and progenitor cells and protected both mice and humans from chemotoxicity.
In mice, the fasting cycles “flipped a regenerative switch,” changing the signaling pathways for hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs).
Researchers reported these results in Cell Stem Cell.
“We could not predict that prolonged fasting would have such a remarkable effect in promoting stem cell-based regeneration of the hematopoietic system,” said study author Valter Longo, PhD, of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
“When you starve, the system tries to save energy, and one of the things it can do to save energy is to recycle a lot of the immune cells that are not needed, especially those that may be damaged. What we started noticing in both our human work and animal work is that the white blood cell count goes down with prolonged fasting. Then, when you re-feed, the blood cells come back. So we started thinking, well, where does it come from?”
The researchers found that prolonged fasting reduced the enzyme PKA, which regulates HSC self-renewal and pluripotency.
“PKA is the key gene that needs to shut down in order for these stem cells to switch into regenerative mode,” Dr Longo said. “It gives the ‘okay’ for stem cells to go ahead and begin proliferating and rebuild the entire system.”
Prolonged fasting also lowered levels of IGF-1, a growth-factor hormone that has been linked to aging, tumor progression, and cancer risk.
In addition to downregulating the IGF-1/PKA pathway in HSCs, prolonged fasting protected hematopoietic cells from chemotoxicity and promoted HSC self-renewal to reverse immunosuppression.
Experiments revealed that inhibiting IGF-1 or PKA signaling mimicked the effects of prolonged fasting.
The researchers also analyzed a small group of patients from a pilot study evaluating the effects of fasting before chemotherapy. Fasting for 72 hours, but not 24 hours, ensured that patients had normal lymphocyte counts and maintained a normal lineage balance in white blood cells after chemotherapy.
Dr Longo’s lab is now conducting further research on controlled dietary interventions and stem cell regeneration in both animal and clinical studies.
in the bone marrow
New research indicates that cycles of prolonged fasting may prevent chemotherapy-induced immunosuppressive toxicity and induce regeneration of the hematopoietic system.
Long periods of fasting reduced damage in bone marrow stem and progenitor cells and protected both mice and humans from chemotoxicity.
In mice, the fasting cycles “flipped a regenerative switch,” changing the signaling pathways for hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs).
Researchers reported these results in Cell Stem Cell.
“We could not predict that prolonged fasting would have such a remarkable effect in promoting stem cell-based regeneration of the hematopoietic system,” said study author Valter Longo, PhD, of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
“When you starve, the system tries to save energy, and one of the things it can do to save energy is to recycle a lot of the immune cells that are not needed, especially those that may be damaged. What we started noticing in both our human work and animal work is that the white blood cell count goes down with prolonged fasting. Then, when you re-feed, the blood cells come back. So we started thinking, well, where does it come from?”
The researchers found that prolonged fasting reduced the enzyme PKA, which regulates HSC self-renewal and pluripotency.
“PKA is the key gene that needs to shut down in order for these stem cells to switch into regenerative mode,” Dr Longo said. “It gives the ‘okay’ for stem cells to go ahead and begin proliferating and rebuild the entire system.”
Prolonged fasting also lowered levels of IGF-1, a growth-factor hormone that has been linked to aging, tumor progression, and cancer risk.
In addition to downregulating the IGF-1/PKA pathway in HSCs, prolonged fasting protected hematopoietic cells from chemotoxicity and promoted HSC self-renewal to reverse immunosuppression.
Experiments revealed that inhibiting IGF-1 or PKA signaling mimicked the effects of prolonged fasting.
The researchers also analyzed a small group of patients from a pilot study evaluating the effects of fasting before chemotherapy. Fasting for 72 hours, but not 24 hours, ensured that patients had normal lymphocyte counts and maintained a normal lineage balance in white blood cells after chemotherapy.
Dr Longo’s lab is now conducting further research on controlled dietary interventions and stem cell regeneration in both animal and clinical studies.
Drug approved to treat NHL in Israel
The Israeli Ministry of Health has granted approval for the antineoplastic agent pixantrone (Pixuvri).
The drug is now approved as monotherapy for adults with relapsed or refractory aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who have received fewer than 4 previous courses of treatment.
The benefit of pixantrone has not been established when used as fifth-line or greater treatment in patients who were refractory to their last therapy.
Pixantrone will be distributed in Israel by the Neopharm Group.
“The approval of Pixuvri in Israel provides patients with aggressive B-cell NHL who have failed second- or third-line therapy a new approved option, where none existed before, that can effectively treat their disease with manageable side effects,” said Abraham Avigdor, MD, of Tel Aviv University.
“Patients who have relapsed after second-line therapy have a poor survival outcome. It is vital to have additional treatment options available, like Pixuvri, so we can provide these patients the best care possible and help them battle their disease.”
The main study of pixantrone, the phase 3 EXTEND PIX301 trial, compared the drug to other chemotherapeutic agents in patients with relapsed or refractory NHL. The response rate was 20% in the pixantrone arm and 6% in the comparator arm.
In addition, patients receiving pixantrone had longer progression-free survival than patients in the comparator group, with a median of 10.2 months and 7.6 months, respectively.
However, grade 3/4 adverse events—including neutropenia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia—were more common in the pixantrone arm.
Pixantrone is already marketed in the European Union. In 2012, the European Commission granted conditional marketing authorization for the drug as monotherapy for adults with relapsed or refractory aggressive B-cell NHL.
Under the provisions of the conditional marketing authorization, Cell Therapeutics, Inc., the company developing pixantrone, will be required to complete a post-marketing study aimed at confirming the drug’s clinical benefit.
The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use has accepted PIX306, a randomized, phase 3 trial comparing pixantrone plus rituximab to gemcitabine plus rituximab in patients who have relapsed after 1 to 3 prior regimens for aggressive B-cell NHL and who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant.
As a condition of approval, Cell Therapeutics has agreed to have the trial data available by June 2015.
Pixantrone is not approved for use in the US.
The Israeli Ministry of Health has granted approval for the antineoplastic agent pixantrone (Pixuvri).
The drug is now approved as monotherapy for adults with relapsed or refractory aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who have received fewer than 4 previous courses of treatment.
The benefit of pixantrone has not been established when used as fifth-line or greater treatment in patients who were refractory to their last therapy.
Pixantrone will be distributed in Israel by the Neopharm Group.
“The approval of Pixuvri in Israel provides patients with aggressive B-cell NHL who have failed second- or third-line therapy a new approved option, where none existed before, that can effectively treat their disease with manageable side effects,” said Abraham Avigdor, MD, of Tel Aviv University.
“Patients who have relapsed after second-line therapy have a poor survival outcome. It is vital to have additional treatment options available, like Pixuvri, so we can provide these patients the best care possible and help them battle their disease.”
The main study of pixantrone, the phase 3 EXTEND PIX301 trial, compared the drug to other chemotherapeutic agents in patients with relapsed or refractory NHL. The response rate was 20% in the pixantrone arm and 6% in the comparator arm.
In addition, patients receiving pixantrone had longer progression-free survival than patients in the comparator group, with a median of 10.2 months and 7.6 months, respectively.
However, grade 3/4 adverse events—including neutropenia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia—were more common in the pixantrone arm.
Pixantrone is already marketed in the European Union. In 2012, the European Commission granted conditional marketing authorization for the drug as monotherapy for adults with relapsed or refractory aggressive B-cell NHL.
Under the provisions of the conditional marketing authorization, Cell Therapeutics, Inc., the company developing pixantrone, will be required to complete a post-marketing study aimed at confirming the drug’s clinical benefit.
The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use has accepted PIX306, a randomized, phase 3 trial comparing pixantrone plus rituximab to gemcitabine plus rituximab in patients who have relapsed after 1 to 3 prior regimens for aggressive B-cell NHL and who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant.
As a condition of approval, Cell Therapeutics has agreed to have the trial data available by June 2015.
Pixantrone is not approved for use in the US.
The Israeli Ministry of Health has granted approval for the antineoplastic agent pixantrone (Pixuvri).
The drug is now approved as monotherapy for adults with relapsed or refractory aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who have received fewer than 4 previous courses of treatment.
The benefit of pixantrone has not been established when used as fifth-line or greater treatment in patients who were refractory to their last therapy.
Pixantrone will be distributed in Israel by the Neopharm Group.
“The approval of Pixuvri in Israel provides patients with aggressive B-cell NHL who have failed second- or third-line therapy a new approved option, where none existed before, that can effectively treat their disease with manageable side effects,” said Abraham Avigdor, MD, of Tel Aviv University.
“Patients who have relapsed after second-line therapy have a poor survival outcome. It is vital to have additional treatment options available, like Pixuvri, so we can provide these patients the best care possible and help them battle their disease.”
The main study of pixantrone, the phase 3 EXTEND PIX301 trial, compared the drug to other chemotherapeutic agents in patients with relapsed or refractory NHL. The response rate was 20% in the pixantrone arm and 6% in the comparator arm.
In addition, patients receiving pixantrone had longer progression-free survival than patients in the comparator group, with a median of 10.2 months and 7.6 months, respectively.
However, grade 3/4 adverse events—including neutropenia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia—were more common in the pixantrone arm.
Pixantrone is already marketed in the European Union. In 2012, the European Commission granted conditional marketing authorization for the drug as monotherapy for adults with relapsed or refractory aggressive B-cell NHL.
Under the provisions of the conditional marketing authorization, Cell Therapeutics, Inc., the company developing pixantrone, will be required to complete a post-marketing study aimed at confirming the drug’s clinical benefit.
The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use has accepted PIX306, a randomized, phase 3 trial comparing pixantrone plus rituximab to gemcitabine plus rituximab in patients who have relapsed after 1 to 3 prior regimens for aggressive B-cell NHL and who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant.
As a condition of approval, Cell Therapeutics has agreed to have the trial data available by June 2015.
Pixantrone is not approved for use in the US.
Military technology has application for malaria
Credit: Peter H. Seeberger
Researchers have used military technology to develop a test for detecting malaria parasites in the blood.
The team used a detector known as a focal plane array (FPA), which was originally developed for heat-seeking missiles.
The FPA gives highly detailed information on a sample area in minutes. The heat-seeking detector, which is coupled to an infrared imaging microscope, could detect the malaria parasite in a single red blood cell.
The infrared signature from the fatty acids of the parasites allowed the researchers to detect the parasite at its earliest stages and determine the number of parasites in a blood smear.
The team described the technology in Analyst.
“Our test detects malaria at its very early stages, so that doctors can stop the disease in its tracks before it takes hold and kills,” said study author Bayden Wood, PhD, of Monash University in Victoria, Australia. “We believe this sets the gold standard for malaria testing.”
“There are some excellent tests that diagnose malaria. However, the sensitivity is limited, and the best methods require hours of input from skilled microscopists, and that’s a problem in developing countries where malaria is most prevalent.”
The new test, on the other hand, gives an automatic diagnosis within 4 minutes and doesn’t require a specialist technician.
Study author Leann Tilley, PhD, of the University of Melbourne in Australia, said the test could make an impact in large-scale screening of malaria parasite carriers who do not present with the classic fever-type symptoms associated with the disease.
“In many countries, only people who display signs of malaria are treated,” Dr Tilley said. “But the problem with this approach is that some people don’t have typical flu-like symptoms associated with malaria, and this means a reservoir of parasites persists that can reemerge and spread very quickly within a community.”
“Our test works because it can detect the malaria parasite at the very early stages and can reliably detect it in an automated manner in a single red blood cell. No other test can do that.”
FPA detectors were originally developed for Javelin Portable anti-tank missiles in the 1990s. The heat-seeking detector is used on shoulder-fired missiles but can also be installed on tracked, wheeled, or amphibious vehicles, providing spatial and spectral information in a matter of seconds.
The FPA detector used in this project was coupled to a synchrotron source located at the InfraRed Environmental Imaging facility at the Synchrotron Radiation Center in Wisconsin.
For the next phase of this research, Dr Wood’s team is collaborating with Patcharee Jearanaikoon, PhD, of Kohn Kaen University in Thailand, to test the technology in clinics.
Credit: Peter H. Seeberger
Researchers have used military technology to develop a test for detecting malaria parasites in the blood.
The team used a detector known as a focal plane array (FPA), which was originally developed for heat-seeking missiles.
The FPA gives highly detailed information on a sample area in minutes. The heat-seeking detector, which is coupled to an infrared imaging microscope, could detect the malaria parasite in a single red blood cell.
The infrared signature from the fatty acids of the parasites allowed the researchers to detect the parasite at its earliest stages and determine the number of parasites in a blood smear.
The team described the technology in Analyst.
“Our test detects malaria at its very early stages, so that doctors can stop the disease in its tracks before it takes hold and kills,” said study author Bayden Wood, PhD, of Monash University in Victoria, Australia. “We believe this sets the gold standard for malaria testing.”
“There are some excellent tests that diagnose malaria. However, the sensitivity is limited, and the best methods require hours of input from skilled microscopists, and that’s a problem in developing countries where malaria is most prevalent.”
The new test, on the other hand, gives an automatic diagnosis within 4 minutes and doesn’t require a specialist technician.
Study author Leann Tilley, PhD, of the University of Melbourne in Australia, said the test could make an impact in large-scale screening of malaria parasite carriers who do not present with the classic fever-type symptoms associated with the disease.
“In many countries, only people who display signs of malaria are treated,” Dr Tilley said. “But the problem with this approach is that some people don’t have typical flu-like symptoms associated with malaria, and this means a reservoir of parasites persists that can reemerge and spread very quickly within a community.”
“Our test works because it can detect the malaria parasite at the very early stages and can reliably detect it in an automated manner in a single red blood cell. No other test can do that.”
FPA detectors were originally developed for Javelin Portable anti-tank missiles in the 1990s. The heat-seeking detector is used on shoulder-fired missiles but can also be installed on tracked, wheeled, or amphibious vehicles, providing spatial and spectral information in a matter of seconds.
The FPA detector used in this project was coupled to a synchrotron source located at the InfraRed Environmental Imaging facility at the Synchrotron Radiation Center in Wisconsin.
For the next phase of this research, Dr Wood’s team is collaborating with Patcharee Jearanaikoon, PhD, of Kohn Kaen University in Thailand, to test the technology in clinics.
Credit: Peter H. Seeberger
Researchers have used military technology to develop a test for detecting malaria parasites in the blood.
The team used a detector known as a focal plane array (FPA), which was originally developed for heat-seeking missiles.
The FPA gives highly detailed information on a sample area in minutes. The heat-seeking detector, which is coupled to an infrared imaging microscope, could detect the malaria parasite in a single red blood cell.
The infrared signature from the fatty acids of the parasites allowed the researchers to detect the parasite at its earliest stages and determine the number of parasites in a blood smear.
The team described the technology in Analyst.
“Our test detects malaria at its very early stages, so that doctors can stop the disease in its tracks before it takes hold and kills,” said study author Bayden Wood, PhD, of Monash University in Victoria, Australia. “We believe this sets the gold standard for malaria testing.”
“There are some excellent tests that diagnose malaria. However, the sensitivity is limited, and the best methods require hours of input from skilled microscopists, and that’s a problem in developing countries where malaria is most prevalent.”
The new test, on the other hand, gives an automatic diagnosis within 4 minutes and doesn’t require a specialist technician.
Study author Leann Tilley, PhD, of the University of Melbourne in Australia, said the test could make an impact in large-scale screening of malaria parasite carriers who do not present with the classic fever-type symptoms associated with the disease.
“In many countries, only people who display signs of malaria are treated,” Dr Tilley said. “But the problem with this approach is that some people don’t have typical flu-like symptoms associated with malaria, and this means a reservoir of parasites persists that can reemerge and spread very quickly within a community.”
“Our test works because it can detect the malaria parasite at the very early stages and can reliably detect it in an automated manner in a single red blood cell. No other test can do that.”
FPA detectors were originally developed for Javelin Portable anti-tank missiles in the 1990s. The heat-seeking detector is used on shoulder-fired missiles but can also be installed on tracked, wheeled, or amphibious vehicles, providing spatial and spectral information in a matter of seconds.
The FPA detector used in this project was coupled to a synchrotron source located at the InfraRed Environmental Imaging facility at the Synchrotron Radiation Center in Wisconsin.
For the next phase of this research, Dr Wood’s team is collaborating with Patcharee Jearanaikoon, PhD, of Kohn Kaen University in Thailand, to test the technology in clinics.
EHR Impact on Patient Experience
Delivering patient‐centered care is at the core of ensuring patient engagement and active participation that will lead to positive outcomes. Physician‐patient interaction has become an area of increasing focus in an effort to optimize the patient experience. Positive patient‐provider communication has been shown to increase satisfaction,[1, 2, 3, 4] decrease the likelihood of medical malpractice lawsuits,[5, 6, 7, 8] and improve clinical outcomes.[9, 10, 11, 12, 13] Specifically, a decrease in psychological symptoms such as anxiety and stress, as well as perception of physical symptoms have been correlated with improved communication.[9, 12] Furthermore, objective health outcomes, such as improvement in hypertension and glycosylated hemoglobin, have also been correlated with improved physician‐patient communication.[10, 11, 13] The multifaceted effects of improved communication are impactful to both the patient and the physician; therefore, it is essential that we understand how to optimize this interaction.
Patient‐centered care is a critical objective for many high‐quality healthcare systems.[14] In recent years, the use of electronic health records (EHRs) has been increasingly adopted by healthcare systems nationally in an effort to improve the quality of care delivered. The positive benefits of EHRs on the facilitation of healthcare, including consolidation of information, reduction of medical errors, easily transferable medical records,[15, 16, 17] as well as their impact on healthcare spending,[18] are well‐documented and have been emphasized as reasons for adoption of EHRs by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, EHR implementation has encountered some resistance regarding its impact on the patient experience.
As EHR implementation is exponentially increasing in the United States, there is limited literature on the consequences of this technology.[19] Barriers reported during EHR implementation include the limitations of standardization, attitudinal and organizational constraints, behavior of individuals, and resistance to change.[20] Additionally, poor EHR system design and improper use can cause errors that jeopardize the integrity of the information inputted, leading to inaccuracies that endanger patient safety or decrease the quality of care.[21]
One of the limitations of EHRs has been the reported negative impact on patient‐centered care by decreasing communication during the hospital visit.[22] Although the EHR has enhanced internal provider communication,[23] the literature suggests a lack of focus on the patient sitting in front of the provider. Due to perceived physician distraction during the visit, patients report decreased satisfaction when physicians spend a considerable period of time during the visit at the computer.[22] Furthermore, the average hospital length of stay has been increased due to the use of EHRs.[22]
Although some physicians report that EHR use impedes patient workflow and decreases time spent with patients,[23] previous literature suggests that EHRs decrease the time to develop a synopsis and improve communication efficiency.[19] Some studies have also noted an increase in the ability for medical history retrieval and analysis, which will ultimately increase the quality of care provided to the patient.[24] Physicians who use the EHR adopted a more active role in clarifying information, encouraging questions, and ensuring completeness at the end of a visit.[25] Finally, studies show that the EHR has a positive return on investment from savings in drug expenditures, radiology tests, and billing errors.[26] Given the significant financial and time commitment that health systems and physicians must invest to implement EHRs, it is vital that we understand the multifaceted effects of EHRs on the field of medicine.
METHODS
The purpose of this study was to assess the physician‐patient communication patterns associated with the implementation and use of an EHR in a hospital setting.
ARC Medical Program
In 2006, the Office of Patient Experience at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Health, in conjunction with the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, launched the Assessing Residents' CI‐CARE (ARC) Medical Program. CI‐CARE is a protocol that emphasizes for medical staff and providers to Connect with their patients, Introduce themselves, Communicate their purpose, Ask or anticipate patients' needs, Respond to questions with immediacy, and to Exit courteously. CI‐CARE represents the standards for staff and providers in any encounter with patients or their families. The goals of the ARC Medical Program are to monitor housestaff performance and patient satisfaction while improving trainee education through timely and patient‐centered feedback. The ARC Medical Program's survey has served as an important tool to assess and improve physician professionalism and interpersonal skills and communication, 2 of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies.[27]
The ARC program is a unique and innovative volunteer program that provides timely and patient‐centered feedback from trainees' daily encounters with hospitalized patients. The ARC Medical Program has an established infrastructure to conduct evaluations on a system‐wide scale, including 9 departments within UCLA Health. ARC volunteers interview patients using a CI‐CARE Questionnaire (ARC survey) to assess their resident physician's communication patterns. The ARC Survey targets specific areas of the residents' care as outlined by the CI‐CARE Program of UCLA Health.
As part of UCLA Health's mission to ensure the highest level of patient‐centered care, the CI‐CARE standards were introduced in 2006, followed by implementation of the EHR system. Given the lack of previous research and conflicting results on the impact of EHRs on the patient experience, this article uses ARC data to assess whether or not there was a significant difference following implementation of the EHR on March 2, 2013.
The materials and methods of this study are largely based on those of a previous study, also published by the ARC Medical Program.[27]
CI‐CARE QuestionnaireARC Survey
The CI‐CARE Questionnaire is a standardized audit tool consisting of a total of 20 questions used by the facilitators who work with ARC. There are a total of 20 items on the ARC survey, including 18 multiple‐choice, polar, and Likert‐scale questions, and 2 free‐response questions that assess the patients' overall perception of their resident physician and their hospital experience. Questions 1 and 2 pertain to the recognition of attending physicians and resident physicians, respectively. Questions 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are Likert‐scalebased questions assessing the residents' professionalism. Questions 9 through 14 are Likert‐scalebased items included to evaluate the quality of communication between patient and provider. We categorized questions 5 and 15 as relating to diagnostics.[27] In 2012, ARC implemented 3 additional questions that assessed residents' communication skills (question 16), level of medical expertise (question 17), and quality of medical care (question 18). We chose to examine the CI‐CARE Questionnaire instead of a standard survey such as the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS), because it examines the physician‐patient interaction in more detail. The survey can be reviewed in Figure 1.

Interview Procedure
The ARC Medical Program is comprised of 47 premedical UCLA students who conducted the surveys. New surveyors were trained by the senior surveyors for a minimum of 12 hours before conducting a survey independently. All surveyors were evaluated biyearly by their peers and the program director for quality assurance and to ensure uniform procedures. The volunteers' surveying experience on December 1, 2012 was as follows: (=10 months [237 months], =10 months).
Prior to the interview, the surveyor introduces himself or herself, the purpose and length of the interview, and that the patient's anonymous participation is optional and confidential. Upon receiving verbal consent from the patient, the surveyor presents a picture card to the patient and asks him or her to identify a resident who was on rotation who treated them. If the patient is able to identify the resident who treated them, the surveyor asks each question and records each response verbatim. The surveyors are trained not to probe for responses, and to ensure that the patients answer in accordance with the possible responses. Although it has not been formally studied, the inter‐rater reliability of the survey is likely to be very high due to the verbatim requirements.
Population Interviewed
A total of 3414 surveys were collected from patients seen in the departments of internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, general surgery, head and neck surgery, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, neurology, and obstetrics and gynecology in this retrospective cohort study. Exclusion criteria included patients who were not awake, were not conscious, could not confidently identify a resident, or stated that they were not able to confidently complete the survey.
Data Analysis
The researchers reviewed and evaluated all data gathered using standard protocols. Statistical comparisons were made using [2] tests. All quantitative analyses were performed in Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) and SPSS version 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
Institutional Review Board
This project received an exemption by the UCLA institutional review board.
RESULTS
There were a total of 3414 interviews conducted and completed from December 1, 2012 to May 30, 2013. Altogether, 1567 surveys were collected 3 months prior to EHR implementation (DecemberFebruary), and 1847 surveys were collected 3 months following implementation (MarchMay). The survey breakdown is summarized in Table 1.
Department | Pre (N) | Post (N) | Total (N) |
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Family medicine | 65 | 128 | 193 |
General surgery | 226 | 246 | 472 |
Head and neck surgery | 43 | 65 | 108 |
Internal medicine | 439 | 369 | 808 |
Neurology | 81 | 98 | 179 |
Neurosurgery | 99 | 54 | 153 |
OB/GYN | 173 | 199 | 372 |
Orthopedic surgery | 117 | 128 | 245 |
Pediatrics | 324 | 563 | 887 |
Totals | 1,567 | 1,850 | 3,417 |
2 analysis revealed that the residents received significantly better feedback in the 3 months following EHR implementation, compared to the 3 months prior to implementation on questions 3, addressing the patient by their preferred name; 4, introducing themselves and their role; 5, communicating what they will do, how long it will take, and how it will impact the patient; 7, responding to the patient's requests and questions with immediacy; 8, listening to the patient's questions and concerns; 9, doing their utmost to ensure the patient receives the best care; 10, communicating well with the patient; 11, being respectful and considerate; and 12, being sensitive to the patient's physical and emotional needs (P<0.05) (Table 2).
Question | Pre‐EHR % Responses (n=1,567) | Post‐EHR % Responses (n=1,850) | 2 Significance | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
| ||||||||||||
3 | Address you by preferred name? | 90.1 | 3.8 | 2.7 | 3.4 | 91.5 | 3.6 | 1.3 | 3.6 | 0.032* | ||
4 | Introduce himself/herself? | 88.3 | 6.4 | 3.2 | 2.1 | 93.1 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 0.000* | ||
5 | Communicate what he/she will do? | 83.1 | 9.3 | 4.5 | 3.2 | 86.9 | 6.4 | 3.5 | 3.3 | 0.006* | ||
6 | Ask if you have any questions? | 90.9 | 6.2 | 2.9 | 92.4 | 4.9 | 2.7 | 0.230 | ||||
7 | Respond with immediacy? | 92.5 | 5.4 | 2.2 | 94.6 | 3.4 | 2.1 | 0.015* | ||||
8 | Listens to your questions and concerns? | 94.8 | 4.0 | 1.1 | 96.6 | 2.4 | 1.0 | 0.022* | ||||
9 | Ensure you received the best care? | 92.4 | 6.3 | 1.3 | 95.2 | 3.9 | 1.0 | 0.003* | ||||
10 | Communicates well with you? | 92.3 | 6.3 | 1.5 | 94.8 | 4.2 | 0.9 | 0.009* | ||||
11 | Is respectful and considerate? | 96.5 | 2.7 | 0.8 | 98.0 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.025* | ||||
12 | Sensitive to your physical and emotional needs? | 90.4 | 6.9 | 2.7 | 94.5 | 3.9 | 1.6 | 0.000* | ||||
13 | Uses language that you can understand? | 96.5 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 96.9 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.431 | ||||
14 | Educated you/family about condition/care? | 84.0 | 8.6 | 7.4 | 86.6 | 7.4 | 6.0 | 0.111 | ||||
15 | Exit courteously? | 89.7 | 6.6 | 3.6 | 91.7 | 5.2 | 3.1 | 0.130 | ||||
16 | Communication skills? | 75.6 | 19.5 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 78.6 | 16.9 | 3.9 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.077 |
17 | Medical expertise? | 79.5 | 15.9 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 80.0 | 16.5 | 2.7 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.398 |
18 | Quality medical care? | 82.5 | 13.0 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 82.6 | 13.6 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.754 |
ARC surveyed for 10 weeks prior to our reported sample (OctoberDecember) and 22 weeks prior to EHR implementation total (OctoberMarch). To rule out resident improvement due to the confounding effects of time and experience, we compared the data from the first 11 weeks (OctoberDecember) to the second 11 weeks (DecemberMarch) prior to EHR implementation. [2] analysis revealed that only 6 of the 16 questions showed improvement in this period, and just 1 of these improvements (question 3) was significant. Furthermore, 10 of the 16 questions actually received worse responses in this period, and 2 of these declines (questions 9 and 12) were significant (Table 3).
Question | First 11 Weeks' Responses (n=897) | Second 11 Weeks' Responses (n=1,338) | 2 Significance | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
| ||||||||||||
3 | Address you by preferred name? | 87.1 | 6.4 | 4.6 | 2.0 | 90.7 | 3.7 | 2.3 | 3.4 | 0.000* | ||
4 | Introduce himself/herself? | 87.7 | 6.9 | 4.1 | 1.2 | 88.3 | 6.1 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 0.174 | ||
5 | Communicate what he/she will do? | 82.9 | 8.2 | 5.1 | 3.7 | 83.2 | 9.1 | 4.3 | 3.4 | 0.698 | ||
6 | Ask if you have any questions? | 92.0 | 5.9 | 2.1 | 90.7 | 6.1 | 3.1 | 0.336 | ||||
7 | Respond with immediacy? | 91.2 | 6.6 | 2.2 | 92.8 | 5.2 | 2.1 | 0.353 | ||||
8 | Listens to your questions and concerns? | 94.6 | 3.9 | 1.4 | 95.0 | 3.8 | 1.2 | 0.868 | ||||
9 | Ensure you received the best care? | 94.4 | 5.0 | 0.6 | 92.1 | 6.5 | 1.4 | 0.049* | ||||
10 | Communicates well with you? | 93.3 | 5.9 | 0.8 | 92.4 | 5.9 | 1.7 | 0.167 | ||||
11 | Is respectful and considerate? | 97.3 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 96.4 | 2.7 | 0.9 | 0.455 | ||||
12 | Sensitive to your physical and emotional needs? | 93.2 | 5.5 | 1.3 | 90.3 | 6.9 | 2.8 | 0.022* | ||||
13 | Uses language that you can understand? | 96.2 | 3.5 | 0.3 | 96.4 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 0.327 | ||||
14 | Educated you/family about condition/care? | 85.7 | 8.9 | 5.4 | 83.8 | 8.7 | 7.5 | 0.141 | ||||
15 | Exit courteously? | 89.7 | 7.8 | 2.5 | 89.6 | 6.6 | 3.8 | 0.124 | ||||
16 | Communication skills? | 78.7 | 17.1 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 75.9 | 19 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.633 |
17 | Medical expertise? | 82.3 | 13.3 | 3.9 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 78.9 | 16.1 | 3.6 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.062 |
18 | Quality medical care? | 82.7 | 13.5 | 2.6 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 82.1 | 13.0 | 3.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.456 |
DISCUSSION
The adoption of EHRs has been fueled by their suggested improvement on healthcare quality and spending.[15, 16, 17, 18] Few studies have investigated the patient experience and its relation to EHR implementation. Furthermore, these studies have not yielded consistent results,[19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25] raising uncertainty about the effects of EHRs on the patient experience. Possible barriers that may contribute to the scarcity of literature include the relatively recent large‐scale implementation of EHRs and a lack of programs in place to collect extensive data on the physician‐patient relationship.
In a field with increasing demands on patient‐centered care, we need to find ways to preserve and foster the patient‐physician relationship. Given that improvements in the delivery of compassionate care can positively impact clinical outcomes, the likelihood of medical malpractice lawsuits, and patient satisfaction,[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13] the need to improve the patient‐provider relationship is tremendously important. Following EHR implementation, residents were perceived to provide more frequent diagnostics information including the nature, impact, and treatment of conditions. Furthermore, they were perceived to provide significantly better communication quality following implementation, through care monitoring, respectful and sensitive communication, and enhanced patient and family education. Residents were also perceived as being more professional following implementation, as indicated by positive assessments of several interpersonal communication questions. These results suggest that implementing an EHR may be an effective way to meet these increasing demands on patient‐centered care.
Limitations to this study should be considered. The ARC Medical Program is primarily used as an education tool for resident physicians, so all of our data are specific to resident physicians. It would be interesting and important to observe if EHRs affect nurse or attending‐patient interactions. Furthermore, we did not have access to any patient demographic or clinical data. However, we did not anticipate a significant change in the patient population that would alter the survey responses during this 6‐month period. Patients were required to recognize their resident on a photo card presented to them by the surveyor, which likely favored patients with strong feelings toward their residents. Due to this, our population sampled may not be indicative of the entire patient population. All findings were simply correlational. Due to the nature of our data collection, we were unable to control for many confounding variables, thus causal conclusions are difficult to draw from these results.
There are a few important trends to note. No question on the ARC survey received lower scores following implementation of the EHR. Furthermore, 9 of the 16 questions under investigation received significantly higher scores following implementation. The residents largely received positive responses both before and after EHR implementation, so despite the statistically significant improvements, the absolute differences are relatively small. These significant differences were likely not due to the residents improving through time and experience. We observed relatively insignificant and nonuniform changes in responses between the two 11‐week periods prior to implementation.
One possible reason for the observed significant improvements is that EHRs may increase patient involvement in the healthcare setting,[28] and this collaboration might improve resident‐patient communication.[29] Providing patients with an interactive tablet that details their care has been suggested to increase patient satisfaction and comfort in an inpatient setting.[30] In this light, the EHR can be used as a tool to increase these interactions by inviting patients to view the computer screen and electronic charts during data entry, which allows them to have a participatory role in their care and decision‐making process.[31] Although the reasons for our observed improvements are unclear, they are noteworthy and warrant further study. The notion that implementing an EHR might enhance provider‐patient communication is a powerful concept.
This study not only suggests the improvement of resident‐patient communication due to the implementation of an EHR, but it also reveals the value of the ARC Medical Program for studying the patient experience. The controlled, prolonged, and efficient nature of the ARC Medical Program's data collection was ideal for comparing a change in resident‐patient communication before and after EHR implementation at UCLA Health. ARC and UCLA Health's EHR can serve as a model for residency programs nationwide. Future studies can assess the changes of the patient‐provider interaction for any significant event, as demonstrated by this study and its investigation of the implementation of UCLA Health's EHR.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the UCLA Health Office of the Patient Experience and UCLA Health for allowing for this unique partnership with the David Geffen School of Medicine to improve physician‐patient communication. Furthermore, the authors thank the student volunteers and interns of the ARC Medical program for their commitment and effort to optimize the patient experience. Additionally, the authors thank the program directors of the David Geffen School of Medicine residency physician training programs for their outstanding support of the ARC Medical Program.
Disclosures: C.W.M. and A.A.N. contributed equally to this manuscript. C.W.M. and A.A.N. collected data, performed statistical analyses, and drafted and revised the manuscript. A.A.N. and V.N.M. oversaw the program. N.A. provided faculty support and revised the manuscript. The authors report no conflicts of interest.
- Doctor‐patient communication and patient satisfaction: a review. Fam Pract. 1998;15(5):480–492. , , .
- Patient satisfaction in primary health care: a literature review and analysis. Eval Program Plann. 1983;6:185–210. .
- The significance of patients' perceptions of physician conduct. J Community Health. 1980;6(1):18–34. , .
- Predicting patient satisfaction from physicians' nonverbal communication skills. Med Care. 1980;18(4):376–387. , , , .
- Why do people sue doctors? A study of patients and relatives. Lancet. 1994;343:1609–1613. , , .
- Reducing legal risk by practicing patient‐centered medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(11):1217–1219. , , .
- Listening and talking. West J Med. 1993;158:268–272. , .
- Medical malpractice: the effect of doctor‐patient relations on medical patient perceptions and malpractice intentions. West J Med. 2000;173(4):244–250. , , .
- Effective physician‐patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ. 1995;152(9):1423–1433. .
- Patients' participation in medical care: effects on blood sugar control and quality of life in diabetes. J Intern Med. 1988;3:448–457. , , , , .
- Assessing the effects of physician‐patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care. 1989;27(3 suppl):S110–S127. , , .
- Expanding patient involvement in care. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102:520–528. , , .
- Patient exposition and provider explanation in routine interviews and hypertensive patients' blood control. Health Psychol. 1987;6(1):29–42. , , , , .
- A framework for making patient‐centered care front and center. Perm J. 2012;16(3):49–53. , , .
- Interoperability: the key to the future health care system. Health Aff. 2005;5(21):19–21. .
- Physicians' use of electronic medical records: barriers and solutions. Health Aff. 2004;23(2):116–126. , .
- Do hospitals with electronic medical records (EMRs) provide higher quality care?: an examination of three clinical conditions. Med Care Res Rev. 2008;65(4):496–513. , .
- Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff. 2005;24(5):1103–1117. , , , et al.
- An electronic medical record in primary care: impact on satisfaction, work efficiency and clinic processes. AMIA Annu Symp.2006:394–398. , , , .
- Barriers to implement electronic health records (EHRs). Mater Sociomed. 2013;25(3):213–215. , .
- Impact of electronic health record systems on information integrity: quality and safety implications. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2013;10:1c.eCollection 2013. .
- Electronic medical record use and physician–patient communication: an observational study of Israeli primary care encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;61:134–141. , , , , .
- EHR implementation in a new clinic: a case study of clinician perceptions. J Med Syst. 2013;37(9955):1–6. , , , et al.
- Accuracy and speed of electronic health record versus paper‐based ophthalmic documentation strategies. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(1):165–172. , , .
- The use of electronic medical records communication patterns in outpatient encounters. J Am Informatics Assoc. 2001:610–616. , , .
- Cost‐benefit analysis of electronic medical record system at a tertiary care hospital. Healthc Inform Res. 2013;19(3):205–214. , , .
- Promoting patient‐centred care through trainee feedback: assessing residents' C‐I‐CARE (ARC) program. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(3):225–233. , , , .
- Electronic health records?: can we maximize their benefits and minimize their risks? Acad Med. 2012;87(11):1456–1457. .
- Let the left hand know what the right is doing: a vision for care coordination and electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(1):13–16. , .
- A tablet computer application for patients to participate in their hospital care. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2011;2011:1428–1435. , , , et al.
- Enhancing patient‐centered communication and collaboration by using the electronic health record in the examination room. J Am Med Assoc. 2013;309(22):2327–2328. , .
Delivering patient‐centered care is at the core of ensuring patient engagement and active participation that will lead to positive outcomes. Physician‐patient interaction has become an area of increasing focus in an effort to optimize the patient experience. Positive patient‐provider communication has been shown to increase satisfaction,[1, 2, 3, 4] decrease the likelihood of medical malpractice lawsuits,[5, 6, 7, 8] and improve clinical outcomes.[9, 10, 11, 12, 13] Specifically, a decrease in psychological symptoms such as anxiety and stress, as well as perception of physical symptoms have been correlated with improved communication.[9, 12] Furthermore, objective health outcomes, such as improvement in hypertension and glycosylated hemoglobin, have also been correlated with improved physician‐patient communication.[10, 11, 13] The multifaceted effects of improved communication are impactful to both the patient and the physician; therefore, it is essential that we understand how to optimize this interaction.
Patient‐centered care is a critical objective for many high‐quality healthcare systems.[14] In recent years, the use of electronic health records (EHRs) has been increasingly adopted by healthcare systems nationally in an effort to improve the quality of care delivered. The positive benefits of EHRs on the facilitation of healthcare, including consolidation of information, reduction of medical errors, easily transferable medical records,[15, 16, 17] as well as their impact on healthcare spending,[18] are well‐documented and have been emphasized as reasons for adoption of EHRs by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, EHR implementation has encountered some resistance regarding its impact on the patient experience.
As EHR implementation is exponentially increasing in the United States, there is limited literature on the consequences of this technology.[19] Barriers reported during EHR implementation include the limitations of standardization, attitudinal and organizational constraints, behavior of individuals, and resistance to change.[20] Additionally, poor EHR system design and improper use can cause errors that jeopardize the integrity of the information inputted, leading to inaccuracies that endanger patient safety or decrease the quality of care.[21]
One of the limitations of EHRs has been the reported negative impact on patient‐centered care by decreasing communication during the hospital visit.[22] Although the EHR has enhanced internal provider communication,[23] the literature suggests a lack of focus on the patient sitting in front of the provider. Due to perceived physician distraction during the visit, patients report decreased satisfaction when physicians spend a considerable period of time during the visit at the computer.[22] Furthermore, the average hospital length of stay has been increased due to the use of EHRs.[22]
Although some physicians report that EHR use impedes patient workflow and decreases time spent with patients,[23] previous literature suggests that EHRs decrease the time to develop a synopsis and improve communication efficiency.[19] Some studies have also noted an increase in the ability for medical history retrieval and analysis, which will ultimately increase the quality of care provided to the patient.[24] Physicians who use the EHR adopted a more active role in clarifying information, encouraging questions, and ensuring completeness at the end of a visit.[25] Finally, studies show that the EHR has a positive return on investment from savings in drug expenditures, radiology tests, and billing errors.[26] Given the significant financial and time commitment that health systems and physicians must invest to implement EHRs, it is vital that we understand the multifaceted effects of EHRs on the field of medicine.
METHODS
The purpose of this study was to assess the physician‐patient communication patterns associated with the implementation and use of an EHR in a hospital setting.
ARC Medical Program
In 2006, the Office of Patient Experience at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Health, in conjunction with the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, launched the Assessing Residents' CI‐CARE (ARC) Medical Program. CI‐CARE is a protocol that emphasizes for medical staff and providers to Connect with their patients, Introduce themselves, Communicate their purpose, Ask or anticipate patients' needs, Respond to questions with immediacy, and to Exit courteously. CI‐CARE represents the standards for staff and providers in any encounter with patients or their families. The goals of the ARC Medical Program are to monitor housestaff performance and patient satisfaction while improving trainee education through timely and patient‐centered feedback. The ARC Medical Program's survey has served as an important tool to assess and improve physician professionalism and interpersonal skills and communication, 2 of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies.[27]
The ARC program is a unique and innovative volunteer program that provides timely and patient‐centered feedback from trainees' daily encounters with hospitalized patients. The ARC Medical Program has an established infrastructure to conduct evaluations on a system‐wide scale, including 9 departments within UCLA Health. ARC volunteers interview patients using a CI‐CARE Questionnaire (ARC survey) to assess their resident physician's communication patterns. The ARC Survey targets specific areas of the residents' care as outlined by the CI‐CARE Program of UCLA Health.
As part of UCLA Health's mission to ensure the highest level of patient‐centered care, the CI‐CARE standards were introduced in 2006, followed by implementation of the EHR system. Given the lack of previous research and conflicting results on the impact of EHRs on the patient experience, this article uses ARC data to assess whether or not there was a significant difference following implementation of the EHR on March 2, 2013.
The materials and methods of this study are largely based on those of a previous study, also published by the ARC Medical Program.[27]
CI‐CARE QuestionnaireARC Survey
The CI‐CARE Questionnaire is a standardized audit tool consisting of a total of 20 questions used by the facilitators who work with ARC. There are a total of 20 items on the ARC survey, including 18 multiple‐choice, polar, and Likert‐scale questions, and 2 free‐response questions that assess the patients' overall perception of their resident physician and their hospital experience. Questions 1 and 2 pertain to the recognition of attending physicians and resident physicians, respectively. Questions 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are Likert‐scalebased questions assessing the residents' professionalism. Questions 9 through 14 are Likert‐scalebased items included to evaluate the quality of communication between patient and provider. We categorized questions 5 and 15 as relating to diagnostics.[27] In 2012, ARC implemented 3 additional questions that assessed residents' communication skills (question 16), level of medical expertise (question 17), and quality of medical care (question 18). We chose to examine the CI‐CARE Questionnaire instead of a standard survey such as the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS), because it examines the physician‐patient interaction in more detail. The survey can be reviewed in Figure 1.

Interview Procedure
The ARC Medical Program is comprised of 47 premedical UCLA students who conducted the surveys. New surveyors were trained by the senior surveyors for a minimum of 12 hours before conducting a survey independently. All surveyors were evaluated biyearly by their peers and the program director for quality assurance and to ensure uniform procedures. The volunteers' surveying experience on December 1, 2012 was as follows: (=10 months [237 months], =10 months).
Prior to the interview, the surveyor introduces himself or herself, the purpose and length of the interview, and that the patient's anonymous participation is optional and confidential. Upon receiving verbal consent from the patient, the surveyor presents a picture card to the patient and asks him or her to identify a resident who was on rotation who treated them. If the patient is able to identify the resident who treated them, the surveyor asks each question and records each response verbatim. The surveyors are trained not to probe for responses, and to ensure that the patients answer in accordance with the possible responses. Although it has not been formally studied, the inter‐rater reliability of the survey is likely to be very high due to the verbatim requirements.
Population Interviewed
A total of 3414 surveys were collected from patients seen in the departments of internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, general surgery, head and neck surgery, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, neurology, and obstetrics and gynecology in this retrospective cohort study. Exclusion criteria included patients who were not awake, were not conscious, could not confidently identify a resident, or stated that they were not able to confidently complete the survey.
Data Analysis
The researchers reviewed and evaluated all data gathered using standard protocols. Statistical comparisons were made using [2] tests. All quantitative analyses were performed in Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) and SPSS version 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
Institutional Review Board
This project received an exemption by the UCLA institutional review board.
RESULTS
There were a total of 3414 interviews conducted and completed from December 1, 2012 to May 30, 2013. Altogether, 1567 surveys were collected 3 months prior to EHR implementation (DecemberFebruary), and 1847 surveys were collected 3 months following implementation (MarchMay). The survey breakdown is summarized in Table 1.
Department | Pre (N) | Post (N) | Total (N) |
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Family medicine | 65 | 128 | 193 |
General surgery | 226 | 246 | 472 |
Head and neck surgery | 43 | 65 | 108 |
Internal medicine | 439 | 369 | 808 |
Neurology | 81 | 98 | 179 |
Neurosurgery | 99 | 54 | 153 |
OB/GYN | 173 | 199 | 372 |
Orthopedic surgery | 117 | 128 | 245 |
Pediatrics | 324 | 563 | 887 |
Totals | 1,567 | 1,850 | 3,417 |
2 analysis revealed that the residents received significantly better feedback in the 3 months following EHR implementation, compared to the 3 months prior to implementation on questions 3, addressing the patient by their preferred name; 4, introducing themselves and their role; 5, communicating what they will do, how long it will take, and how it will impact the patient; 7, responding to the patient's requests and questions with immediacy; 8, listening to the patient's questions and concerns; 9, doing their utmost to ensure the patient receives the best care; 10, communicating well with the patient; 11, being respectful and considerate; and 12, being sensitive to the patient's physical and emotional needs (P<0.05) (Table 2).
Question | Pre‐EHR % Responses (n=1,567) | Post‐EHR % Responses (n=1,850) | 2 Significance | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
| ||||||||||||
3 | Address you by preferred name? | 90.1 | 3.8 | 2.7 | 3.4 | 91.5 | 3.6 | 1.3 | 3.6 | 0.032* | ||
4 | Introduce himself/herself? | 88.3 | 6.4 | 3.2 | 2.1 | 93.1 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 0.000* | ||
5 | Communicate what he/she will do? | 83.1 | 9.3 | 4.5 | 3.2 | 86.9 | 6.4 | 3.5 | 3.3 | 0.006* | ||
6 | Ask if you have any questions? | 90.9 | 6.2 | 2.9 | 92.4 | 4.9 | 2.7 | 0.230 | ||||
7 | Respond with immediacy? | 92.5 | 5.4 | 2.2 | 94.6 | 3.4 | 2.1 | 0.015* | ||||
8 | Listens to your questions and concerns? | 94.8 | 4.0 | 1.1 | 96.6 | 2.4 | 1.0 | 0.022* | ||||
9 | Ensure you received the best care? | 92.4 | 6.3 | 1.3 | 95.2 | 3.9 | 1.0 | 0.003* | ||||
10 | Communicates well with you? | 92.3 | 6.3 | 1.5 | 94.8 | 4.2 | 0.9 | 0.009* | ||||
11 | Is respectful and considerate? | 96.5 | 2.7 | 0.8 | 98.0 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.025* | ||||
12 | Sensitive to your physical and emotional needs? | 90.4 | 6.9 | 2.7 | 94.5 | 3.9 | 1.6 | 0.000* | ||||
13 | Uses language that you can understand? | 96.5 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 96.9 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.431 | ||||
14 | Educated you/family about condition/care? | 84.0 | 8.6 | 7.4 | 86.6 | 7.4 | 6.0 | 0.111 | ||||
15 | Exit courteously? | 89.7 | 6.6 | 3.6 | 91.7 | 5.2 | 3.1 | 0.130 | ||||
16 | Communication skills? | 75.6 | 19.5 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 78.6 | 16.9 | 3.9 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.077 |
17 | Medical expertise? | 79.5 | 15.9 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 80.0 | 16.5 | 2.7 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.398 |
18 | Quality medical care? | 82.5 | 13.0 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 82.6 | 13.6 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.754 |
ARC surveyed for 10 weeks prior to our reported sample (OctoberDecember) and 22 weeks prior to EHR implementation total (OctoberMarch). To rule out resident improvement due to the confounding effects of time and experience, we compared the data from the first 11 weeks (OctoberDecember) to the second 11 weeks (DecemberMarch) prior to EHR implementation. [2] analysis revealed that only 6 of the 16 questions showed improvement in this period, and just 1 of these improvements (question 3) was significant. Furthermore, 10 of the 16 questions actually received worse responses in this period, and 2 of these declines (questions 9 and 12) were significant (Table 3).
Question | First 11 Weeks' Responses (n=897) | Second 11 Weeks' Responses (n=1,338) | 2 Significance | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
| ||||||||||||
3 | Address you by preferred name? | 87.1 | 6.4 | 4.6 | 2.0 | 90.7 | 3.7 | 2.3 | 3.4 | 0.000* | ||
4 | Introduce himself/herself? | 87.7 | 6.9 | 4.1 | 1.2 | 88.3 | 6.1 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 0.174 | ||
5 | Communicate what he/she will do? | 82.9 | 8.2 | 5.1 | 3.7 | 83.2 | 9.1 | 4.3 | 3.4 | 0.698 | ||
6 | Ask if you have any questions? | 92.0 | 5.9 | 2.1 | 90.7 | 6.1 | 3.1 | 0.336 | ||||
7 | Respond with immediacy? | 91.2 | 6.6 | 2.2 | 92.8 | 5.2 | 2.1 | 0.353 | ||||
8 | Listens to your questions and concerns? | 94.6 | 3.9 | 1.4 | 95.0 | 3.8 | 1.2 | 0.868 | ||||
9 | Ensure you received the best care? | 94.4 | 5.0 | 0.6 | 92.1 | 6.5 | 1.4 | 0.049* | ||||
10 | Communicates well with you? | 93.3 | 5.9 | 0.8 | 92.4 | 5.9 | 1.7 | 0.167 | ||||
11 | Is respectful and considerate? | 97.3 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 96.4 | 2.7 | 0.9 | 0.455 | ||||
12 | Sensitive to your physical and emotional needs? | 93.2 | 5.5 | 1.3 | 90.3 | 6.9 | 2.8 | 0.022* | ||||
13 | Uses language that you can understand? | 96.2 | 3.5 | 0.3 | 96.4 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 0.327 | ||||
14 | Educated you/family about condition/care? | 85.7 | 8.9 | 5.4 | 83.8 | 8.7 | 7.5 | 0.141 | ||||
15 | Exit courteously? | 89.7 | 7.8 | 2.5 | 89.6 | 6.6 | 3.8 | 0.124 | ||||
16 | Communication skills? | 78.7 | 17.1 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 75.9 | 19 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.633 |
17 | Medical expertise? | 82.3 | 13.3 | 3.9 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 78.9 | 16.1 | 3.6 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.062 |
18 | Quality medical care? | 82.7 | 13.5 | 2.6 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 82.1 | 13.0 | 3.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.456 |
DISCUSSION
The adoption of EHRs has been fueled by their suggested improvement on healthcare quality and spending.[15, 16, 17, 18] Few studies have investigated the patient experience and its relation to EHR implementation. Furthermore, these studies have not yielded consistent results,[19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25] raising uncertainty about the effects of EHRs on the patient experience. Possible barriers that may contribute to the scarcity of literature include the relatively recent large‐scale implementation of EHRs and a lack of programs in place to collect extensive data on the physician‐patient relationship.
In a field with increasing demands on patient‐centered care, we need to find ways to preserve and foster the patient‐physician relationship. Given that improvements in the delivery of compassionate care can positively impact clinical outcomes, the likelihood of medical malpractice lawsuits, and patient satisfaction,[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13] the need to improve the patient‐provider relationship is tremendously important. Following EHR implementation, residents were perceived to provide more frequent diagnostics information including the nature, impact, and treatment of conditions. Furthermore, they were perceived to provide significantly better communication quality following implementation, through care monitoring, respectful and sensitive communication, and enhanced patient and family education. Residents were also perceived as being more professional following implementation, as indicated by positive assessments of several interpersonal communication questions. These results suggest that implementing an EHR may be an effective way to meet these increasing demands on patient‐centered care.
Limitations to this study should be considered. The ARC Medical Program is primarily used as an education tool for resident physicians, so all of our data are specific to resident physicians. It would be interesting and important to observe if EHRs affect nurse or attending‐patient interactions. Furthermore, we did not have access to any patient demographic or clinical data. However, we did not anticipate a significant change in the patient population that would alter the survey responses during this 6‐month period. Patients were required to recognize their resident on a photo card presented to them by the surveyor, which likely favored patients with strong feelings toward their residents. Due to this, our population sampled may not be indicative of the entire patient population. All findings were simply correlational. Due to the nature of our data collection, we were unable to control for many confounding variables, thus causal conclusions are difficult to draw from these results.
There are a few important trends to note. No question on the ARC survey received lower scores following implementation of the EHR. Furthermore, 9 of the 16 questions under investigation received significantly higher scores following implementation. The residents largely received positive responses both before and after EHR implementation, so despite the statistically significant improvements, the absolute differences are relatively small. These significant differences were likely not due to the residents improving through time and experience. We observed relatively insignificant and nonuniform changes in responses between the two 11‐week periods prior to implementation.
One possible reason for the observed significant improvements is that EHRs may increase patient involvement in the healthcare setting,[28] and this collaboration might improve resident‐patient communication.[29] Providing patients with an interactive tablet that details their care has been suggested to increase patient satisfaction and comfort in an inpatient setting.[30] In this light, the EHR can be used as a tool to increase these interactions by inviting patients to view the computer screen and electronic charts during data entry, which allows them to have a participatory role in their care and decision‐making process.[31] Although the reasons for our observed improvements are unclear, they are noteworthy and warrant further study. The notion that implementing an EHR might enhance provider‐patient communication is a powerful concept.
This study not only suggests the improvement of resident‐patient communication due to the implementation of an EHR, but it also reveals the value of the ARC Medical Program for studying the patient experience. The controlled, prolonged, and efficient nature of the ARC Medical Program's data collection was ideal for comparing a change in resident‐patient communication before and after EHR implementation at UCLA Health. ARC and UCLA Health's EHR can serve as a model for residency programs nationwide. Future studies can assess the changes of the patient‐provider interaction for any significant event, as demonstrated by this study and its investigation of the implementation of UCLA Health's EHR.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the UCLA Health Office of the Patient Experience and UCLA Health for allowing for this unique partnership with the David Geffen School of Medicine to improve physician‐patient communication. Furthermore, the authors thank the student volunteers and interns of the ARC Medical program for their commitment and effort to optimize the patient experience. Additionally, the authors thank the program directors of the David Geffen School of Medicine residency physician training programs for their outstanding support of the ARC Medical Program.
Disclosures: C.W.M. and A.A.N. contributed equally to this manuscript. C.W.M. and A.A.N. collected data, performed statistical analyses, and drafted and revised the manuscript. A.A.N. and V.N.M. oversaw the program. N.A. provided faculty support and revised the manuscript. The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Delivering patient‐centered care is at the core of ensuring patient engagement and active participation that will lead to positive outcomes. Physician‐patient interaction has become an area of increasing focus in an effort to optimize the patient experience. Positive patient‐provider communication has been shown to increase satisfaction,[1, 2, 3, 4] decrease the likelihood of medical malpractice lawsuits,[5, 6, 7, 8] and improve clinical outcomes.[9, 10, 11, 12, 13] Specifically, a decrease in psychological symptoms such as anxiety and stress, as well as perception of physical symptoms have been correlated with improved communication.[9, 12] Furthermore, objective health outcomes, such as improvement in hypertension and glycosylated hemoglobin, have also been correlated with improved physician‐patient communication.[10, 11, 13] The multifaceted effects of improved communication are impactful to both the patient and the physician; therefore, it is essential that we understand how to optimize this interaction.
Patient‐centered care is a critical objective for many high‐quality healthcare systems.[14] In recent years, the use of electronic health records (EHRs) has been increasingly adopted by healthcare systems nationally in an effort to improve the quality of care delivered. The positive benefits of EHRs on the facilitation of healthcare, including consolidation of information, reduction of medical errors, easily transferable medical records,[15, 16, 17] as well as their impact on healthcare spending,[18] are well‐documented and have been emphasized as reasons for adoption of EHRs by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, EHR implementation has encountered some resistance regarding its impact on the patient experience.
As EHR implementation is exponentially increasing in the United States, there is limited literature on the consequences of this technology.[19] Barriers reported during EHR implementation include the limitations of standardization, attitudinal and organizational constraints, behavior of individuals, and resistance to change.[20] Additionally, poor EHR system design and improper use can cause errors that jeopardize the integrity of the information inputted, leading to inaccuracies that endanger patient safety or decrease the quality of care.[21]
One of the limitations of EHRs has been the reported negative impact on patient‐centered care by decreasing communication during the hospital visit.[22] Although the EHR has enhanced internal provider communication,[23] the literature suggests a lack of focus on the patient sitting in front of the provider. Due to perceived physician distraction during the visit, patients report decreased satisfaction when physicians spend a considerable period of time during the visit at the computer.[22] Furthermore, the average hospital length of stay has been increased due to the use of EHRs.[22]
Although some physicians report that EHR use impedes patient workflow and decreases time spent with patients,[23] previous literature suggests that EHRs decrease the time to develop a synopsis and improve communication efficiency.[19] Some studies have also noted an increase in the ability for medical history retrieval and analysis, which will ultimately increase the quality of care provided to the patient.[24] Physicians who use the EHR adopted a more active role in clarifying information, encouraging questions, and ensuring completeness at the end of a visit.[25] Finally, studies show that the EHR has a positive return on investment from savings in drug expenditures, radiology tests, and billing errors.[26] Given the significant financial and time commitment that health systems and physicians must invest to implement EHRs, it is vital that we understand the multifaceted effects of EHRs on the field of medicine.
METHODS
The purpose of this study was to assess the physician‐patient communication patterns associated with the implementation and use of an EHR in a hospital setting.
ARC Medical Program
In 2006, the Office of Patient Experience at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Health, in conjunction with the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, launched the Assessing Residents' CI‐CARE (ARC) Medical Program. CI‐CARE is a protocol that emphasizes for medical staff and providers to Connect with their patients, Introduce themselves, Communicate their purpose, Ask or anticipate patients' needs, Respond to questions with immediacy, and to Exit courteously. CI‐CARE represents the standards for staff and providers in any encounter with patients or their families. The goals of the ARC Medical Program are to monitor housestaff performance and patient satisfaction while improving trainee education through timely and patient‐centered feedback. The ARC Medical Program's survey has served as an important tool to assess and improve physician professionalism and interpersonal skills and communication, 2 of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies.[27]
The ARC program is a unique and innovative volunteer program that provides timely and patient‐centered feedback from trainees' daily encounters with hospitalized patients. The ARC Medical Program has an established infrastructure to conduct evaluations on a system‐wide scale, including 9 departments within UCLA Health. ARC volunteers interview patients using a CI‐CARE Questionnaire (ARC survey) to assess their resident physician's communication patterns. The ARC Survey targets specific areas of the residents' care as outlined by the CI‐CARE Program of UCLA Health.
As part of UCLA Health's mission to ensure the highest level of patient‐centered care, the CI‐CARE standards were introduced in 2006, followed by implementation of the EHR system. Given the lack of previous research and conflicting results on the impact of EHRs on the patient experience, this article uses ARC data to assess whether or not there was a significant difference following implementation of the EHR on March 2, 2013.
The materials and methods of this study are largely based on those of a previous study, also published by the ARC Medical Program.[27]
CI‐CARE QuestionnaireARC Survey
The CI‐CARE Questionnaire is a standardized audit tool consisting of a total of 20 questions used by the facilitators who work with ARC. There are a total of 20 items on the ARC survey, including 18 multiple‐choice, polar, and Likert‐scale questions, and 2 free‐response questions that assess the patients' overall perception of their resident physician and their hospital experience. Questions 1 and 2 pertain to the recognition of attending physicians and resident physicians, respectively. Questions 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are Likert‐scalebased questions assessing the residents' professionalism. Questions 9 through 14 are Likert‐scalebased items included to evaluate the quality of communication between patient and provider. We categorized questions 5 and 15 as relating to diagnostics.[27] In 2012, ARC implemented 3 additional questions that assessed residents' communication skills (question 16), level of medical expertise (question 17), and quality of medical care (question 18). We chose to examine the CI‐CARE Questionnaire instead of a standard survey such as the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS), because it examines the physician‐patient interaction in more detail. The survey can be reviewed in Figure 1.

Interview Procedure
The ARC Medical Program is comprised of 47 premedical UCLA students who conducted the surveys. New surveyors were trained by the senior surveyors for a minimum of 12 hours before conducting a survey independently. All surveyors were evaluated biyearly by their peers and the program director for quality assurance and to ensure uniform procedures. The volunteers' surveying experience on December 1, 2012 was as follows: (=10 months [237 months], =10 months).
Prior to the interview, the surveyor introduces himself or herself, the purpose and length of the interview, and that the patient's anonymous participation is optional and confidential. Upon receiving verbal consent from the patient, the surveyor presents a picture card to the patient and asks him or her to identify a resident who was on rotation who treated them. If the patient is able to identify the resident who treated them, the surveyor asks each question and records each response verbatim. The surveyors are trained not to probe for responses, and to ensure that the patients answer in accordance with the possible responses. Although it has not been formally studied, the inter‐rater reliability of the survey is likely to be very high due to the verbatim requirements.
Population Interviewed
A total of 3414 surveys were collected from patients seen in the departments of internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, general surgery, head and neck surgery, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, neurology, and obstetrics and gynecology in this retrospective cohort study. Exclusion criteria included patients who were not awake, were not conscious, could not confidently identify a resident, or stated that they were not able to confidently complete the survey.
Data Analysis
The researchers reviewed and evaluated all data gathered using standard protocols. Statistical comparisons were made using [2] tests. All quantitative analyses were performed in Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) and SPSS version 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
Institutional Review Board
This project received an exemption by the UCLA institutional review board.
RESULTS
There were a total of 3414 interviews conducted and completed from December 1, 2012 to May 30, 2013. Altogether, 1567 surveys were collected 3 months prior to EHR implementation (DecemberFebruary), and 1847 surveys were collected 3 months following implementation (MarchMay). The survey breakdown is summarized in Table 1.
Department | Pre (N) | Post (N) | Total (N) |
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Family medicine | 65 | 128 | 193 |
General surgery | 226 | 246 | 472 |
Head and neck surgery | 43 | 65 | 108 |
Internal medicine | 439 | 369 | 808 |
Neurology | 81 | 98 | 179 |
Neurosurgery | 99 | 54 | 153 |
OB/GYN | 173 | 199 | 372 |
Orthopedic surgery | 117 | 128 | 245 |
Pediatrics | 324 | 563 | 887 |
Totals | 1,567 | 1,850 | 3,417 |
2 analysis revealed that the residents received significantly better feedback in the 3 months following EHR implementation, compared to the 3 months prior to implementation on questions 3, addressing the patient by their preferred name; 4, introducing themselves and their role; 5, communicating what they will do, how long it will take, and how it will impact the patient; 7, responding to the patient's requests and questions with immediacy; 8, listening to the patient's questions and concerns; 9, doing their utmost to ensure the patient receives the best care; 10, communicating well with the patient; 11, being respectful and considerate; and 12, being sensitive to the patient's physical and emotional needs (P<0.05) (Table 2).
Question | Pre‐EHR % Responses (n=1,567) | Post‐EHR % Responses (n=1,850) | 2 Significance | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
| ||||||||||||
3 | Address you by preferred name? | 90.1 | 3.8 | 2.7 | 3.4 | 91.5 | 3.6 | 1.3 | 3.6 | 0.032* | ||
4 | Introduce himself/herself? | 88.3 | 6.4 | 3.2 | 2.1 | 93.1 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 0.000* | ||
5 | Communicate what he/she will do? | 83.1 | 9.3 | 4.5 | 3.2 | 86.9 | 6.4 | 3.5 | 3.3 | 0.006* | ||
6 | Ask if you have any questions? | 90.9 | 6.2 | 2.9 | 92.4 | 4.9 | 2.7 | 0.230 | ||||
7 | Respond with immediacy? | 92.5 | 5.4 | 2.2 | 94.6 | 3.4 | 2.1 | 0.015* | ||||
8 | Listens to your questions and concerns? | 94.8 | 4.0 | 1.1 | 96.6 | 2.4 | 1.0 | 0.022* | ||||
9 | Ensure you received the best care? | 92.4 | 6.3 | 1.3 | 95.2 | 3.9 | 1.0 | 0.003* | ||||
10 | Communicates well with you? | 92.3 | 6.3 | 1.5 | 94.8 | 4.2 | 0.9 | 0.009* | ||||
11 | Is respectful and considerate? | 96.5 | 2.7 | 0.8 | 98.0 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.025* | ||||
12 | Sensitive to your physical and emotional needs? | 90.4 | 6.9 | 2.7 | 94.5 | 3.9 | 1.6 | 0.000* | ||||
13 | Uses language that you can understand? | 96.5 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 96.9 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.431 | ||||
14 | Educated you/family about condition/care? | 84.0 | 8.6 | 7.4 | 86.6 | 7.4 | 6.0 | 0.111 | ||||
15 | Exit courteously? | 89.7 | 6.6 | 3.6 | 91.7 | 5.2 | 3.1 | 0.130 | ||||
16 | Communication skills? | 75.6 | 19.5 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 78.6 | 16.9 | 3.9 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.077 |
17 | Medical expertise? | 79.5 | 15.9 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 80.0 | 16.5 | 2.7 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.398 |
18 | Quality medical care? | 82.5 | 13.0 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 82.6 | 13.6 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.754 |
ARC surveyed for 10 weeks prior to our reported sample (OctoberDecember) and 22 weeks prior to EHR implementation total (OctoberMarch). To rule out resident improvement due to the confounding effects of time and experience, we compared the data from the first 11 weeks (OctoberDecember) to the second 11 weeks (DecemberMarch) prior to EHR implementation. [2] analysis revealed that only 6 of the 16 questions showed improvement in this period, and just 1 of these improvements (question 3) was significant. Furthermore, 10 of the 16 questions actually received worse responses in this period, and 2 of these declines (questions 9 and 12) were significant (Table 3).
Question | First 11 Weeks' Responses (n=897) | Second 11 Weeks' Responses (n=1,338) | 2 Significance | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
| ||||||||||||
3 | Address you by preferred name? | 87.1 | 6.4 | 4.6 | 2.0 | 90.7 | 3.7 | 2.3 | 3.4 | 0.000* | ||
4 | Introduce himself/herself? | 87.7 | 6.9 | 4.1 | 1.2 | 88.3 | 6.1 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 0.174 | ||
5 | Communicate what he/she will do? | 82.9 | 8.2 | 5.1 | 3.7 | 83.2 | 9.1 | 4.3 | 3.4 | 0.698 | ||
6 | Ask if you have any questions? | 92.0 | 5.9 | 2.1 | 90.7 | 6.1 | 3.1 | 0.336 | ||||
7 | Respond with immediacy? | 91.2 | 6.6 | 2.2 | 92.8 | 5.2 | 2.1 | 0.353 | ||||
8 | Listens to your questions and concerns? | 94.6 | 3.9 | 1.4 | 95.0 | 3.8 | 1.2 | 0.868 | ||||
9 | Ensure you received the best care? | 94.4 | 5.0 | 0.6 | 92.1 | 6.5 | 1.4 | 0.049* | ||||
10 | Communicates well with you? | 93.3 | 5.9 | 0.8 | 92.4 | 5.9 | 1.7 | 0.167 | ||||
11 | Is respectful and considerate? | 97.3 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 96.4 | 2.7 | 0.9 | 0.455 | ||||
12 | Sensitive to your physical and emotional needs? | 93.2 | 5.5 | 1.3 | 90.3 | 6.9 | 2.8 | 0.022* | ||||
13 | Uses language that you can understand? | 96.2 | 3.5 | 0.3 | 96.4 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 0.327 | ||||
14 | Educated you/family about condition/care? | 85.7 | 8.9 | 5.4 | 83.8 | 8.7 | 7.5 | 0.141 | ||||
15 | Exit courteously? | 89.7 | 7.8 | 2.5 | 89.6 | 6.6 | 3.8 | 0.124 | ||||
16 | Communication skills? | 78.7 | 17.1 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 75.9 | 19 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.633 |
17 | Medical expertise? | 82.3 | 13.3 | 3.9 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 78.9 | 16.1 | 3.6 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.062 |
18 | Quality medical care? | 82.7 | 13.5 | 2.6 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 82.1 | 13.0 | 3.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.456 |
DISCUSSION
The adoption of EHRs has been fueled by their suggested improvement on healthcare quality and spending.[15, 16, 17, 18] Few studies have investigated the patient experience and its relation to EHR implementation. Furthermore, these studies have not yielded consistent results,[19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25] raising uncertainty about the effects of EHRs on the patient experience. Possible barriers that may contribute to the scarcity of literature include the relatively recent large‐scale implementation of EHRs and a lack of programs in place to collect extensive data on the physician‐patient relationship.
In a field with increasing demands on patient‐centered care, we need to find ways to preserve and foster the patient‐physician relationship. Given that improvements in the delivery of compassionate care can positively impact clinical outcomes, the likelihood of medical malpractice lawsuits, and patient satisfaction,[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13] the need to improve the patient‐provider relationship is tremendously important. Following EHR implementation, residents were perceived to provide more frequent diagnostics information including the nature, impact, and treatment of conditions. Furthermore, they were perceived to provide significantly better communication quality following implementation, through care monitoring, respectful and sensitive communication, and enhanced patient and family education. Residents were also perceived as being more professional following implementation, as indicated by positive assessments of several interpersonal communication questions. These results suggest that implementing an EHR may be an effective way to meet these increasing demands on patient‐centered care.
Limitations to this study should be considered. The ARC Medical Program is primarily used as an education tool for resident physicians, so all of our data are specific to resident physicians. It would be interesting and important to observe if EHRs affect nurse or attending‐patient interactions. Furthermore, we did not have access to any patient demographic or clinical data. However, we did not anticipate a significant change in the patient population that would alter the survey responses during this 6‐month period. Patients were required to recognize their resident on a photo card presented to them by the surveyor, which likely favored patients with strong feelings toward their residents. Due to this, our population sampled may not be indicative of the entire patient population. All findings were simply correlational. Due to the nature of our data collection, we were unable to control for many confounding variables, thus causal conclusions are difficult to draw from these results.
There are a few important trends to note. No question on the ARC survey received lower scores following implementation of the EHR. Furthermore, 9 of the 16 questions under investigation received significantly higher scores following implementation. The residents largely received positive responses both before and after EHR implementation, so despite the statistically significant improvements, the absolute differences are relatively small. These significant differences were likely not due to the residents improving through time and experience. We observed relatively insignificant and nonuniform changes in responses between the two 11‐week periods prior to implementation.
One possible reason for the observed significant improvements is that EHRs may increase patient involvement in the healthcare setting,[28] and this collaboration might improve resident‐patient communication.[29] Providing patients with an interactive tablet that details their care has been suggested to increase patient satisfaction and comfort in an inpatient setting.[30] In this light, the EHR can be used as a tool to increase these interactions by inviting patients to view the computer screen and electronic charts during data entry, which allows them to have a participatory role in their care and decision‐making process.[31] Although the reasons for our observed improvements are unclear, they are noteworthy and warrant further study. The notion that implementing an EHR might enhance provider‐patient communication is a powerful concept.
This study not only suggests the improvement of resident‐patient communication due to the implementation of an EHR, but it also reveals the value of the ARC Medical Program for studying the patient experience. The controlled, prolonged, and efficient nature of the ARC Medical Program's data collection was ideal for comparing a change in resident‐patient communication before and after EHR implementation at UCLA Health. ARC and UCLA Health's EHR can serve as a model for residency programs nationwide. Future studies can assess the changes of the patient‐provider interaction for any significant event, as demonstrated by this study and its investigation of the implementation of UCLA Health's EHR.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the UCLA Health Office of the Patient Experience and UCLA Health for allowing for this unique partnership with the David Geffen School of Medicine to improve physician‐patient communication. Furthermore, the authors thank the student volunteers and interns of the ARC Medical program for their commitment and effort to optimize the patient experience. Additionally, the authors thank the program directors of the David Geffen School of Medicine residency physician training programs for their outstanding support of the ARC Medical Program.
Disclosures: C.W.M. and A.A.N. contributed equally to this manuscript. C.W.M. and A.A.N. collected data, performed statistical analyses, and drafted and revised the manuscript. A.A.N. and V.N.M. oversaw the program. N.A. provided faculty support and revised the manuscript. The authors report no conflicts of interest.
- Doctor‐patient communication and patient satisfaction: a review. Fam Pract. 1998;15(5):480–492. , , .
- Patient satisfaction in primary health care: a literature review and analysis. Eval Program Plann. 1983;6:185–210. .
- The significance of patients' perceptions of physician conduct. J Community Health. 1980;6(1):18–34. , .
- Predicting patient satisfaction from physicians' nonverbal communication skills. Med Care. 1980;18(4):376–387. , , , .
- Why do people sue doctors? A study of patients and relatives. Lancet. 1994;343:1609–1613. , , .
- Reducing legal risk by practicing patient‐centered medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(11):1217–1219. , , .
- Listening and talking. West J Med. 1993;158:268–272. , .
- Medical malpractice: the effect of doctor‐patient relations on medical patient perceptions and malpractice intentions. West J Med. 2000;173(4):244–250. , , .
- Effective physician‐patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ. 1995;152(9):1423–1433. .
- Patients' participation in medical care: effects on blood sugar control and quality of life in diabetes. J Intern Med. 1988;3:448–457. , , , , .
- Assessing the effects of physician‐patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care. 1989;27(3 suppl):S110–S127. , , .
- Expanding patient involvement in care. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102:520–528. , , .
- Patient exposition and provider explanation in routine interviews and hypertensive patients' blood control. Health Psychol. 1987;6(1):29–42. , , , , .
- A framework for making patient‐centered care front and center. Perm J. 2012;16(3):49–53. , , .
- Interoperability: the key to the future health care system. Health Aff. 2005;5(21):19–21. .
- Physicians' use of electronic medical records: barriers and solutions. Health Aff. 2004;23(2):116–126. , .
- Do hospitals with electronic medical records (EMRs) provide higher quality care?: an examination of three clinical conditions. Med Care Res Rev. 2008;65(4):496–513. , .
- Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff. 2005;24(5):1103–1117. , , , et al.
- An electronic medical record in primary care: impact on satisfaction, work efficiency and clinic processes. AMIA Annu Symp.2006:394–398. , , , .
- Barriers to implement electronic health records (EHRs). Mater Sociomed. 2013;25(3):213–215. , .
- Impact of electronic health record systems on information integrity: quality and safety implications. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2013;10:1c.eCollection 2013. .
- Electronic medical record use and physician–patient communication: an observational study of Israeli primary care encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;61:134–141. , , , , .
- EHR implementation in a new clinic: a case study of clinician perceptions. J Med Syst. 2013;37(9955):1–6. , , , et al.
- Accuracy and speed of electronic health record versus paper‐based ophthalmic documentation strategies. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(1):165–172. , , .
- The use of electronic medical records communication patterns in outpatient encounters. J Am Informatics Assoc. 2001:610–616. , , .
- Cost‐benefit analysis of electronic medical record system at a tertiary care hospital. Healthc Inform Res. 2013;19(3):205–214. , , .
- Promoting patient‐centred care through trainee feedback: assessing residents' C‐I‐CARE (ARC) program. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(3):225–233. , , , .
- Electronic health records?: can we maximize their benefits and minimize their risks? Acad Med. 2012;87(11):1456–1457. .
- Let the left hand know what the right is doing: a vision for care coordination and electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(1):13–16. , .
- A tablet computer application for patients to participate in their hospital care. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2011;2011:1428–1435. , , , et al.
- Enhancing patient‐centered communication and collaboration by using the electronic health record in the examination room. J Am Med Assoc. 2013;309(22):2327–2328. , .
- Doctor‐patient communication and patient satisfaction: a review. Fam Pract. 1998;15(5):480–492. , , .
- Patient satisfaction in primary health care: a literature review and analysis. Eval Program Plann. 1983;6:185–210. .
- The significance of patients' perceptions of physician conduct. J Community Health. 1980;6(1):18–34. , .
- Predicting patient satisfaction from physicians' nonverbal communication skills. Med Care. 1980;18(4):376–387. , , , .
- Why do people sue doctors? A study of patients and relatives. Lancet. 1994;343:1609–1613. , , .
- Reducing legal risk by practicing patient‐centered medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(11):1217–1219. , , .
- Listening and talking. West J Med. 1993;158:268–272. , .
- Medical malpractice: the effect of doctor‐patient relations on medical patient perceptions and malpractice intentions. West J Med. 2000;173(4):244–250. , , .
- Effective physician‐patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ. 1995;152(9):1423–1433. .
- Patients' participation in medical care: effects on blood sugar control and quality of life in diabetes. J Intern Med. 1988;3:448–457. , , , , .
- Assessing the effects of physician‐patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care. 1989;27(3 suppl):S110–S127. , , .
- Expanding patient involvement in care. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102:520–528. , , .
- Patient exposition and provider explanation in routine interviews and hypertensive patients' blood control. Health Psychol. 1987;6(1):29–42. , , , , .
- A framework for making patient‐centered care front and center. Perm J. 2012;16(3):49–53. , , .
- Interoperability: the key to the future health care system. Health Aff. 2005;5(21):19–21. .
- Physicians' use of electronic medical records: barriers and solutions. Health Aff. 2004;23(2):116–126. , .
- Do hospitals with electronic medical records (EMRs) provide higher quality care?: an examination of three clinical conditions. Med Care Res Rev. 2008;65(4):496–513. , .
- Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff. 2005;24(5):1103–1117. , , , et al.
- An electronic medical record in primary care: impact on satisfaction, work efficiency and clinic processes. AMIA Annu Symp.2006:394–398. , , , .
- Barriers to implement electronic health records (EHRs). Mater Sociomed. 2013;25(3):213–215. , .
- Impact of electronic health record systems on information integrity: quality and safety implications. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2013;10:1c.eCollection 2013. .
- Electronic medical record use and physician–patient communication: an observational study of Israeli primary care encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;61:134–141. , , , , .
- EHR implementation in a new clinic: a case study of clinician perceptions. J Med Syst. 2013;37(9955):1–6. , , , et al.
- Accuracy and speed of electronic health record versus paper‐based ophthalmic documentation strategies. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(1):165–172. , , .
- The use of electronic medical records communication patterns in outpatient encounters. J Am Informatics Assoc. 2001:610–616. , , .
- Cost‐benefit analysis of electronic medical record system at a tertiary care hospital. Healthc Inform Res. 2013;19(3):205–214. , , .
- Promoting patient‐centred care through trainee feedback: assessing residents' C‐I‐CARE (ARC) program. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(3):225–233. , , , .
- Electronic health records?: can we maximize their benefits and minimize their risks? Acad Med. 2012;87(11):1456–1457. .
- Let the left hand know what the right is doing: a vision for care coordination and electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(1):13–16. , .
- A tablet computer application for patients to participate in their hospital care. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2011;2011:1428–1435. , , , et al.
- Enhancing patient‐centered communication and collaboration by using the electronic health record in the examination room. J Am Med Assoc. 2013;309(22):2327–2328. , .
© 2014 Society of Hospital Medicine
Current and novel therapeutic approaches in myelodysplastic syndromes
Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are a heterogeneous group of hematologic neoplasms with an annual incidence of 4.1 cases per 100,000 Americans. Patients with MDS suffer from chronic cytopenias that may lead to recurrent transfusions, infections, and increased risk for bleeding. They are also at risk for progression to acute myeloid leukemia. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation is the only potentially curative treatment for MDS, although 3 drugs have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for its treatment: lenalidomide, 5-azacitidine, and decitabine.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are a heterogeneous group of hematologic neoplasms with an annual incidence of 4.1 cases per 100,000 Americans. Patients with MDS suffer from chronic cytopenias that may lead to recurrent transfusions, infections, and increased risk for bleeding. They are also at risk for progression to acute myeloid leukemia. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation is the only potentially curative treatment for MDS, although 3 drugs have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for its treatment: lenalidomide, 5-azacitidine, and decitabine.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are a heterogeneous group of hematologic neoplasms with an annual incidence of 4.1 cases per 100,000 Americans. Patients with MDS suffer from chronic cytopenias that may lead to recurrent transfusions, infections, and increased risk for bleeding. They are also at risk for progression to acute myeloid leukemia. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation is the only potentially curative treatment for MDS, although 3 drugs have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for its treatment: lenalidomide, 5-azacitidine, and decitabine.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
Delirium in the hospital: Emphasis on the management of geriatric patients
Although delirium has many descriptive terms (Table 1), a common unifying term is “acute global cognitive dysfunction,” now recognized as delirium; a consensus supported by DSM-51 and ICD-102 (Table 2). According to DSM-5, the essential feature is a disturbance of attention or awareness that is accompanied by a change in baseline cognition that cannot be explained by another preexisting, established, or evolving neurocognitive disorder (the newly named DSM-5 entity for dementia syndromes).1 Because delirium affects the cortex diffusely, psychiatric symptoms can include cognitive, mood, anxiety, or psychotic symptoms. Because many systemic illnesses can induce delirium, the differential diagnosis spans all organ systems.
Three subtypes
Delirium can be classified, based on symptoms,3,4 into 3 subtypes: hyperactive-hyperalert, hypoactive-hypoalert, and mixed delirium. Hyperactive patients present with restlessness and agitation. Hypoactive patients are lethargic, confused, slow to respond to questions, and often appear depressed. The differential prognostic significance of these subtypes has been examined in the literature, with conflicting results. Rabinowitz5 reported that hypoactive delirium has the worst prognosis, while Marcantonio et al6 indicated that the hyperactive subtype is associated with the highest mortality rate. Mixed delirium, with periods of both hyperactivity and hypoactivity, is the most common type of delirium.7
A prodromal phase, characterized by anxiety, frequent requests for nursing and medical assistance, decreased attention, restlessness, vivid dreams, disorientation immediately after awakening, and hallucinations, can occur before an episode of full-spectrum delirium; this prodromal state often is identified retrospectively —after the patient is in an episode of delirium.8,9
Evidence-based guidelines aim to improve recognition and clinical management.10-13 Disruptive behavior is the main reason for psychiatric referral in delirium.14,15 Delayed psychiatric consultation because of non-recognition of delirium is related to variables such as older age; history of a pre-existing, comorbid neurocognitive disorder; and the clinical appearance of hypoactive delirium.14
The case of Mr. D (Box),16 illustrates how the emergence of antipsychotic-associated neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) can complicate antipsychotic treatment of delirium in a geriatric medical patient, although delirium also is a common presentation in NMS.17 Delirium developed after an increase in carbidopa/levodopa, which has central dopaminergic effects that can precipitate delirium, particularly in a geriatric patient with preexisting comorbid neurocognitive disorder. Further complicating Mr. D’s delirium presentation was the development of NMS, which had a multifactorial causation, such as the use of dopamine antagonists (ie, quetiapine, metoclopramide), and an abrupt decrease of a dopaminergic agent (ie, carbidopa/levodopa), all inducing a central dopamine relative hypoactivity.
Epidemiology
Delirium is more common in older patients,15 and is seen in 30% to 40% of hospitalized geriatric patients.18 Delirium in older patients, compared with other adults, is associated with more severe cognitive impairment.19 It is common among geriatric surgical patients (15% to 62%)20 with a peak 2 to 5 days postoperatively for hip fracture,21 and often is seen in ICU patients (70% to 87%).20 However, Spronk et al22 found that delirium is significantly under-recognized in the ICU. Nearly 90% of terminally ill patients become delirious before death.23 Terminal delirium often is unrecognized and can interfere with assessment of other clinical problems.24 A preexisting history of comorbid neurocognitive disorder was evident in as many as two-thirds of delirium cases.25
Pathophysiology and risk factors
The pathophysiology of delirium has been characterized as an imbalance of CNS metabolism, including decreased blood flow in various regions of the brain that may normalize once delirium resolves.26 Studies describe the simultaneous decrease of cholinergic transmission and dopaminergic excess.27,28 Predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium that are of particular importance in geriatric patients include:
• advanced age
• CNS disease
• infection
• cognitive impairment
• male sex
• poor nutrition
• dehydration and other metabolic abnormalities
• cardiovascular events
• substance use
• medication
• sensory deprivation (eg, impaired vision or hearing)
• sleep deprivation
• low level of physical activity.27,29,30
Table 3 lists the most common delirium-provocative medications.27
Evaluation and psychometric scales
The EEG can be useful in evaluating delirium, especially in clinically ambiguous cases. EEG findings may indicate generalized slowing or dropout of the posterior dominant rhythm, and generalized slow theta and delta waves, findings that are more common in delirium than in other neurocognitive disorders and other psychiatric illnesses. The EEG must be interpreted in the context of the delirium diagnostic workup, because abnormalities seen in other neurocognitive disorders can overlap with those of delirium.31
The EEG referral should specify the clinical suspicion of delirium to help interpret the results. Delirium cases in which the patient’s previous cognitive status is unknown may benefit from EEG evaluation, such as:
• in possible status epilepticus
• when delirium improvement has reached a plateau at a lower level of cognitive function than before onset of delirium
• when the patient is unable or unwilling to complete a psychiatric interview.27
Assessment instruments are available to diagnose and monitor delirium (Table 4). Typically, delirium assessment includes examining levels of arousal, psychomotor activity, cognition (ie, orientation, attention, and memory), and perceptual disturbances.
Psychometrically, a review of Table 4 suggests that validity appeared stable with adequate specificity (64% to 99%) but more variable sensitivity (36% to 100%). These reliability parameters also will be affected by the classification system (ie, DSM vs ICD) and the cut-off score employed.32 Most measures (eg, Confusion Assessment Method [CAM], CAM-ICU) provide an adequate sample of behavioral (ie, level of alertness), motor (ie, psychomotor activity), and cognitive (ie, orientation, attention, memory, and receptive language) function, with the exception of the Global Attentiveness Rating, which is a 2-minute open conversation protocol between physician and patient.
Some measures are stand-alone instruments, such as the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale, whereas the CAM requires administration of separate cognitive screens, including the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Digit Span.33 Instruments to detect delirium in critically ill patients are a more recent development. Wong et al34 reported that the most widely studied tool was the CAM. Obtaining collateral information from family, caregivers, and hospital staff is essential, particularly given the fluctuating nature of delirium.
Management
Prevention. Identify patients at high risk of delirium so that preventive strategies can be employed. Multi-component, nonpharmacotherapeutic interventions are used in clinical settings but few randomized trials have been conducted. The contributing effectiveness of individual components is not well-studied, but most include staff education to increase awareness of delirium. Of 3 multi-component intervention randomized trials, 2 reported a significantly lower incidence of delirium in the intervention group.35-37 Implementation of a multi-component protocol in medical/ surgical units was associated with a significant reduction in use of restraints.38
As in Mr. D’s case, complex drug regimens, particularly for CNS illness, can increase the risk of delirium. Considering the medication profile for patients with complex systemic illness—in particular, minimizing the use anticholinergics and dopamine agonists— may be crucial in preventing delirium.
Prophylactic administration of antipsychotics may reduce the risk of developing postoperative delirium.39 Studies of the use of these agents were characterized by small sample sizes and selected groups of patient populations. Of the 4 randomized studies evaluating prophylactic antipsychotics (vs placebo), 3 found a lower incidence of delirium in the intervention groups.39-41
A study of haloperidol in post-GI surgery patients showed a reduced occurrence of delirium,40 whereas its prophylactic use in patients undergoing hip surgery42 did not reduce the incidence of delirium compared with placebo, but did decrease severity when delirium occurred.42
Risperidone39 in post-cardiac surgery and olanzapine41 perioperatively in patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement have been shown to decrease delirium severity and duration. Targeted prophylaxis with risperidone43 in post-cardiac surgery patients who showed disturbed cognition but did not meet criteria for delirium reduced the number of patients requiring medication, compared with placebo.43
Dexmedetomidine, an α-2 adrenergic receptor agonist, compared with propofol or midazolam in post-cardiac valve surgery patients, resulted in a decreased incidence of delirium but no difference in delirium duration, hospital length of stay, or use of other medications.44 However, other studies have shown that dexmedetomidine reduces ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation.45
Treatment. Management of hospitalized medically ill geriatric patients with delirium is challenging and requires a comprehensive approach. The first step in delirium management is prompt identification and management of systemic medical disturbances associated with the delirium episode. First-line, nonpharmacotherapeutic strategies for patients with delirium include:
• reorientation
• behavioral interventions (eg, use of clear instructions and frequent eye contact with patients)
• environmental interventions (eg, minimal noise, adequate lighting, and limited room and staff changes)
• avoidance of physical restraints.46
Consider employing family members or hospital staff sitters to stay with the patient and to reassure, reorient, and watch for agitation and other unsafe behaviors (eg, attempted elopement). Psychoeducation for the patient and family on the phenomenology of delirium can be helpful.
The use of drug treatment strategies should be integrated into a comprehensive approach that includes the routine use of nondrug measures.46 Using medications for treating hypoactive delirium, formerly controversial, now has wider acceptance.47,48 A few high-quality randomized trials have been performed.25,49,50
Pharmacotherapy, especially in frail patients, should be initiated at the lowest starting dosage and titrated cautiously to clinical effect and for the shortest period of time necessary. Antipsychotics are preferred agents for treating all subtypes of delirium; haloperidol is widely used.46,51,52 However, antipsychotics, including haloperidol, can be associated with adverse neurologic effects such as extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and NMS.
Although reported less frequently than with haloperidol, other agents have been implicated in development of EPS and NMS, including atypical antipsychotics and antiemetic dopamine antagonists, particularly in parkinsonism-prone patients.53 Strategies that can minimize such risks in geriatric inpatients with delirium include oral, rather than parenteral, use of antipsychotics—preferential use of atypical over typical antipsychotics— and lowest effective dosages.54
In controlled trials, atypical antipsychotics for delirium showed efficacy compared with haloperidol.52,55 However, there is no research that demonstrates any advantage of one atypical over another.25
In Mr. D’s case, the most important intervention for managing delirium caused by NMS is to discontinue all dopamine antagonists and treat agitation with judicious doses of a benzodiazepine, with supportive care.17 In cases of sudden discontinuation or a dosage decrease of dopamine agonists, these medications should be resumed or optimized to minimize the risk of NMS-associated rhabdomyolysis and subsequent renal failure.17 Antipsychotics carry an increased risk of stroke and mortality in older patients with established or evolving neurocognitive disorders56,57 and can cause prolongation of the QTc interval.57
Other medications that could be used for delirium include cholinesterase inhibitors58,59 (although larger trials and a systematic review did not support this use60), and 5-HT receptor antagonists,61 such as trazodone. Benzodiazepines, such as lorazepam, are first-line treatment for delirium associated with seizures or withdrawal from alcohol, sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics and for delirium caused by NMS. Be cautious about using benzodiazepines in geriatric patients because of a risk of respiratory depression, falls, sedation, and amnesia.
Geriatric patients with alcoholism and those with malnutrition are prone to thiamine and vitamin B12 deficiencies, which can induce delirium. Laboratory assessment and consideration of supplementation is recommended. Despite high occurrence of delirium in hospitalized older adults with preexisting comorbid neurocognitive disorders, there is no standard care for delirium comorbid with another neurocognitive disorder.62 Clinical practice guidelines for older patients receiving palliative care have been developed63; the goal is to minimize suffering and discomfort in patients in palliative care.64
Post-delirium prophylaxis. Medications for delirium usually can be tapered and discontinued once the episode has resolved and the patient is stable; it is common to discontinue medications when the patient has been symptom-free for 1 week.65 Some patients (eg, with end-stage liver disease, disseminated cancer) are prone to recurrent or to prolonged or chronic delirium. A period of post-recovery treatment with antipsychotics—even indefinite treatment in some cases—should be considered.
Post-delirium debriefing and aftercare. The psychological complications of delirium are distressing for the patient and his (her) caregivers. Psychiatric complications associated with delirium, including acute stress disorder—which might predict posttraumatic stress disorder—have been explored; early recognition and treatment may improve long-term outcomes.66 After recovery from acute delirium, cognitive assessment (eg, MMSE67 or Montreal Cognitive Assessment68) is recommended to validate current cognitive status because patients may have persistent decrement in cognitive function compared with pre-delirium condition, even after recovery from the acute episode.
Post-delirium debriefing may help patients who have recovered from a delirium episode. Patients may fear that their brief period of hallucinations might represent the onset of a chronic-relapsing psychotic disorder. Allow patients to communicate their distress about the delirium episode and give them the opportunity to talk through the experience. Brief them on the possibility that delirium will recur and advise them to seek emergency medical care in case of recurrence. Advise patients to monitor and maintain a normal sleep-wake cycle.
Family members can watch for syndromal recurrence of delirium. They should be encouraged to discuss their reaction to having seen their relative in a delirious state.
Health care systems with integrated electronic medical records should list “delirium, resolved” on the patient’s illness profile or problem list and alert the patient’s primary care provider to the delirium history to avoid future exposure to delirium-provocative medications, and to prompt the provider to assume an active role in post-delirium care, including delirium recurrence surveillance, medication adjustment, risk factor management, and post-recovery cognitive assessment.
Bottom Line
Evaluation of delirium in geriatric patients includes clinical vigilance and screening, differentiating delirium from other neurocognitive disorders, and identifying and treating underlying causes. Perioperative use of antipsychotics may reduce the incidence of delirium, although hospital length of stay generally has not been reduced with prophylaxis. Management interventions include staff education, systematic screening, use of multicomponent interventions, and pharmacologic interventions.
Related Resources
• Downing LJ, Caprio TV, Lyness JM. Geriatric psychiatry review: differential diagnosis and treatment of the 3 D’s - delirium, dementia, and depression. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15(6):365.
• Brooks PB. Postoperative delirium in elderly patients. Am J Nurs. 2012;112(9):38-49.
Drug Brand Names
Carbidopa/levodopa • Sinemet Midazolam • Versed
Dexmedetomidine • Precedex Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Haloperidol • Haldol Propofol • Diprivan
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid Quetiapine • Seroquel
Lorazepam • Ativan Risperidone • Risperdal
Metoclopramide • Reglan Trazodone • Desyrel
Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.
1. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fifth edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
2. World Health Organization. The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders. Diagnostic criteria for research. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1993.
3. Lipowski ZJ. Delirium in the elderly patient. N Engl J Med. 1989;320(9):578-582.
4. Meagher DJ, Trzepacz PT. Motoric subtypes of delirium. Semin Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2000;5(2):75-85.
5. Rabinowitz T. Delirium: an important (but often unrecognized) clinical syndrome. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2002;4(3):202-208.
6. Marcantonio ER, Ta T, Duthie E, et al. Delirium severity and psychomotor types: their relationship with outcomes after hip fracture repair. Am J Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(5):850-857.
7. Ely EW, Inouye SK, Bernard GR, et al. Delirium in mechanically ventilated patients: validity and reliability of the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU). JAMA. 2001;286(21):2703-2710.
8. Duppils GS, Wikblad K. Delirium: behavioural changes before and during the prodromal phase. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13(5):609-616.
9. de Jonghe JF, Kalisvaart KJ, Dijkstra M, et al. Early symptoms in the prodromal phase of delirium: a prospective cohort study in elderly patients undergoing hip surgery. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2007;15(2):112-121.
10. Cook IA. Guideline watch: practice guideline for the treatment of patients with delirium. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2004.
11. Hogan D, Gage L, Bruto V, et al. National guidelines for seniors’ mental health: the assessment and treatment of delirium. Canadian Journal of Geriatrics. 2006;9(suppl 2):S42-51.
12. Leentjens AF, Diefenbacher A. A survey of delirium guidelines in Europe. J Psychosom Res. 2006;61(1):123-128.
13. Tropea J, Slee JA, Brand CA, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of delirium in older people in Australia. Australas J Ageing. 2008;27(3):150-156.
14. Mittal D, Majithia D, Kennedy R, et al. Differences in characteristics and outcome of delirium as based on referral patterns. Psychosomatics. 2006;47(5):367-375.
15. Grover S, Subodh BN, Avasthi A, et al. Prevalence and clinical profile of delirium: a study from a tertiary-care hospital in north India. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2009;31(1): 25-29.
16. Inouye SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA, et al. Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(12): 941-948.
17. Strawn JR, Keck PE Jr, Caroff SN. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(6):870-876.
18. Dobmejer K. Delirium in elderly medical patients. Clinical Geriatrics. 1996;4:43-68.
19. Leentjens AF, Maclullich AM, Meagher DJ. Delirium, Cinderella no more...? J Psychosom Res. 2008;65(3):205.
20. Fong TG, Tulebaev SR, Inouye SK. Delirium in elderly adults: diagnosis, prevention and treatment. Nat Rev Neurol. 2009;5(4):210-220.
21. Streubel PN, Ricci WM, Gardner MJ. Fragility fractures: preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative management. Current Orthopaedic Practice. 2009;20(5):482-489.
22. Spronk PE, Riekerk B, Hofhuis J, et al. Occurrence of delirium is severely underestimated in the ICU during daily care. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(7):1276-1280.
23. Lawlor PG, Gagnon B, Mancini IL, et al. Occurrence, causes, and outcome of delirium in patients with advanced cancer: a prospective study. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(6):786-794.
24. Ganzini L. Care of patients with delirium at the end of life. Annals of Long-Term Care. 2007;15(3):35-40.
25. Bourne RS, Tahir TA, Borthwick M, et al. Drug treatment of delirium: past, present and future. J Psychosom Res. 2008;65(3):273-282.
26. Yokota H, Ogawa S, Kurokawa A, et al. Regional cerebral blood flow in delirium patients. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2003;57(3):337-339.
27. Maldonado JR. Pathoetiological model of delirium: a comprehensive understanding of the neurobiology of delirium and an evidence-based approach to prevention and treatment. Crit Care Clin. 2008;24(4):789-856, ix.
28. Trzepacz PT. Is there a final common neural pathway in delirium? Focus on acetylcholine and dopamine. Semin Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2000;5(2):132-148.
29. Inouye SK. The dilemma of delirium: clinical and research controversies regarding diagnosis and evaluation of delirium in hospitalized elderly medical patients. Am J Med. 1994;97(3):278-288.
30. Laurila JV, Laakkonen ML, Tilvis RS, et al. Predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium in a frail geriatric population. J Psychosom Res. 2008;65(3):249-254.
31. Morandi A, McCurley J, Vasilevskis EE, et al. Tools to detect delirium superimposed on dementia: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(11):2005-2013.
32. Kazmierski J, Kowman M, Banach M, et al. The use of DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria and diagnostic scales for delirium among cardiac surgery patients: results from the IPDACS study. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2010; 22(4):426-432.
33. Breitbart W, Rosenfeld B, Roth A, et al. The Memorial Delirium Rating Scale. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997;13(3):128-137.
34. Wong CL, Holroyd-Leduc J, Simel DL, et al. Does this patient have delirium?: value of bedside instruments. JAMA. 2010;304(7):779-786.
35. Marcantonio ER, Flacker JM, Wright RJ, et al. Reducing delirium after hip fracture: a randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;49(5):516-522.
36. Lundström M, Edlund A, Karlsson S, et al. A multifactorial intervention program reduces the duration of delirium, length of hospitalization, and mortality in delirious patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):622-628.
37. Lundström M, Olofsson B, Stenvall M, et al. Postoperative delirium in old patients with femoral neck fracture: a randomized intervention study. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2007; 19(3):178-186.
38. Kratz A. Use of the acute confusion protocol: a research utilization project. J Nurs Care Qual. 2008;23(4):331-337.
39. Prakanrattana U, Prapaitrakool S. Efficacy of risperidone for prevention of postoperative delirium in cardiac surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;35(5):714-719.
40. Kaneko T, Cai J, Ishikura T, et al. Prophylactic consecutive administration of haloperidol can reduce the occurrence of postoperative delirium in gastrointestinal surgery. Yonago Acta Medica. 1999;42:179-184.
41. Larsen KA, Kelly SE, Stern TA, et al. Administration of olanzapine to prevent postoperative delirium in elderly joint-replacement patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Psychosomatics. 2010;51(5):409-418.
42. Kalisvaart KJ, de Jonghe JF, Bogaards MJ, et al. Haloperidol prophylaxis for elderly hip-surgery patients at risk for delirium: a randomized placebo-controlled study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(10):1658-1666.
43. Hakim SM, Othman AI, Naoum DO. Early treatment with risperidone for subsyndromal delirium after on-pump cardiac surgery in the elderly: a randomized trial. Anesthesiology. 2012;116(5):987-997.
44. Maldonado JR, Wysong A, van der Starre PJ, et al. Dexmedetomidine and the reduction of postoperative delirium after cardiac surgery. Psychosomatics. 2009;50(3): 206-217.
45. Short J. Use of dexmedetomidine for primary sedation in a general intensive care unit. Crit Care Nurse. 2010;30(1): 29-38; quiz 39.
46. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with delirium. American Psychiatric Association [Comment in: Treatment of patients with delirium. Am J Psychiatry. 2000.]. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156(suppl 5):1-20.
47. Maldonado JR. Delirium in the acute care setting: characteristics, diagnosis, and treatment. Crit Care Clin. 2008;24(4):657-722, vii.
48. Platt MM, Breitbart W, Smith M, et al. Efficacy of neuroleptics for hypoactive delirium. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1994;6(1):66-67.
49. Lonergan E, Britton AM, Luxenberg J, et al. Antipsychotics for delirium. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD005594.
50. Seitz DP, Gill SS, van Zyl LT. Antipsychotics in the treatment of delirium: a systematic review. J Clin Psychiatry. 2007;68(1):11-21.
51. Breitbart W, Marotta R, Platt MM, et al. A double-blind trial of haloperidol, chlorpromazine, and lorazepam in the treatment of delirium in hospitalized AIDS patients. Am J Psychiatry. 1996;153(2):231-237.
52. Hu H, Deng W, Yang H, et al. Olanzapine and haloperidol for senile delirium: a randomized controlled observation. Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation. 2006;10(42): 188-190.
53. Friedman JH, Fernandez HH. Atypical antipsychotics in Parkinson-sensitive populations. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2002;15(3):156-170.
54. Seitz DP, Gill SS. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome complicating antipsychotic treatment of delirium or agitation in medical and surgical patients: case reports and a review of the literature. Psychosomatics. 2009; 50(1):8-15.
55. Han CS, Kim YK. A double-blind trial of risperidone and haloperidol for the treatment of delirium. Psychosomatics. 2004;45(4):297-301.
56. Sink KM, Holden KF, Yaffe K. Pharmacological treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia: a review of the evidence. JAMA. 2005;293(5):596-608.
57. Hermann N, Lanctôt KL. Atypical antipsychotics for neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia: malignant or maligned? Drug Saf. 2006;29(10):833-843.
58. Noyan MA, Elbi H, Aksu H. Donepezil for anticholinergic drug intoxication: a case report. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2003;27(5):885-887.
59. Gleason OC. Donepezil for postoperative delirium. Psychosomatics. 2003;44(5):437-438.
60. Overshott R, Karim S, Burns A. Cholinesterase inhibitors for delirium. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(1): CD005317.
61. Davis MP. Does trazodone have a role in palliating symptoms? Support Care Cancer. 2007;15(2):221-224.
62. Fick DM, Agostini JV, Inouye SK. Delirium superimposed on dementia: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002; 50(10):1723-1732.
63. Brajtman S, Wright D, Hogan D, et al. Developing guidelines for the assessment and treatment of delirium in older adults at the end of life. Can Geriatr J. 2011;14(2):40-50.
64. Caraceni A, Simonetti F. Palliating delirium in patients with cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(2):164-172.
65. Alexopoulos GS, Streim J, Carpenter D, et al; Expert Consensus Panel for using Antipsychotic Drugs in Older Patients. Using antipsychotic agents in older patients. J Clin Psychiatry. 2004;65(suppl 2):5-99; discussion 100-102; quiz 103-104.
66. Granja C, Gomes E, Amaro A, et al. Understanding posttraumatic stress disorder-related symptoms after critical care: the early illness amnesia hypothesis. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(10):2801-2809.
67. Ringdal GI, Ringdal K, Juliebø V, et al. Using the Mini- Mental State Examination to screen for delirium in elderly patients with hip fracture. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2011;32(6):394-400.
68. Olson RA, Chhanabhai T, McKenzie M. Feasibility study of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in patients with brain metastases. Support Care Cancer. 2008;16(11):1273-1278.
Although delirium has many descriptive terms (Table 1), a common unifying term is “acute global cognitive dysfunction,” now recognized as delirium; a consensus supported by DSM-51 and ICD-102 (Table 2). According to DSM-5, the essential feature is a disturbance of attention or awareness that is accompanied by a change in baseline cognition that cannot be explained by another preexisting, established, or evolving neurocognitive disorder (the newly named DSM-5 entity for dementia syndromes).1 Because delirium affects the cortex diffusely, psychiatric symptoms can include cognitive, mood, anxiety, or psychotic symptoms. Because many systemic illnesses can induce delirium, the differential diagnosis spans all organ systems.
Three subtypes
Delirium can be classified, based on symptoms,3,4 into 3 subtypes: hyperactive-hyperalert, hypoactive-hypoalert, and mixed delirium. Hyperactive patients present with restlessness and agitation. Hypoactive patients are lethargic, confused, slow to respond to questions, and often appear depressed. The differential prognostic significance of these subtypes has been examined in the literature, with conflicting results. Rabinowitz5 reported that hypoactive delirium has the worst prognosis, while Marcantonio et al6 indicated that the hyperactive subtype is associated with the highest mortality rate. Mixed delirium, with periods of both hyperactivity and hypoactivity, is the most common type of delirium.7
A prodromal phase, characterized by anxiety, frequent requests for nursing and medical assistance, decreased attention, restlessness, vivid dreams, disorientation immediately after awakening, and hallucinations, can occur before an episode of full-spectrum delirium; this prodromal state often is identified retrospectively —after the patient is in an episode of delirium.8,9
Evidence-based guidelines aim to improve recognition and clinical management.10-13 Disruptive behavior is the main reason for psychiatric referral in delirium.14,15 Delayed psychiatric consultation because of non-recognition of delirium is related to variables such as older age; history of a pre-existing, comorbid neurocognitive disorder; and the clinical appearance of hypoactive delirium.14
The case of Mr. D (Box),16 illustrates how the emergence of antipsychotic-associated neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) can complicate antipsychotic treatment of delirium in a geriatric medical patient, although delirium also is a common presentation in NMS.17 Delirium developed after an increase in carbidopa/levodopa, which has central dopaminergic effects that can precipitate delirium, particularly in a geriatric patient with preexisting comorbid neurocognitive disorder. Further complicating Mr. D’s delirium presentation was the development of NMS, which had a multifactorial causation, such as the use of dopamine antagonists (ie, quetiapine, metoclopramide), and an abrupt decrease of a dopaminergic agent (ie, carbidopa/levodopa), all inducing a central dopamine relative hypoactivity.
Epidemiology
Delirium is more common in older patients,15 and is seen in 30% to 40% of hospitalized geriatric patients.18 Delirium in older patients, compared with other adults, is associated with more severe cognitive impairment.19 It is common among geriatric surgical patients (15% to 62%)20 with a peak 2 to 5 days postoperatively for hip fracture,21 and often is seen in ICU patients (70% to 87%).20 However, Spronk et al22 found that delirium is significantly under-recognized in the ICU. Nearly 90% of terminally ill patients become delirious before death.23 Terminal delirium often is unrecognized and can interfere with assessment of other clinical problems.24 A preexisting history of comorbid neurocognitive disorder was evident in as many as two-thirds of delirium cases.25
Pathophysiology and risk factors
The pathophysiology of delirium has been characterized as an imbalance of CNS metabolism, including decreased blood flow in various regions of the brain that may normalize once delirium resolves.26 Studies describe the simultaneous decrease of cholinergic transmission and dopaminergic excess.27,28 Predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium that are of particular importance in geriatric patients include:
• advanced age
• CNS disease
• infection
• cognitive impairment
• male sex
• poor nutrition
• dehydration and other metabolic abnormalities
• cardiovascular events
• substance use
• medication
• sensory deprivation (eg, impaired vision or hearing)
• sleep deprivation
• low level of physical activity.27,29,30
Table 3 lists the most common delirium-provocative medications.27
Evaluation and psychometric scales
The EEG can be useful in evaluating delirium, especially in clinically ambiguous cases. EEG findings may indicate generalized slowing or dropout of the posterior dominant rhythm, and generalized slow theta and delta waves, findings that are more common in delirium than in other neurocognitive disorders and other psychiatric illnesses. The EEG must be interpreted in the context of the delirium diagnostic workup, because abnormalities seen in other neurocognitive disorders can overlap with those of delirium.31
The EEG referral should specify the clinical suspicion of delirium to help interpret the results. Delirium cases in which the patient’s previous cognitive status is unknown may benefit from EEG evaluation, such as:
• in possible status epilepticus
• when delirium improvement has reached a plateau at a lower level of cognitive function than before onset of delirium
• when the patient is unable or unwilling to complete a psychiatric interview.27
Assessment instruments are available to diagnose and monitor delirium (Table 4). Typically, delirium assessment includes examining levels of arousal, psychomotor activity, cognition (ie, orientation, attention, and memory), and perceptual disturbances.
Psychometrically, a review of Table 4 suggests that validity appeared stable with adequate specificity (64% to 99%) but more variable sensitivity (36% to 100%). These reliability parameters also will be affected by the classification system (ie, DSM vs ICD) and the cut-off score employed.32 Most measures (eg, Confusion Assessment Method [CAM], CAM-ICU) provide an adequate sample of behavioral (ie, level of alertness), motor (ie, psychomotor activity), and cognitive (ie, orientation, attention, memory, and receptive language) function, with the exception of the Global Attentiveness Rating, which is a 2-minute open conversation protocol between physician and patient.
Some measures are stand-alone instruments, such as the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale, whereas the CAM requires administration of separate cognitive screens, including the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Digit Span.33 Instruments to detect delirium in critically ill patients are a more recent development. Wong et al34 reported that the most widely studied tool was the CAM. Obtaining collateral information from family, caregivers, and hospital staff is essential, particularly given the fluctuating nature of delirium.
Management
Prevention. Identify patients at high risk of delirium so that preventive strategies can be employed. Multi-component, nonpharmacotherapeutic interventions are used in clinical settings but few randomized trials have been conducted. The contributing effectiveness of individual components is not well-studied, but most include staff education to increase awareness of delirium. Of 3 multi-component intervention randomized trials, 2 reported a significantly lower incidence of delirium in the intervention group.35-37 Implementation of a multi-component protocol in medical/ surgical units was associated with a significant reduction in use of restraints.38
As in Mr. D’s case, complex drug regimens, particularly for CNS illness, can increase the risk of delirium. Considering the medication profile for patients with complex systemic illness—in particular, minimizing the use anticholinergics and dopamine agonists— may be crucial in preventing delirium.
Prophylactic administration of antipsychotics may reduce the risk of developing postoperative delirium.39 Studies of the use of these agents were characterized by small sample sizes and selected groups of patient populations. Of the 4 randomized studies evaluating prophylactic antipsychotics (vs placebo), 3 found a lower incidence of delirium in the intervention groups.39-41
A study of haloperidol in post-GI surgery patients showed a reduced occurrence of delirium,40 whereas its prophylactic use in patients undergoing hip surgery42 did not reduce the incidence of delirium compared with placebo, but did decrease severity when delirium occurred.42
Risperidone39 in post-cardiac surgery and olanzapine41 perioperatively in patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement have been shown to decrease delirium severity and duration. Targeted prophylaxis with risperidone43 in post-cardiac surgery patients who showed disturbed cognition but did not meet criteria for delirium reduced the number of patients requiring medication, compared with placebo.43
Dexmedetomidine, an α-2 adrenergic receptor agonist, compared with propofol or midazolam in post-cardiac valve surgery patients, resulted in a decreased incidence of delirium but no difference in delirium duration, hospital length of stay, or use of other medications.44 However, other studies have shown that dexmedetomidine reduces ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation.45
Treatment. Management of hospitalized medically ill geriatric patients with delirium is challenging and requires a comprehensive approach. The first step in delirium management is prompt identification and management of systemic medical disturbances associated with the delirium episode. First-line, nonpharmacotherapeutic strategies for patients with delirium include:
• reorientation
• behavioral interventions (eg, use of clear instructions and frequent eye contact with patients)
• environmental interventions (eg, minimal noise, adequate lighting, and limited room and staff changes)
• avoidance of physical restraints.46
Consider employing family members or hospital staff sitters to stay with the patient and to reassure, reorient, and watch for agitation and other unsafe behaviors (eg, attempted elopement). Psychoeducation for the patient and family on the phenomenology of delirium can be helpful.
The use of drug treatment strategies should be integrated into a comprehensive approach that includes the routine use of nondrug measures.46 Using medications for treating hypoactive delirium, formerly controversial, now has wider acceptance.47,48 A few high-quality randomized trials have been performed.25,49,50
Pharmacotherapy, especially in frail patients, should be initiated at the lowest starting dosage and titrated cautiously to clinical effect and for the shortest period of time necessary. Antipsychotics are preferred agents for treating all subtypes of delirium; haloperidol is widely used.46,51,52 However, antipsychotics, including haloperidol, can be associated with adverse neurologic effects such as extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and NMS.
Although reported less frequently than with haloperidol, other agents have been implicated in development of EPS and NMS, including atypical antipsychotics and antiemetic dopamine antagonists, particularly in parkinsonism-prone patients.53 Strategies that can minimize such risks in geriatric inpatients with delirium include oral, rather than parenteral, use of antipsychotics—preferential use of atypical over typical antipsychotics— and lowest effective dosages.54
In controlled trials, atypical antipsychotics for delirium showed efficacy compared with haloperidol.52,55 However, there is no research that demonstrates any advantage of one atypical over another.25
In Mr. D’s case, the most important intervention for managing delirium caused by NMS is to discontinue all dopamine antagonists and treat agitation with judicious doses of a benzodiazepine, with supportive care.17 In cases of sudden discontinuation or a dosage decrease of dopamine agonists, these medications should be resumed or optimized to minimize the risk of NMS-associated rhabdomyolysis and subsequent renal failure.17 Antipsychotics carry an increased risk of stroke and mortality in older patients with established or evolving neurocognitive disorders56,57 and can cause prolongation of the QTc interval.57
Other medications that could be used for delirium include cholinesterase inhibitors58,59 (although larger trials and a systematic review did not support this use60), and 5-HT receptor antagonists,61 such as trazodone. Benzodiazepines, such as lorazepam, are first-line treatment for delirium associated with seizures or withdrawal from alcohol, sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics and for delirium caused by NMS. Be cautious about using benzodiazepines in geriatric patients because of a risk of respiratory depression, falls, sedation, and amnesia.
Geriatric patients with alcoholism and those with malnutrition are prone to thiamine and vitamin B12 deficiencies, which can induce delirium. Laboratory assessment and consideration of supplementation is recommended. Despite high occurrence of delirium in hospitalized older adults with preexisting comorbid neurocognitive disorders, there is no standard care for delirium comorbid with another neurocognitive disorder.62 Clinical practice guidelines for older patients receiving palliative care have been developed63; the goal is to minimize suffering and discomfort in patients in palliative care.64
Post-delirium prophylaxis. Medications for delirium usually can be tapered and discontinued once the episode has resolved and the patient is stable; it is common to discontinue medications when the patient has been symptom-free for 1 week.65 Some patients (eg, with end-stage liver disease, disseminated cancer) are prone to recurrent or to prolonged or chronic delirium. A period of post-recovery treatment with antipsychotics—even indefinite treatment in some cases—should be considered.
Post-delirium debriefing and aftercare. The psychological complications of delirium are distressing for the patient and his (her) caregivers. Psychiatric complications associated with delirium, including acute stress disorder—which might predict posttraumatic stress disorder—have been explored; early recognition and treatment may improve long-term outcomes.66 After recovery from acute delirium, cognitive assessment (eg, MMSE67 or Montreal Cognitive Assessment68) is recommended to validate current cognitive status because patients may have persistent decrement in cognitive function compared with pre-delirium condition, even after recovery from the acute episode.
Post-delirium debriefing may help patients who have recovered from a delirium episode. Patients may fear that their brief period of hallucinations might represent the onset of a chronic-relapsing psychotic disorder. Allow patients to communicate their distress about the delirium episode and give them the opportunity to talk through the experience. Brief them on the possibility that delirium will recur and advise them to seek emergency medical care in case of recurrence. Advise patients to monitor and maintain a normal sleep-wake cycle.
Family members can watch for syndromal recurrence of delirium. They should be encouraged to discuss their reaction to having seen their relative in a delirious state.
Health care systems with integrated electronic medical records should list “delirium, resolved” on the patient’s illness profile or problem list and alert the patient’s primary care provider to the delirium history to avoid future exposure to delirium-provocative medications, and to prompt the provider to assume an active role in post-delirium care, including delirium recurrence surveillance, medication adjustment, risk factor management, and post-recovery cognitive assessment.
Bottom Line
Evaluation of delirium in geriatric patients includes clinical vigilance and screening, differentiating delirium from other neurocognitive disorders, and identifying and treating underlying causes. Perioperative use of antipsychotics may reduce the incidence of delirium, although hospital length of stay generally has not been reduced with prophylaxis. Management interventions include staff education, systematic screening, use of multicomponent interventions, and pharmacologic interventions.
Related Resources
• Downing LJ, Caprio TV, Lyness JM. Geriatric psychiatry review: differential diagnosis and treatment of the 3 D’s - delirium, dementia, and depression. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15(6):365.
• Brooks PB. Postoperative delirium in elderly patients. Am J Nurs. 2012;112(9):38-49.
Drug Brand Names
Carbidopa/levodopa • Sinemet Midazolam • Versed
Dexmedetomidine • Precedex Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Haloperidol • Haldol Propofol • Diprivan
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid Quetiapine • Seroquel
Lorazepam • Ativan Risperidone • Risperdal
Metoclopramide • Reglan Trazodone • Desyrel
Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.
Although delirium has many descriptive terms (Table 1), a common unifying term is “acute global cognitive dysfunction,” now recognized as delirium; a consensus supported by DSM-51 and ICD-102 (Table 2). According to DSM-5, the essential feature is a disturbance of attention or awareness that is accompanied by a change in baseline cognition that cannot be explained by another preexisting, established, or evolving neurocognitive disorder (the newly named DSM-5 entity for dementia syndromes).1 Because delirium affects the cortex diffusely, psychiatric symptoms can include cognitive, mood, anxiety, or psychotic symptoms. Because many systemic illnesses can induce delirium, the differential diagnosis spans all organ systems.
Three subtypes
Delirium can be classified, based on symptoms,3,4 into 3 subtypes: hyperactive-hyperalert, hypoactive-hypoalert, and mixed delirium. Hyperactive patients present with restlessness and agitation. Hypoactive patients are lethargic, confused, slow to respond to questions, and often appear depressed. The differential prognostic significance of these subtypes has been examined in the literature, with conflicting results. Rabinowitz5 reported that hypoactive delirium has the worst prognosis, while Marcantonio et al6 indicated that the hyperactive subtype is associated with the highest mortality rate. Mixed delirium, with periods of both hyperactivity and hypoactivity, is the most common type of delirium.7
A prodromal phase, characterized by anxiety, frequent requests for nursing and medical assistance, decreased attention, restlessness, vivid dreams, disorientation immediately after awakening, and hallucinations, can occur before an episode of full-spectrum delirium; this prodromal state often is identified retrospectively —after the patient is in an episode of delirium.8,9
Evidence-based guidelines aim to improve recognition and clinical management.10-13 Disruptive behavior is the main reason for psychiatric referral in delirium.14,15 Delayed psychiatric consultation because of non-recognition of delirium is related to variables such as older age; history of a pre-existing, comorbid neurocognitive disorder; and the clinical appearance of hypoactive delirium.14
The case of Mr. D (Box),16 illustrates how the emergence of antipsychotic-associated neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) can complicate antipsychotic treatment of delirium in a geriatric medical patient, although delirium also is a common presentation in NMS.17 Delirium developed after an increase in carbidopa/levodopa, which has central dopaminergic effects that can precipitate delirium, particularly in a geriatric patient with preexisting comorbid neurocognitive disorder. Further complicating Mr. D’s delirium presentation was the development of NMS, which had a multifactorial causation, such as the use of dopamine antagonists (ie, quetiapine, metoclopramide), and an abrupt decrease of a dopaminergic agent (ie, carbidopa/levodopa), all inducing a central dopamine relative hypoactivity.
Epidemiology
Delirium is more common in older patients,15 and is seen in 30% to 40% of hospitalized geriatric patients.18 Delirium in older patients, compared with other adults, is associated with more severe cognitive impairment.19 It is common among geriatric surgical patients (15% to 62%)20 with a peak 2 to 5 days postoperatively for hip fracture,21 and often is seen in ICU patients (70% to 87%).20 However, Spronk et al22 found that delirium is significantly under-recognized in the ICU. Nearly 90% of terminally ill patients become delirious before death.23 Terminal delirium often is unrecognized and can interfere with assessment of other clinical problems.24 A preexisting history of comorbid neurocognitive disorder was evident in as many as two-thirds of delirium cases.25
Pathophysiology and risk factors
The pathophysiology of delirium has been characterized as an imbalance of CNS metabolism, including decreased blood flow in various regions of the brain that may normalize once delirium resolves.26 Studies describe the simultaneous decrease of cholinergic transmission and dopaminergic excess.27,28 Predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium that are of particular importance in geriatric patients include:
• advanced age
• CNS disease
• infection
• cognitive impairment
• male sex
• poor nutrition
• dehydration and other metabolic abnormalities
• cardiovascular events
• substance use
• medication
• sensory deprivation (eg, impaired vision or hearing)
• sleep deprivation
• low level of physical activity.27,29,30
Table 3 lists the most common delirium-provocative medications.27
Evaluation and psychometric scales
The EEG can be useful in evaluating delirium, especially in clinically ambiguous cases. EEG findings may indicate generalized slowing or dropout of the posterior dominant rhythm, and generalized slow theta and delta waves, findings that are more common in delirium than in other neurocognitive disorders and other psychiatric illnesses. The EEG must be interpreted in the context of the delirium diagnostic workup, because abnormalities seen in other neurocognitive disorders can overlap with those of delirium.31
The EEG referral should specify the clinical suspicion of delirium to help interpret the results. Delirium cases in which the patient’s previous cognitive status is unknown may benefit from EEG evaluation, such as:
• in possible status epilepticus
• when delirium improvement has reached a plateau at a lower level of cognitive function than before onset of delirium
• when the patient is unable or unwilling to complete a psychiatric interview.27
Assessment instruments are available to diagnose and monitor delirium (Table 4). Typically, delirium assessment includes examining levels of arousal, psychomotor activity, cognition (ie, orientation, attention, and memory), and perceptual disturbances.
Psychometrically, a review of Table 4 suggests that validity appeared stable with adequate specificity (64% to 99%) but more variable sensitivity (36% to 100%). These reliability parameters also will be affected by the classification system (ie, DSM vs ICD) and the cut-off score employed.32 Most measures (eg, Confusion Assessment Method [CAM], CAM-ICU) provide an adequate sample of behavioral (ie, level of alertness), motor (ie, psychomotor activity), and cognitive (ie, orientation, attention, memory, and receptive language) function, with the exception of the Global Attentiveness Rating, which is a 2-minute open conversation protocol between physician and patient.
Some measures are stand-alone instruments, such as the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale, whereas the CAM requires administration of separate cognitive screens, including the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Digit Span.33 Instruments to detect delirium in critically ill patients are a more recent development. Wong et al34 reported that the most widely studied tool was the CAM. Obtaining collateral information from family, caregivers, and hospital staff is essential, particularly given the fluctuating nature of delirium.
Management
Prevention. Identify patients at high risk of delirium so that preventive strategies can be employed. Multi-component, nonpharmacotherapeutic interventions are used in clinical settings but few randomized trials have been conducted. The contributing effectiveness of individual components is not well-studied, but most include staff education to increase awareness of delirium. Of 3 multi-component intervention randomized trials, 2 reported a significantly lower incidence of delirium in the intervention group.35-37 Implementation of a multi-component protocol in medical/ surgical units was associated with a significant reduction in use of restraints.38
As in Mr. D’s case, complex drug regimens, particularly for CNS illness, can increase the risk of delirium. Considering the medication profile for patients with complex systemic illness—in particular, minimizing the use anticholinergics and dopamine agonists— may be crucial in preventing delirium.
Prophylactic administration of antipsychotics may reduce the risk of developing postoperative delirium.39 Studies of the use of these agents were characterized by small sample sizes and selected groups of patient populations. Of the 4 randomized studies evaluating prophylactic antipsychotics (vs placebo), 3 found a lower incidence of delirium in the intervention groups.39-41
A study of haloperidol in post-GI surgery patients showed a reduced occurrence of delirium,40 whereas its prophylactic use in patients undergoing hip surgery42 did not reduce the incidence of delirium compared with placebo, but did decrease severity when delirium occurred.42
Risperidone39 in post-cardiac surgery and olanzapine41 perioperatively in patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement have been shown to decrease delirium severity and duration. Targeted prophylaxis with risperidone43 in post-cardiac surgery patients who showed disturbed cognition but did not meet criteria for delirium reduced the number of patients requiring medication, compared with placebo.43
Dexmedetomidine, an α-2 adrenergic receptor agonist, compared with propofol or midazolam in post-cardiac valve surgery patients, resulted in a decreased incidence of delirium but no difference in delirium duration, hospital length of stay, or use of other medications.44 However, other studies have shown that dexmedetomidine reduces ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation.45
Treatment. Management of hospitalized medically ill geriatric patients with delirium is challenging and requires a comprehensive approach. The first step in delirium management is prompt identification and management of systemic medical disturbances associated with the delirium episode. First-line, nonpharmacotherapeutic strategies for patients with delirium include:
• reorientation
• behavioral interventions (eg, use of clear instructions and frequent eye contact with patients)
• environmental interventions (eg, minimal noise, adequate lighting, and limited room and staff changes)
• avoidance of physical restraints.46
Consider employing family members or hospital staff sitters to stay with the patient and to reassure, reorient, and watch for agitation and other unsafe behaviors (eg, attempted elopement). Psychoeducation for the patient and family on the phenomenology of delirium can be helpful.
The use of drug treatment strategies should be integrated into a comprehensive approach that includes the routine use of nondrug measures.46 Using medications for treating hypoactive delirium, formerly controversial, now has wider acceptance.47,48 A few high-quality randomized trials have been performed.25,49,50
Pharmacotherapy, especially in frail patients, should be initiated at the lowest starting dosage and titrated cautiously to clinical effect and for the shortest period of time necessary. Antipsychotics are preferred agents for treating all subtypes of delirium; haloperidol is widely used.46,51,52 However, antipsychotics, including haloperidol, can be associated with adverse neurologic effects such as extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and NMS.
Although reported less frequently than with haloperidol, other agents have been implicated in development of EPS and NMS, including atypical antipsychotics and antiemetic dopamine antagonists, particularly in parkinsonism-prone patients.53 Strategies that can minimize such risks in geriatric inpatients with delirium include oral, rather than parenteral, use of antipsychotics—preferential use of atypical over typical antipsychotics— and lowest effective dosages.54
In controlled trials, atypical antipsychotics for delirium showed efficacy compared with haloperidol.52,55 However, there is no research that demonstrates any advantage of one atypical over another.25
In Mr. D’s case, the most important intervention for managing delirium caused by NMS is to discontinue all dopamine antagonists and treat agitation with judicious doses of a benzodiazepine, with supportive care.17 In cases of sudden discontinuation or a dosage decrease of dopamine agonists, these medications should be resumed or optimized to minimize the risk of NMS-associated rhabdomyolysis and subsequent renal failure.17 Antipsychotics carry an increased risk of stroke and mortality in older patients with established or evolving neurocognitive disorders56,57 and can cause prolongation of the QTc interval.57
Other medications that could be used for delirium include cholinesterase inhibitors58,59 (although larger trials and a systematic review did not support this use60), and 5-HT receptor antagonists,61 such as trazodone. Benzodiazepines, such as lorazepam, are first-line treatment for delirium associated with seizures or withdrawal from alcohol, sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics and for delirium caused by NMS. Be cautious about using benzodiazepines in geriatric patients because of a risk of respiratory depression, falls, sedation, and amnesia.
Geriatric patients with alcoholism and those with malnutrition are prone to thiamine and vitamin B12 deficiencies, which can induce delirium. Laboratory assessment and consideration of supplementation is recommended. Despite high occurrence of delirium in hospitalized older adults with preexisting comorbid neurocognitive disorders, there is no standard care for delirium comorbid with another neurocognitive disorder.62 Clinical practice guidelines for older patients receiving palliative care have been developed63; the goal is to minimize suffering and discomfort in patients in palliative care.64
Post-delirium prophylaxis. Medications for delirium usually can be tapered and discontinued once the episode has resolved and the patient is stable; it is common to discontinue medications when the patient has been symptom-free for 1 week.65 Some patients (eg, with end-stage liver disease, disseminated cancer) are prone to recurrent or to prolonged or chronic delirium. A period of post-recovery treatment with antipsychotics—even indefinite treatment in some cases—should be considered.
Post-delirium debriefing and aftercare. The psychological complications of delirium are distressing for the patient and his (her) caregivers. Psychiatric complications associated with delirium, including acute stress disorder—which might predict posttraumatic stress disorder—have been explored; early recognition and treatment may improve long-term outcomes.66 After recovery from acute delirium, cognitive assessment (eg, MMSE67 or Montreal Cognitive Assessment68) is recommended to validate current cognitive status because patients may have persistent decrement in cognitive function compared with pre-delirium condition, even after recovery from the acute episode.
Post-delirium debriefing may help patients who have recovered from a delirium episode. Patients may fear that their brief period of hallucinations might represent the onset of a chronic-relapsing psychotic disorder. Allow patients to communicate their distress about the delirium episode and give them the opportunity to talk through the experience. Brief them on the possibility that delirium will recur and advise them to seek emergency medical care in case of recurrence. Advise patients to monitor and maintain a normal sleep-wake cycle.
Family members can watch for syndromal recurrence of delirium. They should be encouraged to discuss their reaction to having seen their relative in a delirious state.
Health care systems with integrated electronic medical records should list “delirium, resolved” on the patient’s illness profile or problem list and alert the patient’s primary care provider to the delirium history to avoid future exposure to delirium-provocative medications, and to prompt the provider to assume an active role in post-delirium care, including delirium recurrence surveillance, medication adjustment, risk factor management, and post-recovery cognitive assessment.
Bottom Line
Evaluation of delirium in geriatric patients includes clinical vigilance and screening, differentiating delirium from other neurocognitive disorders, and identifying and treating underlying causes. Perioperative use of antipsychotics may reduce the incidence of delirium, although hospital length of stay generally has not been reduced with prophylaxis. Management interventions include staff education, systematic screening, use of multicomponent interventions, and pharmacologic interventions.
Related Resources
• Downing LJ, Caprio TV, Lyness JM. Geriatric psychiatry review: differential diagnosis and treatment of the 3 D’s - delirium, dementia, and depression. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15(6):365.
• Brooks PB. Postoperative delirium in elderly patients. Am J Nurs. 2012;112(9):38-49.
Drug Brand Names
Carbidopa/levodopa • Sinemet Midazolam • Versed
Dexmedetomidine • Precedex Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Haloperidol • Haldol Propofol • Diprivan
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid Quetiapine • Seroquel
Lorazepam • Ativan Risperidone • Risperdal
Metoclopramide • Reglan Trazodone • Desyrel
Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.
1. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fifth edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
2. World Health Organization. The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders. Diagnostic criteria for research. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1993.
3. Lipowski ZJ. Delirium in the elderly patient. N Engl J Med. 1989;320(9):578-582.
4. Meagher DJ, Trzepacz PT. Motoric subtypes of delirium. Semin Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2000;5(2):75-85.
5. Rabinowitz T. Delirium: an important (but often unrecognized) clinical syndrome. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2002;4(3):202-208.
6. Marcantonio ER, Ta T, Duthie E, et al. Delirium severity and psychomotor types: their relationship with outcomes after hip fracture repair. Am J Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(5):850-857.
7. Ely EW, Inouye SK, Bernard GR, et al. Delirium in mechanically ventilated patients: validity and reliability of the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU). JAMA. 2001;286(21):2703-2710.
8. Duppils GS, Wikblad K. Delirium: behavioural changes before and during the prodromal phase. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13(5):609-616.
9. de Jonghe JF, Kalisvaart KJ, Dijkstra M, et al. Early symptoms in the prodromal phase of delirium: a prospective cohort study in elderly patients undergoing hip surgery. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2007;15(2):112-121.
10. Cook IA. Guideline watch: practice guideline for the treatment of patients with delirium. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2004.
11. Hogan D, Gage L, Bruto V, et al. National guidelines for seniors’ mental health: the assessment and treatment of delirium. Canadian Journal of Geriatrics. 2006;9(suppl 2):S42-51.
12. Leentjens AF, Diefenbacher A. A survey of delirium guidelines in Europe. J Psychosom Res. 2006;61(1):123-128.
13. Tropea J, Slee JA, Brand CA, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of delirium in older people in Australia. Australas J Ageing. 2008;27(3):150-156.
14. Mittal D, Majithia D, Kennedy R, et al. Differences in characteristics and outcome of delirium as based on referral patterns. Psychosomatics. 2006;47(5):367-375.
15. Grover S, Subodh BN, Avasthi A, et al. Prevalence and clinical profile of delirium: a study from a tertiary-care hospital in north India. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2009;31(1): 25-29.
16. Inouye SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA, et al. Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(12): 941-948.
17. Strawn JR, Keck PE Jr, Caroff SN. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(6):870-876.
18. Dobmejer K. Delirium in elderly medical patients. Clinical Geriatrics. 1996;4:43-68.
19. Leentjens AF, Maclullich AM, Meagher DJ. Delirium, Cinderella no more...? J Psychosom Res. 2008;65(3):205.
20. Fong TG, Tulebaev SR, Inouye SK. Delirium in elderly adults: diagnosis, prevention and treatment. Nat Rev Neurol. 2009;5(4):210-220.
21. Streubel PN, Ricci WM, Gardner MJ. Fragility fractures: preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative management. Current Orthopaedic Practice. 2009;20(5):482-489.
22. Spronk PE, Riekerk B, Hofhuis J, et al. Occurrence of delirium is severely underestimated in the ICU during daily care. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(7):1276-1280.
23. Lawlor PG, Gagnon B, Mancini IL, et al. Occurrence, causes, and outcome of delirium in patients with advanced cancer: a prospective study. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(6):786-794.
24. Ganzini L. Care of patients with delirium at the end of life. Annals of Long-Term Care. 2007;15(3):35-40.
25. Bourne RS, Tahir TA, Borthwick M, et al. Drug treatment of delirium: past, present and future. J Psychosom Res. 2008;65(3):273-282.
26. Yokota H, Ogawa S, Kurokawa A, et al. Regional cerebral blood flow in delirium patients. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2003;57(3):337-339.
27. Maldonado JR. Pathoetiological model of delirium: a comprehensive understanding of the neurobiology of delirium and an evidence-based approach to prevention and treatment. Crit Care Clin. 2008;24(4):789-856, ix.
28. Trzepacz PT. Is there a final common neural pathway in delirium? Focus on acetylcholine and dopamine. Semin Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2000;5(2):132-148.
29. Inouye SK. The dilemma of delirium: clinical and research controversies regarding diagnosis and evaluation of delirium in hospitalized elderly medical patients. Am J Med. 1994;97(3):278-288.
30. Laurila JV, Laakkonen ML, Tilvis RS, et al. Predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium in a frail geriatric population. J Psychosom Res. 2008;65(3):249-254.
31. Morandi A, McCurley J, Vasilevskis EE, et al. Tools to detect delirium superimposed on dementia: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(11):2005-2013.
32. Kazmierski J, Kowman M, Banach M, et al. The use of DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria and diagnostic scales for delirium among cardiac surgery patients: results from the IPDACS study. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2010; 22(4):426-432.
33. Breitbart W, Rosenfeld B, Roth A, et al. The Memorial Delirium Rating Scale. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997;13(3):128-137.
34. Wong CL, Holroyd-Leduc J, Simel DL, et al. Does this patient have delirium?: value of bedside instruments. JAMA. 2010;304(7):779-786.
35. Marcantonio ER, Flacker JM, Wright RJ, et al. Reducing delirium after hip fracture: a randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;49(5):516-522.
36. Lundström M, Edlund A, Karlsson S, et al. A multifactorial intervention program reduces the duration of delirium, length of hospitalization, and mortality in delirious patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):622-628.
37. Lundström M, Olofsson B, Stenvall M, et al. Postoperative delirium in old patients with femoral neck fracture: a randomized intervention study. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2007; 19(3):178-186.
38. Kratz A. Use of the acute confusion protocol: a research utilization project. J Nurs Care Qual. 2008;23(4):331-337.
39. Prakanrattana U, Prapaitrakool S. Efficacy of risperidone for prevention of postoperative delirium in cardiac surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;35(5):714-719.
40. Kaneko T, Cai J, Ishikura T, et al. Prophylactic consecutive administration of haloperidol can reduce the occurrence of postoperative delirium in gastrointestinal surgery. Yonago Acta Medica. 1999;42:179-184.
41. Larsen KA, Kelly SE, Stern TA, et al. Administration of olanzapine to prevent postoperative delirium in elderly joint-replacement patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Psychosomatics. 2010;51(5):409-418.
42. Kalisvaart KJ, de Jonghe JF, Bogaards MJ, et al. Haloperidol prophylaxis for elderly hip-surgery patients at risk for delirium: a randomized placebo-controlled study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(10):1658-1666.
43. Hakim SM, Othman AI, Naoum DO. Early treatment with risperidone for subsyndromal delirium after on-pump cardiac surgery in the elderly: a randomized trial. Anesthesiology. 2012;116(5):987-997.
44. Maldonado JR, Wysong A, van der Starre PJ, et al. Dexmedetomidine and the reduction of postoperative delirium after cardiac surgery. Psychosomatics. 2009;50(3): 206-217.
45. Short J. Use of dexmedetomidine for primary sedation in a general intensive care unit. Crit Care Nurse. 2010;30(1): 29-38; quiz 39.
46. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with delirium. American Psychiatric Association [Comment in: Treatment of patients with delirium. Am J Psychiatry. 2000.]. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156(suppl 5):1-20.
47. Maldonado JR. Delirium in the acute care setting: characteristics, diagnosis, and treatment. Crit Care Clin. 2008;24(4):657-722, vii.
48. Platt MM, Breitbart W, Smith M, et al. Efficacy of neuroleptics for hypoactive delirium. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1994;6(1):66-67.
49. Lonergan E, Britton AM, Luxenberg J, et al. Antipsychotics for delirium. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD005594.
50. Seitz DP, Gill SS, van Zyl LT. Antipsychotics in the treatment of delirium: a systematic review. J Clin Psychiatry. 2007;68(1):11-21.
51. Breitbart W, Marotta R, Platt MM, et al. A double-blind trial of haloperidol, chlorpromazine, and lorazepam in the treatment of delirium in hospitalized AIDS patients. Am J Psychiatry. 1996;153(2):231-237.
52. Hu H, Deng W, Yang H, et al. Olanzapine and haloperidol for senile delirium: a randomized controlled observation. Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation. 2006;10(42): 188-190.
53. Friedman JH, Fernandez HH. Atypical antipsychotics in Parkinson-sensitive populations. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2002;15(3):156-170.
54. Seitz DP, Gill SS. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome complicating antipsychotic treatment of delirium or agitation in medical and surgical patients: case reports and a review of the literature. Psychosomatics. 2009; 50(1):8-15.
55. Han CS, Kim YK. A double-blind trial of risperidone and haloperidol for the treatment of delirium. Psychosomatics. 2004;45(4):297-301.
56. Sink KM, Holden KF, Yaffe K. Pharmacological treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia: a review of the evidence. JAMA. 2005;293(5):596-608.
57. Hermann N, Lanctôt KL. Atypical antipsychotics for neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia: malignant or maligned? Drug Saf. 2006;29(10):833-843.
58. Noyan MA, Elbi H, Aksu H. Donepezil for anticholinergic drug intoxication: a case report. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2003;27(5):885-887.
59. Gleason OC. Donepezil for postoperative delirium. Psychosomatics. 2003;44(5):437-438.
60. Overshott R, Karim S, Burns A. Cholinesterase inhibitors for delirium. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(1): CD005317.
61. Davis MP. Does trazodone have a role in palliating symptoms? Support Care Cancer. 2007;15(2):221-224.
62. Fick DM, Agostini JV, Inouye SK. Delirium superimposed on dementia: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002; 50(10):1723-1732.
63. Brajtman S, Wright D, Hogan D, et al. Developing guidelines for the assessment and treatment of delirium in older adults at the end of life. Can Geriatr J. 2011;14(2):40-50.
64. Caraceni A, Simonetti F. Palliating delirium in patients with cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(2):164-172.
65. Alexopoulos GS, Streim J, Carpenter D, et al; Expert Consensus Panel for using Antipsychotic Drugs in Older Patients. Using antipsychotic agents in older patients. J Clin Psychiatry. 2004;65(suppl 2):5-99; discussion 100-102; quiz 103-104.
66. Granja C, Gomes E, Amaro A, et al. Understanding posttraumatic stress disorder-related symptoms after critical care: the early illness amnesia hypothesis. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(10):2801-2809.
67. Ringdal GI, Ringdal K, Juliebø V, et al. Using the Mini- Mental State Examination to screen for delirium in elderly patients with hip fracture. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2011;32(6):394-400.
68. Olson RA, Chhanabhai T, McKenzie M. Feasibility study of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in patients with brain metastases. Support Care Cancer. 2008;16(11):1273-1278.
1. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fifth edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
2. World Health Organization. The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders. Diagnostic criteria for research. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1993.
3. Lipowski ZJ. Delirium in the elderly patient. N Engl J Med. 1989;320(9):578-582.
4. Meagher DJ, Trzepacz PT. Motoric subtypes of delirium. Semin Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2000;5(2):75-85.
5. Rabinowitz T. Delirium: an important (but often unrecognized) clinical syndrome. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2002;4(3):202-208.
6. Marcantonio ER, Ta T, Duthie E, et al. Delirium severity and psychomotor types: their relationship with outcomes after hip fracture repair. Am J Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(5):850-857.
7. Ely EW, Inouye SK, Bernard GR, et al. Delirium in mechanically ventilated patients: validity and reliability of the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU). JAMA. 2001;286(21):2703-2710.
8. Duppils GS, Wikblad K. Delirium: behavioural changes before and during the prodromal phase. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13(5):609-616.
9. de Jonghe JF, Kalisvaart KJ, Dijkstra M, et al. Early symptoms in the prodromal phase of delirium: a prospective cohort study in elderly patients undergoing hip surgery. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2007;15(2):112-121.
10. Cook IA. Guideline watch: practice guideline for the treatment of patients with delirium. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2004.
11. Hogan D, Gage L, Bruto V, et al. National guidelines for seniors’ mental health: the assessment and treatment of delirium. Canadian Journal of Geriatrics. 2006;9(suppl 2):S42-51.
12. Leentjens AF, Diefenbacher A. A survey of delirium guidelines in Europe. J Psychosom Res. 2006;61(1):123-128.
13. Tropea J, Slee JA, Brand CA, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of delirium in older people in Australia. Australas J Ageing. 2008;27(3):150-156.
14. Mittal D, Majithia D, Kennedy R, et al. Differences in characteristics and outcome of delirium as based on referral patterns. Psychosomatics. 2006;47(5):367-375.
15. Grover S, Subodh BN, Avasthi A, et al. Prevalence and clinical profile of delirium: a study from a tertiary-care hospital in north India. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2009;31(1): 25-29.
16. Inouye SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA, et al. Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(12): 941-948.
17. Strawn JR, Keck PE Jr, Caroff SN. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(6):870-876.
18. Dobmejer K. Delirium in elderly medical patients. Clinical Geriatrics. 1996;4:43-68.
19. Leentjens AF, Maclullich AM, Meagher DJ. Delirium, Cinderella no more...? J Psychosom Res. 2008;65(3):205.
20. Fong TG, Tulebaev SR, Inouye SK. Delirium in elderly adults: diagnosis, prevention and treatment. Nat Rev Neurol. 2009;5(4):210-220.
21. Streubel PN, Ricci WM, Gardner MJ. Fragility fractures: preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative management. Current Orthopaedic Practice. 2009;20(5):482-489.
22. Spronk PE, Riekerk B, Hofhuis J, et al. Occurrence of delirium is severely underestimated in the ICU during daily care. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(7):1276-1280.
23. Lawlor PG, Gagnon B, Mancini IL, et al. Occurrence, causes, and outcome of delirium in patients with advanced cancer: a prospective study. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(6):786-794.
24. Ganzini L. Care of patients with delirium at the end of life. Annals of Long-Term Care. 2007;15(3):35-40.
25. Bourne RS, Tahir TA, Borthwick M, et al. Drug treatment of delirium: past, present and future. J Psychosom Res. 2008;65(3):273-282.
26. Yokota H, Ogawa S, Kurokawa A, et al. Regional cerebral blood flow in delirium patients. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2003;57(3):337-339.
27. Maldonado JR. Pathoetiological model of delirium: a comprehensive understanding of the neurobiology of delirium and an evidence-based approach to prevention and treatment. Crit Care Clin. 2008;24(4):789-856, ix.
28. Trzepacz PT. Is there a final common neural pathway in delirium? Focus on acetylcholine and dopamine. Semin Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2000;5(2):132-148.
29. Inouye SK. The dilemma of delirium: clinical and research controversies regarding diagnosis and evaluation of delirium in hospitalized elderly medical patients. Am J Med. 1994;97(3):278-288.
30. Laurila JV, Laakkonen ML, Tilvis RS, et al. Predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium in a frail geriatric population. J Psychosom Res. 2008;65(3):249-254.
31. Morandi A, McCurley J, Vasilevskis EE, et al. Tools to detect delirium superimposed on dementia: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(11):2005-2013.
32. Kazmierski J, Kowman M, Banach M, et al. The use of DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria and diagnostic scales for delirium among cardiac surgery patients: results from the IPDACS study. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2010; 22(4):426-432.
33. Breitbart W, Rosenfeld B, Roth A, et al. The Memorial Delirium Rating Scale. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997;13(3):128-137.
34. Wong CL, Holroyd-Leduc J, Simel DL, et al. Does this patient have delirium?: value of bedside instruments. JAMA. 2010;304(7):779-786.
35. Marcantonio ER, Flacker JM, Wright RJ, et al. Reducing delirium after hip fracture: a randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;49(5):516-522.
36. Lundström M, Edlund A, Karlsson S, et al. A multifactorial intervention program reduces the duration of delirium, length of hospitalization, and mortality in delirious patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):622-628.
37. Lundström M, Olofsson B, Stenvall M, et al. Postoperative delirium in old patients with femoral neck fracture: a randomized intervention study. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2007; 19(3):178-186.
38. Kratz A. Use of the acute confusion protocol: a research utilization project. J Nurs Care Qual. 2008;23(4):331-337.
39. Prakanrattana U, Prapaitrakool S. Efficacy of risperidone for prevention of postoperative delirium in cardiac surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;35(5):714-719.
40. Kaneko T, Cai J, Ishikura T, et al. Prophylactic consecutive administration of haloperidol can reduce the occurrence of postoperative delirium in gastrointestinal surgery. Yonago Acta Medica. 1999;42:179-184.
41. Larsen KA, Kelly SE, Stern TA, et al. Administration of olanzapine to prevent postoperative delirium in elderly joint-replacement patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Psychosomatics. 2010;51(5):409-418.
42. Kalisvaart KJ, de Jonghe JF, Bogaards MJ, et al. Haloperidol prophylaxis for elderly hip-surgery patients at risk for delirium: a randomized placebo-controlled study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(10):1658-1666.
43. Hakim SM, Othman AI, Naoum DO. Early treatment with risperidone for subsyndromal delirium after on-pump cardiac surgery in the elderly: a randomized trial. Anesthesiology. 2012;116(5):987-997.
44. Maldonado JR, Wysong A, van der Starre PJ, et al. Dexmedetomidine and the reduction of postoperative delirium after cardiac surgery. Psychosomatics. 2009;50(3): 206-217.
45. Short J. Use of dexmedetomidine for primary sedation in a general intensive care unit. Crit Care Nurse. 2010;30(1): 29-38; quiz 39.
46. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with delirium. American Psychiatric Association [Comment in: Treatment of patients with delirium. Am J Psychiatry. 2000.]. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156(suppl 5):1-20.
47. Maldonado JR. Delirium in the acute care setting: characteristics, diagnosis, and treatment. Crit Care Clin. 2008;24(4):657-722, vii.
48. Platt MM, Breitbart W, Smith M, et al. Efficacy of neuroleptics for hypoactive delirium. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1994;6(1):66-67.
49. Lonergan E, Britton AM, Luxenberg J, et al. Antipsychotics for delirium. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD005594.
50. Seitz DP, Gill SS, van Zyl LT. Antipsychotics in the treatment of delirium: a systematic review. J Clin Psychiatry. 2007;68(1):11-21.
51. Breitbart W, Marotta R, Platt MM, et al. A double-blind trial of haloperidol, chlorpromazine, and lorazepam in the treatment of delirium in hospitalized AIDS patients. Am J Psychiatry. 1996;153(2):231-237.
52. Hu H, Deng W, Yang H, et al. Olanzapine and haloperidol for senile delirium: a randomized controlled observation. Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation. 2006;10(42): 188-190.
53. Friedman JH, Fernandez HH. Atypical antipsychotics in Parkinson-sensitive populations. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2002;15(3):156-170.
54. Seitz DP, Gill SS. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome complicating antipsychotic treatment of delirium or agitation in medical and surgical patients: case reports and a review of the literature. Psychosomatics. 2009; 50(1):8-15.
55. Han CS, Kim YK. A double-blind trial of risperidone and haloperidol for the treatment of delirium. Psychosomatics. 2004;45(4):297-301.
56. Sink KM, Holden KF, Yaffe K. Pharmacological treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia: a review of the evidence. JAMA. 2005;293(5):596-608.
57. Hermann N, Lanctôt KL. Atypical antipsychotics for neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia: malignant or maligned? Drug Saf. 2006;29(10):833-843.
58. Noyan MA, Elbi H, Aksu H. Donepezil for anticholinergic drug intoxication: a case report. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2003;27(5):885-887.
59. Gleason OC. Donepezil for postoperative delirium. Psychosomatics. 2003;44(5):437-438.
60. Overshott R, Karim S, Burns A. Cholinesterase inhibitors for delirium. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(1): CD005317.
61. Davis MP. Does trazodone have a role in palliating symptoms? Support Care Cancer. 2007;15(2):221-224.
62. Fick DM, Agostini JV, Inouye SK. Delirium superimposed on dementia: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002; 50(10):1723-1732.
63. Brajtman S, Wright D, Hogan D, et al. Developing guidelines for the assessment and treatment of delirium in older adults at the end of life. Can Geriatr J. 2011;14(2):40-50.
64. Caraceni A, Simonetti F. Palliating delirium in patients with cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(2):164-172.
65. Alexopoulos GS, Streim J, Carpenter D, et al; Expert Consensus Panel for using Antipsychotic Drugs in Older Patients. Using antipsychotic agents in older patients. J Clin Psychiatry. 2004;65(suppl 2):5-99; discussion 100-102; quiz 103-104.
66. Granja C, Gomes E, Amaro A, et al. Understanding posttraumatic stress disorder-related symptoms after critical care: the early illness amnesia hypothesis. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(10):2801-2809.
67. Ringdal GI, Ringdal K, Juliebø V, et al. Using the Mini- Mental State Examination to screen for delirium in elderly patients with hip fracture. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2011;32(6):394-400.
68. Olson RA, Chhanabhai T, McKenzie M. Feasibility study of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in patients with brain metastases. Support Care Cancer. 2008;16(11):1273-1278.
First comorbidity guidelines drafted for psoriatic arthritis
NEW YORK – For the first time, the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis is preparing evidence-based treatment recommendations for the diagnosis and management of the comorbidities associated with psoriatic arthritis.
"I am really excited that we are taking the initiative to treat and manage the psoriatic arthritis [PsA] patient as a whole," reported Dr. Elaine Husni, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Center at the Cleveland Clinic. The guidelines are meant to be a "platform on which to raise awareness" and foster education.
An initial set of guidelines on comorbidities was drafted at the joint meetings of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) and the Spondyloarthritis Research & Treatment Network (SPARTAN). Dr. Husni led the consensus group and fielded questions about key recommendations.
The first of these recommendations, which will undergo a process of discussion and review prior to formal adoption, states that all patients with PsA should be evaluated for cardiovascular (CV) disease. The consensus group labeled this recommendation "strong" even while conferring it with grade D evidence.
"The grade D was based on the fact that there are no outcomes data specifically in patients with psoriatic arthritis," observed Dr. Alexis R. Ogdie-Beatty, director of the Penn Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. A member of the consensus group, Dr. Ogdie-Beatty suggested that benefit from CV screening is still a reasonable expectation "given the growing evidence that patients with PsA are at increased risk."
Similar "strong" recommendations but grade D evidence were given for screening for ophthalmic complications and inflammatory bowel disease. In these cases, there is good evidence for an association with PsA but limited evidence that screening will lead to improved outcome. The exception was obesity for which the group gave a B rating to the evidence for benefit from diagnosis and treatment.
Screening for diabetes was also included among recommendations, but it was given a "weak" rating and a grade D for supportive evidence.
Most of the other recommendations involved screening for various infections, such as hepatitis C virus (HCV), HIV, and tuberculosis, prior to initiating immunosuppressant therapies, particularly biologics. The level of evidence for these recommendations typically ranged between B and C even though all were given strong recommendations.
The consensus recommendations are not expected to include much detail about the specific management of comorbidities. The reason is concern about their applicability across various settings of care. It was thought that GRAPPA, as an international organization, should accommodate different types of practice. For example, the group cautioned against outlining steps of CV risk management, which may be managed by rheumatologists in some areas of the world but by specialists in others.
"We want to stay away from being minicardiologists," Dr. Husni explained. She indicated that the goal of the recommendations is to simply identify the specific types of comorbidity screening that should be considered "core recommendations" in the approach to PsA.
However, there is interest in creating a table regarding the use of specific medications for PsA treatment in the context of comorbidities. In a color-coded draft presented at the GRAPPA and SPARTAN meeting, some examples included caution in the use of NSAIDs in patients with CV disease, a need for monitoring when using cyclosporine in patients with chronic kidney disease, and a preference for etanercept over other tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with HCV infection.
Overall, recommendations for comorbidities were identified as an important step in defining optimal care for PsA. According to Dr. Ogdie-Beatty, "the most important point may be to raise awareness." As these recommendations wend their way through an approval process at the organizational level, Dr. Ogdie-Beatty expressed hope that the final wording is specific enough to encourage attention to comorbidities without restricting a variety of valid approaches.
Dr. Husni reported a financial relationship with Celgene. Dr. Ogdie-Beatty had no potential conflicts of interest to report.
NEW YORK – For the first time, the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis is preparing evidence-based treatment recommendations for the diagnosis and management of the comorbidities associated with psoriatic arthritis.
"I am really excited that we are taking the initiative to treat and manage the psoriatic arthritis [PsA] patient as a whole," reported Dr. Elaine Husni, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Center at the Cleveland Clinic. The guidelines are meant to be a "platform on which to raise awareness" and foster education.
An initial set of guidelines on comorbidities was drafted at the joint meetings of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) and the Spondyloarthritis Research & Treatment Network (SPARTAN). Dr. Husni led the consensus group and fielded questions about key recommendations.
The first of these recommendations, which will undergo a process of discussion and review prior to formal adoption, states that all patients with PsA should be evaluated for cardiovascular (CV) disease. The consensus group labeled this recommendation "strong" even while conferring it with grade D evidence.
"The grade D was based on the fact that there are no outcomes data specifically in patients with psoriatic arthritis," observed Dr. Alexis R. Ogdie-Beatty, director of the Penn Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. A member of the consensus group, Dr. Ogdie-Beatty suggested that benefit from CV screening is still a reasonable expectation "given the growing evidence that patients with PsA are at increased risk."
Similar "strong" recommendations but grade D evidence were given for screening for ophthalmic complications and inflammatory bowel disease. In these cases, there is good evidence for an association with PsA but limited evidence that screening will lead to improved outcome. The exception was obesity for which the group gave a B rating to the evidence for benefit from diagnosis and treatment.
Screening for diabetes was also included among recommendations, but it was given a "weak" rating and a grade D for supportive evidence.
Most of the other recommendations involved screening for various infections, such as hepatitis C virus (HCV), HIV, and tuberculosis, prior to initiating immunosuppressant therapies, particularly biologics. The level of evidence for these recommendations typically ranged between B and C even though all were given strong recommendations.
The consensus recommendations are not expected to include much detail about the specific management of comorbidities. The reason is concern about their applicability across various settings of care. It was thought that GRAPPA, as an international organization, should accommodate different types of practice. For example, the group cautioned against outlining steps of CV risk management, which may be managed by rheumatologists in some areas of the world but by specialists in others.
"We want to stay away from being minicardiologists," Dr. Husni explained. She indicated that the goal of the recommendations is to simply identify the specific types of comorbidity screening that should be considered "core recommendations" in the approach to PsA.
However, there is interest in creating a table regarding the use of specific medications for PsA treatment in the context of comorbidities. In a color-coded draft presented at the GRAPPA and SPARTAN meeting, some examples included caution in the use of NSAIDs in patients with CV disease, a need for monitoring when using cyclosporine in patients with chronic kidney disease, and a preference for etanercept over other tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with HCV infection.
Overall, recommendations for comorbidities were identified as an important step in defining optimal care for PsA. According to Dr. Ogdie-Beatty, "the most important point may be to raise awareness." As these recommendations wend their way through an approval process at the organizational level, Dr. Ogdie-Beatty expressed hope that the final wording is specific enough to encourage attention to comorbidities without restricting a variety of valid approaches.
Dr. Husni reported a financial relationship with Celgene. Dr. Ogdie-Beatty had no potential conflicts of interest to report.
NEW YORK – For the first time, the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis is preparing evidence-based treatment recommendations for the diagnosis and management of the comorbidities associated with psoriatic arthritis.
"I am really excited that we are taking the initiative to treat and manage the psoriatic arthritis [PsA] patient as a whole," reported Dr. Elaine Husni, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Center at the Cleveland Clinic. The guidelines are meant to be a "platform on which to raise awareness" and foster education.
An initial set of guidelines on comorbidities was drafted at the joint meetings of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) and the Spondyloarthritis Research & Treatment Network (SPARTAN). Dr. Husni led the consensus group and fielded questions about key recommendations.
The first of these recommendations, which will undergo a process of discussion and review prior to formal adoption, states that all patients with PsA should be evaluated for cardiovascular (CV) disease. The consensus group labeled this recommendation "strong" even while conferring it with grade D evidence.
"The grade D was based on the fact that there are no outcomes data specifically in patients with psoriatic arthritis," observed Dr. Alexis R. Ogdie-Beatty, director of the Penn Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. A member of the consensus group, Dr. Ogdie-Beatty suggested that benefit from CV screening is still a reasonable expectation "given the growing evidence that patients with PsA are at increased risk."
Similar "strong" recommendations but grade D evidence were given for screening for ophthalmic complications and inflammatory bowel disease. In these cases, there is good evidence for an association with PsA but limited evidence that screening will lead to improved outcome. The exception was obesity for which the group gave a B rating to the evidence for benefit from diagnosis and treatment.
Screening for diabetes was also included among recommendations, but it was given a "weak" rating and a grade D for supportive evidence.
Most of the other recommendations involved screening for various infections, such as hepatitis C virus (HCV), HIV, and tuberculosis, prior to initiating immunosuppressant therapies, particularly biologics. The level of evidence for these recommendations typically ranged between B and C even though all were given strong recommendations.
The consensus recommendations are not expected to include much detail about the specific management of comorbidities. The reason is concern about their applicability across various settings of care. It was thought that GRAPPA, as an international organization, should accommodate different types of practice. For example, the group cautioned against outlining steps of CV risk management, which may be managed by rheumatologists in some areas of the world but by specialists in others.
"We want to stay away from being minicardiologists," Dr. Husni explained. She indicated that the goal of the recommendations is to simply identify the specific types of comorbidity screening that should be considered "core recommendations" in the approach to PsA.
However, there is interest in creating a table regarding the use of specific medications for PsA treatment in the context of comorbidities. In a color-coded draft presented at the GRAPPA and SPARTAN meeting, some examples included caution in the use of NSAIDs in patients with CV disease, a need for monitoring when using cyclosporine in patients with chronic kidney disease, and a preference for etanercept over other tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with HCV infection.
Overall, recommendations for comorbidities were identified as an important step in defining optimal care for PsA. According to Dr. Ogdie-Beatty, "the most important point may be to raise awareness." As these recommendations wend their way through an approval process at the organizational level, Dr. Ogdie-Beatty expressed hope that the final wording is specific enough to encourage attention to comorbidities without restricting a variety of valid approaches.
Dr. Husni reported a financial relationship with Celgene. Dr. Ogdie-Beatty had no potential conflicts of interest to report.
AT THE 2014 GRAPPA AND SPARTAN ANNUAL MEETINGS
Opioid use remits, depression remains
Case Forgetful and depressed
Mr. B, age 55, has been a patient at our clinic for 8 years, where he has been under our care for treatment-resistant depression and opioid addiction [read about earlier events in his case in “A life of drugs and ‘downtime’” Current Psychiatry, August 2007, p. 98-103].1 He reports feeling intermittently depressed since his teens and has had 3 near-fatal suicide attempts.
Three years ago, Mr. B reported severe depressive symptoms and short-term memory loss, which undermined his job performance and contributed to interpersonal conflict with his wife. The episode has been continuously severe for 10 months. He was taking sertraline, 150 mg/d, and duloxetine, 60 mg/d, for major depressive disorder (MDD) and sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone, 20 mg/d, for opioid dependence, which was in sustained full remission.2 Mr. B scored 24/30 in the Mini- Mental State Examination, indicating mild cognitive deficit. Negative results of a complete routine laboratory workup rule out an organic cause for his deteriorating cognition.
How would you diagnose Mr. B’s condition at this point?
a) treatment-resistant MDD
b) cognitive disorder not otherwise specified
c) opioid use disorder
d) a and c
The authors' observations
Relapse is a core feature of substance use disorders (SUDs) that contributes significantly to the longstanding functional impairment in patients with a mood disorder. With the relapse rate following substance use treatment estimated at more than 60%,3 SUDs often are described as chronic relapsing conditions. In chronic stress, corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) is over-sensitized; we believe that acute stress can cause an unhealthy response to an over-expressed CRF system.
To prevent relapse in patients with an over-expressed CRF system, it is crucial to manage stress. One treatment option to consider in preventing relapse is mindfulness-based interventions (MBI). Mindfulness has been described as “paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally.” In the event of a relapse, awareness and acceptance fostered by mindfulness may aid in recognizing and minimizing unhealthy responses, such as negative thinking that can increase the risk of relapse.
History Remission, then relapse
Mr. B was admitted to inpatient psychiatric unit after a near-fatal suicide attempt 8 years ago and given a diagnosis of MDD recurrent, severe without psychotic features. Trials of sertraline, bupropion, trazodone, quetiapine, and aripiprazole were ineffective.
Before he presented to our clinic 8 years ago, Mr. B had been taking venlafaxine, 75 mg/d, and mirtazapine, 30 mg at bedtime. His previous outpatient psychiatrist added methylphenidate, 40 mg/d, to augment the antidepressants, but this did not alleviate Mr. B’s depression.
At age 40, he entered a methadone program, began working steadily, and got married. Five years later, he stopped methadone (it is unclear from the chart if his psychiatrist initiated this change). Mr. B’s depression persisted while using opioids and became worse after stopping methadone.
We considered electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) at the time, but switching the antidepressant or starting ECT would address only the persistent depression; buprenorphine/naloxone would target opioid craving. We started a trial of buprenorphine/ naloxone, a partial μ opioid agonist and ĸ opioid antagonist; ĸ receptor antagonism serves as an antidepressant. He responded well to augmentation of his current regimen (mirtazapine, 30 mg at bedtime, and venlafaxine, 225 mg/d) with buprenorphine/naloxone, 16 mg/d.4,5 he reported no anergia and said he felt more motivated and productive.
Mr. B took buprenorphine/naloxone, 32 mg/d, for 4 years until, because of concern for daytime sedation, his outpatient psychiatrist reduced the dose to 20 mg/d. With the lower dosage of buprenorphine/naloxone initiated 4 years ago, Mr. B reported irritability, anhedonia, insomnia, increased self-criticism, and decreased self-care.
How would you treat Mr. B’s depression at this point?
a) switch to a daytime antidepressant
b) adjust the dosage of buprenorphine/ naloxone
c) try ECT
d) try mindfulness-based cognitive therapy
The authors’ observations
Mindfulness meditation (MM) is a meditation practice that cultivates awareness. While learning MM, the practitioner intentionally focuses on awareness—a way of purposely paying attention to the present moment, non-judgmentally, to nurture calmness and self-acceptance. Being conscious of what the practitioner is doing while he is doing it is the core of mindfulness practice.6
Mindfulness-based interventions. We recommended the following forms of MBI to treat Mr. B:
• Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT). MBCT is designed to help people who suffer repeated bouts of depression and chronic unhappiness. It combines the ideas of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) with MM practices and attitudes based on cultivating mindfulness.7
• Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). MBSR brings together MM and physical/breathing exercises to relax body and mind.6
Chronic stress and drug addiction
The literature demonstrates a significant association between acute and chronic stress and motivation to abuse substances. Stress mobilizes the CRF system to stimulate the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and extra-hypothalamic actions of CRF can kindle the neuronal circuits responsible for stress-induced anxiety, dysphoria, and drug abuse behaviors.8
A study to evaluate effects of mindfulness on young adult romantic partners’ HPA responses to conflict stress showed that MM has sex-specific effects on neuroendocrine response to interpersonal stress.9 Research has shown that MM practice can decrease stress, increase well-being, and affect brain structure and function.10 Meta-analysis of studies of animal models and humans described how specific interventions intended to encourage pro-social behavior and well-being might produce plasticity-related changes in the brain.11 This work concluded that, by taking responsibility for the mind and the brain by participating in regular mental exercise, plastic changes in the brain promoted could produce lasting beneficial consequences for social and emotional behavior.11
What could be perpetuating Mr. B’s depression?
a) psychosocial stressors
b) over-expression of CRF gene due to psychosocial stressors
c) a and b
Treatment Mindfulness practice
Mr. B was started on CBT to manage anxiety symptoms and cognitive distortions. After 2 months, he reports no improvements in anxiety, depression, or cognitive distortions.
We consider MBI for Mr. B, which was developed by Segal et al7 to help prevent relapse of depression and gain the benefits of MM. There is evidence that MBI can prevent relapse of SUDs.12 Mr. B’s MBI practice is based on MBCT, as outlined by Segal et al.7 He attends biweekly, 45-minute therapy sessions at our outpatient clinic. During these sessions, MM is practiced for 10 minutes under a psychiatrist’s supervision. The MBCT manual calls for 45 minutes of MM practice but, during the 10-minute session, we instruct Mr. B to independently practice MM at home. Mr. B is assessed for relapses, and drug cravings; a urine toxicology screen is performed every 6 months.
We score Mr. B’s day-to-day level of mindfulness experience, depression, and anxiety symptoms before starting MBI and after 8 weeks of practicing MBI (Figure 1). Mindfulness is scored with the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), a valid, reliable scale.13 The MAAS comprises 15 items designed to reflect mindfulness in everyday experiences, including awareness and attention to thoughts, emotions, actions, and physical states. Items are rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale of 1 (“almost never”) to 6 (“almost always”). A typical item on MAAS is “I find myself doing things without paying attention.”
Depression and anxiety symptoms are measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7) Item Scale. Mr. B scores a 23 on PHQ-9, indicating severe depression (he reports that he finds it ‘‘extremely difficult” to function) (Figure 2).
There is evidence to support the use of PHQ-9 for measurement-based care in the psychiatric population.14 PHQ-9 does not capture anxiety, which is a strong predicator of suicidal behavior; therefore, we use GAD-7 to measure the severity of Mr. B’s subjective anxiety.15 He scores a 14 on GAD-7 and reports that it is “very difficult” for him to function.
Mr. B is retested after 8 weeks. During those 8 weeks, he was instructed by audio guidance in body scan technique. He practices MBI techniques for 45 minutes every morning between 5 AM and 6 AM.6
After 3 months of MBI, Mr. B is promoted at work and reports that he is handling more responsibilities. He is stressed at his new job and, subsequently, experiences a relapse of anxiety symptoms and insomnia. Partly, this is because Mr. B is not able to consistently practice MBI and misses a few outpatient appointments. In the meantime, he has difficulties with sleep and concentration and anxiety symptoms.
The treating psychiatrist reassures Mr. B and provides support to restart MBI. He manages to attend outpatient clinic appointments consistently and shows interest in practicing MBI daily. Later, he reports practicing MBI consistently along with his routine treatment at our clinic. The timeline of Mr. B’s history and treatment are summarized in Figure 3.
The authors’ observations
Mr. B’s CRF may have been down-regulated by MBI. This, in turn, decreased his depressive and anxiety symptoms, thereby helping to prevent relapse of depression and substance abuse. He benefited from MBI practices in several areas of his life, which can be described with the acronym FACES.10
Flexible. Mr. B became more cognitively flexible. He started to realize that “thoughts are not facts.”7 This change was reflected in his relationship with his wife. His wife came to one of our sessions because she noticed significant change in his attitude toward her. Their marriage of 15 years was riddled with conflict and his wife was excited to see the improvement he achieved within the short time of practicing MBI.
Adaptive. He became more adaptive to changes at the work place and reported that he is enjoying his work. This is a change from his feeling that his job was a burden, as he observed in our earlier sessions.
Coherent. He became more cognitively rational. He reported improvement in his memory and concentration. Five months after initiation of MBI and MM training, he was promoted and could cope with the stress at work.
Energized. Initially, he had said that he never wanted to be part of his extended family. During a session toward the end of the treatment, he mentioned that he made an effort to contact his extended family and reported that he found it more meaningful now to be reconnected with them.
Stable. He became more emotionally stable. He did not have the urge to use drugs and he did not relapse.
As we hypothesized, for Mr. B, practicing MBI was associated with abstinence from substance use, increased mindfulness, acceptance of mental health problems, and remission of psychiatric symptoms.
Bottom Line
Mindfulness-based interventions provide patients with tools to target symptoms such as poor affect regulation, poor impulse control, and rumination. Evidence supports that using MBI in addition to the usual treatment can prevent relapse of a substance use disorder.
Related Resources
• Sipe WE, Eisendrath SJ. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy: theory and practice. Can J Psychiatry. 2012;57(2):63-69.• Lau MA, Grabovac AD. Mindfulness-based interventions: Effective for depression and anxiety. Current Psychiatry. 2009;8(12):39-55.
Drug Brand Names
Aripiprazole • Abilify Mirtazapine • Remeron
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Quetiapine • Seroquel
Suboxone
Bupropion • Wellbutrin Sertraline • Zoloft
Duloxetine • Cymbalta Trazodone • Desyrel
Methadone • Dolophine Venlafaxine • Effexor
Methylphenidate • Ritalin, Concerta
Acknowledgement
The manuscript preparation of Maju Mathew Koola, MD, DPM was supported by the NIMH T32 grant MH067533-07 (PI: William T. Carpenter, MD) and the American Psychiatric Association/Kempf Fund Award for Research Development in Psychobiological Psychiatry (PI: Koola). The treating Psychiatrist PGY-5 (2011-2012) Addiction Psychiatry fellow (Dr. Varghese) was supervised by Dr. Eiger. Drs. Koola and Varghese contributed equally with the manuscript preparation and are joint first authors. Dr. Varghese received a second prize for a poster presentation of this case report at the 34th Indo American Psychiatric Association meeting in San Francisco, CA, May 19, 2013. Christina Mathew, MD, also contributed with manuscript preparation.
Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufactures of competing products.
1. Tan EM, Eiger RI, Roth JD. A life of drugs and ‘downtime.’ Current Psychiatry. 2007;6(8):98-103.
2. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edition, text revision. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
3. McLellan AT, Lewis DC, O’Brien CP, et al. Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA. 2000;284(13):1689-1695.
4. Schreiber S, Bleich A, Pick CG. Venlafaxine and mirtazapine: different mechanisms of antidepressant action, common opioid-mediated antinociceptive effects—a possible opioid involvement in severe depression? J Mol Neurosci. 2002; 18(1-2):143-149.
5. Sikka P, Kaushik S, Kumar G, et al. Study of antinociceptive activity of SSRI (fluoxetine and escitalopram) and atypical antidepressants (venlafaxine and mirtazepine) and their interaction with morphine and naloxone in mice. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2011;3(3):412-416.
6. Kabat-Zinn J. Full catastrophe living. 15th ed. New York, NY: Bantam Books; 1990.
7. Segal ZV, Williams JMG, Teasdale JD. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression: a new approach for preventing relapse. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2002.
8. Koob GF. The role of CRF and CRF-related peptides in the dark side of addiction. Brain Res. 2010;1314:3-14.
9. Laurent H, Laurent S, Hertz R, et al. Sex-specific effects of mindfulness on romantic partners’ cortisol responses to conflict and relations with psychological adjustment. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2013;38(12):2905-2913.
10. Siegel DJ. The mindful brain: reflection and attunement in the cultivation of well-being. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company; 2007.
11. Davidson RJ, McEwen BS. Social influences on neuroplasticity: stress and interventions to promote well-being. Nat Neurosci. 2012;15(5):689-695.
12. Bowen S, Chawla N, Collins SE, et al. Mindfulness-based prevention for substance use disorders: a pilot efficacy trial. Subst Abus. 2009;30(4):295-305.
13. Grossman P. Defining mindfulness by how poorly I think I pay attention during everyday awareness and other intractable problems for psychology’s (re)invention of mindfulness: comment on Brown et al. (2001). Psychol Assess. 2011;23(4):1034-1040; discussion 1041-1046.
14. Koola MM, Fawcett JA, Kelly DL. Case report on the management of depression in schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type focusing on lithium levels and measurement-based care. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2011;199(12):989-990.
15. Nock MK, Hwang I, Sampson N, et al. Cross-national analysis of the associations among mental disorders and suicidal behavior: findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. PLoS Med. 2009;6(8):e1000123. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000123.
Case Forgetful and depressed
Mr. B, age 55, has been a patient at our clinic for 8 years, where he has been under our care for treatment-resistant depression and opioid addiction [read about earlier events in his case in “A life of drugs and ‘downtime’” Current Psychiatry, August 2007, p. 98-103].1 He reports feeling intermittently depressed since his teens and has had 3 near-fatal suicide attempts.
Three years ago, Mr. B reported severe depressive symptoms and short-term memory loss, which undermined his job performance and contributed to interpersonal conflict with his wife. The episode has been continuously severe for 10 months. He was taking sertraline, 150 mg/d, and duloxetine, 60 mg/d, for major depressive disorder (MDD) and sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone, 20 mg/d, for opioid dependence, which was in sustained full remission.2 Mr. B scored 24/30 in the Mini- Mental State Examination, indicating mild cognitive deficit. Negative results of a complete routine laboratory workup rule out an organic cause for his deteriorating cognition.
How would you diagnose Mr. B’s condition at this point?
a) treatment-resistant MDD
b) cognitive disorder not otherwise specified
c) opioid use disorder
d) a and c
The authors' observations
Relapse is a core feature of substance use disorders (SUDs) that contributes significantly to the longstanding functional impairment in patients with a mood disorder. With the relapse rate following substance use treatment estimated at more than 60%,3 SUDs often are described as chronic relapsing conditions. In chronic stress, corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) is over-sensitized; we believe that acute stress can cause an unhealthy response to an over-expressed CRF system.
To prevent relapse in patients with an over-expressed CRF system, it is crucial to manage stress. One treatment option to consider in preventing relapse is mindfulness-based interventions (MBI). Mindfulness has been described as “paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally.” In the event of a relapse, awareness and acceptance fostered by mindfulness may aid in recognizing and minimizing unhealthy responses, such as negative thinking that can increase the risk of relapse.
History Remission, then relapse
Mr. B was admitted to inpatient psychiatric unit after a near-fatal suicide attempt 8 years ago and given a diagnosis of MDD recurrent, severe without psychotic features. Trials of sertraline, bupropion, trazodone, quetiapine, and aripiprazole were ineffective.
Before he presented to our clinic 8 years ago, Mr. B had been taking venlafaxine, 75 mg/d, and mirtazapine, 30 mg at bedtime. His previous outpatient psychiatrist added methylphenidate, 40 mg/d, to augment the antidepressants, but this did not alleviate Mr. B’s depression.
At age 40, he entered a methadone program, began working steadily, and got married. Five years later, he stopped methadone (it is unclear from the chart if his psychiatrist initiated this change). Mr. B’s depression persisted while using opioids and became worse after stopping methadone.
We considered electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) at the time, but switching the antidepressant or starting ECT would address only the persistent depression; buprenorphine/naloxone would target opioid craving. We started a trial of buprenorphine/ naloxone, a partial μ opioid agonist and ĸ opioid antagonist; ĸ receptor antagonism serves as an antidepressant. He responded well to augmentation of his current regimen (mirtazapine, 30 mg at bedtime, and venlafaxine, 225 mg/d) with buprenorphine/naloxone, 16 mg/d.4,5 he reported no anergia and said he felt more motivated and productive.
Mr. B took buprenorphine/naloxone, 32 mg/d, for 4 years until, because of concern for daytime sedation, his outpatient psychiatrist reduced the dose to 20 mg/d. With the lower dosage of buprenorphine/naloxone initiated 4 years ago, Mr. B reported irritability, anhedonia, insomnia, increased self-criticism, and decreased self-care.
How would you treat Mr. B’s depression at this point?
a) switch to a daytime antidepressant
b) adjust the dosage of buprenorphine/ naloxone
c) try ECT
d) try mindfulness-based cognitive therapy
The authors’ observations
Mindfulness meditation (MM) is a meditation practice that cultivates awareness. While learning MM, the practitioner intentionally focuses on awareness—a way of purposely paying attention to the present moment, non-judgmentally, to nurture calmness and self-acceptance. Being conscious of what the practitioner is doing while he is doing it is the core of mindfulness practice.6
Mindfulness-based interventions. We recommended the following forms of MBI to treat Mr. B:
• Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT). MBCT is designed to help people who suffer repeated bouts of depression and chronic unhappiness. It combines the ideas of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) with MM practices and attitudes based on cultivating mindfulness.7
• Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). MBSR brings together MM and physical/breathing exercises to relax body and mind.6
Chronic stress and drug addiction
The literature demonstrates a significant association between acute and chronic stress and motivation to abuse substances. Stress mobilizes the CRF system to stimulate the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and extra-hypothalamic actions of CRF can kindle the neuronal circuits responsible for stress-induced anxiety, dysphoria, and drug abuse behaviors.8
A study to evaluate effects of mindfulness on young adult romantic partners’ HPA responses to conflict stress showed that MM has sex-specific effects on neuroendocrine response to interpersonal stress.9 Research has shown that MM practice can decrease stress, increase well-being, and affect brain structure and function.10 Meta-analysis of studies of animal models and humans described how specific interventions intended to encourage pro-social behavior and well-being might produce plasticity-related changes in the brain.11 This work concluded that, by taking responsibility for the mind and the brain by participating in regular mental exercise, plastic changes in the brain promoted could produce lasting beneficial consequences for social and emotional behavior.11
What could be perpetuating Mr. B’s depression?
a) psychosocial stressors
b) over-expression of CRF gene due to psychosocial stressors
c) a and b
Treatment Mindfulness practice
Mr. B was started on CBT to manage anxiety symptoms and cognitive distortions. After 2 months, he reports no improvements in anxiety, depression, or cognitive distortions.
We consider MBI for Mr. B, which was developed by Segal et al7 to help prevent relapse of depression and gain the benefits of MM. There is evidence that MBI can prevent relapse of SUDs.12 Mr. B’s MBI practice is based on MBCT, as outlined by Segal et al.7 He attends biweekly, 45-minute therapy sessions at our outpatient clinic. During these sessions, MM is practiced for 10 minutes under a psychiatrist’s supervision. The MBCT manual calls for 45 minutes of MM practice but, during the 10-minute session, we instruct Mr. B to independently practice MM at home. Mr. B is assessed for relapses, and drug cravings; a urine toxicology screen is performed every 6 months.
We score Mr. B’s day-to-day level of mindfulness experience, depression, and anxiety symptoms before starting MBI and after 8 weeks of practicing MBI (Figure 1). Mindfulness is scored with the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), a valid, reliable scale.13 The MAAS comprises 15 items designed to reflect mindfulness in everyday experiences, including awareness and attention to thoughts, emotions, actions, and physical states. Items are rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale of 1 (“almost never”) to 6 (“almost always”). A typical item on MAAS is “I find myself doing things without paying attention.”
Depression and anxiety symptoms are measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7) Item Scale. Mr. B scores a 23 on PHQ-9, indicating severe depression (he reports that he finds it ‘‘extremely difficult” to function) (Figure 2).
There is evidence to support the use of PHQ-9 for measurement-based care in the psychiatric population.14 PHQ-9 does not capture anxiety, which is a strong predicator of suicidal behavior; therefore, we use GAD-7 to measure the severity of Mr. B’s subjective anxiety.15 He scores a 14 on GAD-7 and reports that it is “very difficult” for him to function.
Mr. B is retested after 8 weeks. During those 8 weeks, he was instructed by audio guidance in body scan technique. He practices MBI techniques for 45 minutes every morning between 5 AM and 6 AM.6
After 3 months of MBI, Mr. B is promoted at work and reports that he is handling more responsibilities. He is stressed at his new job and, subsequently, experiences a relapse of anxiety symptoms and insomnia. Partly, this is because Mr. B is not able to consistently practice MBI and misses a few outpatient appointments. In the meantime, he has difficulties with sleep and concentration and anxiety symptoms.
The treating psychiatrist reassures Mr. B and provides support to restart MBI. He manages to attend outpatient clinic appointments consistently and shows interest in practicing MBI daily. Later, he reports practicing MBI consistently along with his routine treatment at our clinic. The timeline of Mr. B’s history and treatment are summarized in Figure 3.
The authors’ observations
Mr. B’s CRF may have been down-regulated by MBI. This, in turn, decreased his depressive and anxiety symptoms, thereby helping to prevent relapse of depression and substance abuse. He benefited from MBI practices in several areas of his life, which can be described with the acronym FACES.10
Flexible. Mr. B became more cognitively flexible. He started to realize that “thoughts are not facts.”7 This change was reflected in his relationship with his wife. His wife came to one of our sessions because she noticed significant change in his attitude toward her. Their marriage of 15 years was riddled with conflict and his wife was excited to see the improvement he achieved within the short time of practicing MBI.
Adaptive. He became more adaptive to changes at the work place and reported that he is enjoying his work. This is a change from his feeling that his job was a burden, as he observed in our earlier sessions.
Coherent. He became more cognitively rational. He reported improvement in his memory and concentration. Five months after initiation of MBI and MM training, he was promoted and could cope with the stress at work.
Energized. Initially, he had said that he never wanted to be part of his extended family. During a session toward the end of the treatment, he mentioned that he made an effort to contact his extended family and reported that he found it more meaningful now to be reconnected with them.
Stable. He became more emotionally stable. He did not have the urge to use drugs and he did not relapse.
As we hypothesized, for Mr. B, practicing MBI was associated with abstinence from substance use, increased mindfulness, acceptance of mental health problems, and remission of psychiatric symptoms.
Bottom Line
Mindfulness-based interventions provide patients with tools to target symptoms such as poor affect regulation, poor impulse control, and rumination. Evidence supports that using MBI in addition to the usual treatment can prevent relapse of a substance use disorder.
Related Resources
• Sipe WE, Eisendrath SJ. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy: theory and practice. Can J Psychiatry. 2012;57(2):63-69.• Lau MA, Grabovac AD. Mindfulness-based interventions: Effective for depression and anxiety. Current Psychiatry. 2009;8(12):39-55.
Drug Brand Names
Aripiprazole • Abilify Mirtazapine • Remeron
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Quetiapine • Seroquel
Suboxone
Bupropion • Wellbutrin Sertraline • Zoloft
Duloxetine • Cymbalta Trazodone • Desyrel
Methadone • Dolophine Venlafaxine • Effexor
Methylphenidate • Ritalin, Concerta
Acknowledgement
The manuscript preparation of Maju Mathew Koola, MD, DPM was supported by the NIMH T32 grant MH067533-07 (PI: William T. Carpenter, MD) and the American Psychiatric Association/Kempf Fund Award for Research Development in Psychobiological Psychiatry (PI: Koola). The treating Psychiatrist PGY-5 (2011-2012) Addiction Psychiatry fellow (Dr. Varghese) was supervised by Dr. Eiger. Drs. Koola and Varghese contributed equally with the manuscript preparation and are joint first authors. Dr. Varghese received a second prize for a poster presentation of this case report at the 34th Indo American Psychiatric Association meeting in San Francisco, CA, May 19, 2013. Christina Mathew, MD, also contributed with manuscript preparation.
Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufactures of competing products.
Case Forgetful and depressed
Mr. B, age 55, has been a patient at our clinic for 8 years, where he has been under our care for treatment-resistant depression and opioid addiction [read about earlier events in his case in “A life of drugs and ‘downtime’” Current Psychiatry, August 2007, p. 98-103].1 He reports feeling intermittently depressed since his teens and has had 3 near-fatal suicide attempts.
Three years ago, Mr. B reported severe depressive symptoms and short-term memory loss, which undermined his job performance and contributed to interpersonal conflict with his wife. The episode has been continuously severe for 10 months. He was taking sertraline, 150 mg/d, and duloxetine, 60 mg/d, for major depressive disorder (MDD) and sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone, 20 mg/d, for opioid dependence, which was in sustained full remission.2 Mr. B scored 24/30 in the Mini- Mental State Examination, indicating mild cognitive deficit. Negative results of a complete routine laboratory workup rule out an organic cause for his deteriorating cognition.
How would you diagnose Mr. B’s condition at this point?
a) treatment-resistant MDD
b) cognitive disorder not otherwise specified
c) opioid use disorder
d) a and c
The authors' observations
Relapse is a core feature of substance use disorders (SUDs) that contributes significantly to the longstanding functional impairment in patients with a mood disorder. With the relapse rate following substance use treatment estimated at more than 60%,3 SUDs often are described as chronic relapsing conditions. In chronic stress, corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) is over-sensitized; we believe that acute stress can cause an unhealthy response to an over-expressed CRF system.
To prevent relapse in patients with an over-expressed CRF system, it is crucial to manage stress. One treatment option to consider in preventing relapse is mindfulness-based interventions (MBI). Mindfulness has been described as “paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally.” In the event of a relapse, awareness and acceptance fostered by mindfulness may aid in recognizing and minimizing unhealthy responses, such as negative thinking that can increase the risk of relapse.
History Remission, then relapse
Mr. B was admitted to inpatient psychiatric unit after a near-fatal suicide attempt 8 years ago and given a diagnosis of MDD recurrent, severe without psychotic features. Trials of sertraline, bupropion, trazodone, quetiapine, and aripiprazole were ineffective.
Before he presented to our clinic 8 years ago, Mr. B had been taking venlafaxine, 75 mg/d, and mirtazapine, 30 mg at bedtime. His previous outpatient psychiatrist added methylphenidate, 40 mg/d, to augment the antidepressants, but this did not alleviate Mr. B’s depression.
At age 40, he entered a methadone program, began working steadily, and got married. Five years later, he stopped methadone (it is unclear from the chart if his psychiatrist initiated this change). Mr. B’s depression persisted while using opioids and became worse after stopping methadone.
We considered electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) at the time, but switching the antidepressant or starting ECT would address only the persistent depression; buprenorphine/naloxone would target opioid craving. We started a trial of buprenorphine/ naloxone, a partial μ opioid agonist and ĸ opioid antagonist; ĸ receptor antagonism serves as an antidepressant. He responded well to augmentation of his current regimen (mirtazapine, 30 mg at bedtime, and venlafaxine, 225 mg/d) with buprenorphine/naloxone, 16 mg/d.4,5 he reported no anergia and said he felt more motivated and productive.
Mr. B took buprenorphine/naloxone, 32 mg/d, for 4 years until, because of concern for daytime sedation, his outpatient psychiatrist reduced the dose to 20 mg/d. With the lower dosage of buprenorphine/naloxone initiated 4 years ago, Mr. B reported irritability, anhedonia, insomnia, increased self-criticism, and decreased self-care.
How would you treat Mr. B’s depression at this point?
a) switch to a daytime antidepressant
b) adjust the dosage of buprenorphine/ naloxone
c) try ECT
d) try mindfulness-based cognitive therapy
The authors’ observations
Mindfulness meditation (MM) is a meditation practice that cultivates awareness. While learning MM, the practitioner intentionally focuses on awareness—a way of purposely paying attention to the present moment, non-judgmentally, to nurture calmness and self-acceptance. Being conscious of what the practitioner is doing while he is doing it is the core of mindfulness practice.6
Mindfulness-based interventions. We recommended the following forms of MBI to treat Mr. B:
• Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT). MBCT is designed to help people who suffer repeated bouts of depression and chronic unhappiness. It combines the ideas of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) with MM practices and attitudes based on cultivating mindfulness.7
• Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). MBSR brings together MM and physical/breathing exercises to relax body and mind.6
Chronic stress and drug addiction
The literature demonstrates a significant association between acute and chronic stress and motivation to abuse substances. Stress mobilizes the CRF system to stimulate the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and extra-hypothalamic actions of CRF can kindle the neuronal circuits responsible for stress-induced anxiety, dysphoria, and drug abuse behaviors.8
A study to evaluate effects of mindfulness on young adult romantic partners’ HPA responses to conflict stress showed that MM has sex-specific effects on neuroendocrine response to interpersonal stress.9 Research has shown that MM practice can decrease stress, increase well-being, and affect brain structure and function.10 Meta-analysis of studies of animal models and humans described how specific interventions intended to encourage pro-social behavior and well-being might produce plasticity-related changes in the brain.11 This work concluded that, by taking responsibility for the mind and the brain by participating in regular mental exercise, plastic changes in the brain promoted could produce lasting beneficial consequences for social and emotional behavior.11
What could be perpetuating Mr. B’s depression?
a) psychosocial stressors
b) over-expression of CRF gene due to psychosocial stressors
c) a and b
Treatment Mindfulness practice
Mr. B was started on CBT to manage anxiety symptoms and cognitive distortions. After 2 months, he reports no improvements in anxiety, depression, or cognitive distortions.
We consider MBI for Mr. B, which was developed by Segal et al7 to help prevent relapse of depression and gain the benefits of MM. There is evidence that MBI can prevent relapse of SUDs.12 Mr. B’s MBI practice is based on MBCT, as outlined by Segal et al.7 He attends biweekly, 45-minute therapy sessions at our outpatient clinic. During these sessions, MM is practiced for 10 minutes under a psychiatrist’s supervision. The MBCT manual calls for 45 minutes of MM practice but, during the 10-minute session, we instruct Mr. B to independently practice MM at home. Mr. B is assessed for relapses, and drug cravings; a urine toxicology screen is performed every 6 months.
We score Mr. B’s day-to-day level of mindfulness experience, depression, and anxiety symptoms before starting MBI and after 8 weeks of practicing MBI (Figure 1). Mindfulness is scored with the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), a valid, reliable scale.13 The MAAS comprises 15 items designed to reflect mindfulness in everyday experiences, including awareness and attention to thoughts, emotions, actions, and physical states. Items are rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale of 1 (“almost never”) to 6 (“almost always”). A typical item on MAAS is “I find myself doing things without paying attention.”
Depression and anxiety symptoms are measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7) Item Scale. Mr. B scores a 23 on PHQ-9, indicating severe depression (he reports that he finds it ‘‘extremely difficult” to function) (Figure 2).
There is evidence to support the use of PHQ-9 for measurement-based care in the psychiatric population.14 PHQ-9 does not capture anxiety, which is a strong predicator of suicidal behavior; therefore, we use GAD-7 to measure the severity of Mr. B’s subjective anxiety.15 He scores a 14 on GAD-7 and reports that it is “very difficult” for him to function.
Mr. B is retested after 8 weeks. During those 8 weeks, he was instructed by audio guidance in body scan technique. He practices MBI techniques for 45 minutes every morning between 5 AM and 6 AM.6
After 3 months of MBI, Mr. B is promoted at work and reports that he is handling more responsibilities. He is stressed at his new job and, subsequently, experiences a relapse of anxiety symptoms and insomnia. Partly, this is because Mr. B is not able to consistently practice MBI and misses a few outpatient appointments. In the meantime, he has difficulties with sleep and concentration and anxiety symptoms.
The treating psychiatrist reassures Mr. B and provides support to restart MBI. He manages to attend outpatient clinic appointments consistently and shows interest in practicing MBI daily. Later, he reports practicing MBI consistently along with his routine treatment at our clinic. The timeline of Mr. B’s history and treatment are summarized in Figure 3.
The authors’ observations
Mr. B’s CRF may have been down-regulated by MBI. This, in turn, decreased his depressive and anxiety symptoms, thereby helping to prevent relapse of depression and substance abuse. He benefited from MBI practices in several areas of his life, which can be described with the acronym FACES.10
Flexible. Mr. B became more cognitively flexible. He started to realize that “thoughts are not facts.”7 This change was reflected in his relationship with his wife. His wife came to one of our sessions because she noticed significant change in his attitude toward her. Their marriage of 15 years was riddled with conflict and his wife was excited to see the improvement he achieved within the short time of practicing MBI.
Adaptive. He became more adaptive to changes at the work place and reported that he is enjoying his work. This is a change from his feeling that his job was a burden, as he observed in our earlier sessions.
Coherent. He became more cognitively rational. He reported improvement in his memory and concentration. Five months after initiation of MBI and MM training, he was promoted and could cope with the stress at work.
Energized. Initially, he had said that he never wanted to be part of his extended family. During a session toward the end of the treatment, he mentioned that he made an effort to contact his extended family and reported that he found it more meaningful now to be reconnected with them.
Stable. He became more emotionally stable. He did not have the urge to use drugs and he did not relapse.
As we hypothesized, for Mr. B, practicing MBI was associated with abstinence from substance use, increased mindfulness, acceptance of mental health problems, and remission of psychiatric symptoms.
Bottom Line
Mindfulness-based interventions provide patients with tools to target symptoms such as poor affect regulation, poor impulse control, and rumination. Evidence supports that using MBI in addition to the usual treatment can prevent relapse of a substance use disorder.
Related Resources
• Sipe WE, Eisendrath SJ. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy: theory and practice. Can J Psychiatry. 2012;57(2):63-69.• Lau MA, Grabovac AD. Mindfulness-based interventions: Effective for depression and anxiety. Current Psychiatry. 2009;8(12):39-55.
Drug Brand Names
Aripiprazole • Abilify Mirtazapine • Remeron
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Quetiapine • Seroquel
Suboxone
Bupropion • Wellbutrin Sertraline • Zoloft
Duloxetine • Cymbalta Trazodone • Desyrel
Methadone • Dolophine Venlafaxine • Effexor
Methylphenidate • Ritalin, Concerta
Acknowledgement
The manuscript preparation of Maju Mathew Koola, MD, DPM was supported by the NIMH T32 grant MH067533-07 (PI: William T. Carpenter, MD) and the American Psychiatric Association/Kempf Fund Award for Research Development in Psychobiological Psychiatry (PI: Koola). The treating Psychiatrist PGY-5 (2011-2012) Addiction Psychiatry fellow (Dr. Varghese) was supervised by Dr. Eiger. Drs. Koola and Varghese contributed equally with the manuscript preparation and are joint first authors. Dr. Varghese received a second prize for a poster presentation of this case report at the 34th Indo American Psychiatric Association meeting in San Francisco, CA, May 19, 2013. Christina Mathew, MD, also contributed with manuscript preparation.
Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufactures of competing products.
1. Tan EM, Eiger RI, Roth JD. A life of drugs and ‘downtime.’ Current Psychiatry. 2007;6(8):98-103.
2. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edition, text revision. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
3. McLellan AT, Lewis DC, O’Brien CP, et al. Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA. 2000;284(13):1689-1695.
4. Schreiber S, Bleich A, Pick CG. Venlafaxine and mirtazapine: different mechanisms of antidepressant action, common opioid-mediated antinociceptive effects—a possible opioid involvement in severe depression? J Mol Neurosci. 2002; 18(1-2):143-149.
5. Sikka P, Kaushik S, Kumar G, et al. Study of antinociceptive activity of SSRI (fluoxetine and escitalopram) and atypical antidepressants (venlafaxine and mirtazepine) and their interaction with morphine and naloxone in mice. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2011;3(3):412-416.
6. Kabat-Zinn J. Full catastrophe living. 15th ed. New York, NY: Bantam Books; 1990.
7. Segal ZV, Williams JMG, Teasdale JD. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression: a new approach for preventing relapse. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2002.
8. Koob GF. The role of CRF and CRF-related peptides in the dark side of addiction. Brain Res. 2010;1314:3-14.
9. Laurent H, Laurent S, Hertz R, et al. Sex-specific effects of mindfulness on romantic partners’ cortisol responses to conflict and relations with psychological adjustment. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2013;38(12):2905-2913.
10. Siegel DJ. The mindful brain: reflection and attunement in the cultivation of well-being. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company; 2007.
11. Davidson RJ, McEwen BS. Social influences on neuroplasticity: stress and interventions to promote well-being. Nat Neurosci. 2012;15(5):689-695.
12. Bowen S, Chawla N, Collins SE, et al. Mindfulness-based prevention for substance use disorders: a pilot efficacy trial. Subst Abus. 2009;30(4):295-305.
13. Grossman P. Defining mindfulness by how poorly I think I pay attention during everyday awareness and other intractable problems for psychology’s (re)invention of mindfulness: comment on Brown et al. (2001). Psychol Assess. 2011;23(4):1034-1040; discussion 1041-1046.
14. Koola MM, Fawcett JA, Kelly DL. Case report on the management of depression in schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type focusing on lithium levels and measurement-based care. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2011;199(12):989-990.
15. Nock MK, Hwang I, Sampson N, et al. Cross-national analysis of the associations among mental disorders and suicidal behavior: findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. PLoS Med. 2009;6(8):e1000123. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000123.
1. Tan EM, Eiger RI, Roth JD. A life of drugs and ‘downtime.’ Current Psychiatry. 2007;6(8):98-103.
2. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edition, text revision. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
3. McLellan AT, Lewis DC, O’Brien CP, et al. Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA. 2000;284(13):1689-1695.
4. Schreiber S, Bleich A, Pick CG. Venlafaxine and mirtazapine: different mechanisms of antidepressant action, common opioid-mediated antinociceptive effects—a possible opioid involvement in severe depression? J Mol Neurosci. 2002; 18(1-2):143-149.
5. Sikka P, Kaushik S, Kumar G, et al. Study of antinociceptive activity of SSRI (fluoxetine and escitalopram) and atypical antidepressants (venlafaxine and mirtazepine) and their interaction with morphine and naloxone in mice. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2011;3(3):412-416.
6. Kabat-Zinn J. Full catastrophe living. 15th ed. New York, NY: Bantam Books; 1990.
7. Segal ZV, Williams JMG, Teasdale JD. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression: a new approach for preventing relapse. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2002.
8. Koob GF. The role of CRF and CRF-related peptides in the dark side of addiction. Brain Res. 2010;1314:3-14.
9. Laurent H, Laurent S, Hertz R, et al. Sex-specific effects of mindfulness on romantic partners’ cortisol responses to conflict and relations with psychological adjustment. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2013;38(12):2905-2913.
10. Siegel DJ. The mindful brain: reflection and attunement in the cultivation of well-being. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company; 2007.
11. Davidson RJ, McEwen BS. Social influences on neuroplasticity: stress and interventions to promote well-being. Nat Neurosci. 2012;15(5):689-695.
12. Bowen S, Chawla N, Collins SE, et al. Mindfulness-based prevention for substance use disorders: a pilot efficacy trial. Subst Abus. 2009;30(4):295-305.
13. Grossman P. Defining mindfulness by how poorly I think I pay attention during everyday awareness and other intractable problems for psychology’s (re)invention of mindfulness: comment on Brown et al. (2001). Psychol Assess. 2011;23(4):1034-1040; discussion 1041-1046.
14. Koola MM, Fawcett JA, Kelly DL. Case report on the management of depression in schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type focusing on lithium levels and measurement-based care. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2011;199(12):989-990.
15. Nock MK, Hwang I, Sampson N, et al. Cross-national analysis of the associations among mental disorders and suicidal behavior: findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. PLoS Med. 2009;6(8):e1000123. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000123.
How to talk to patients and their family after a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a transitional clinical stage between normal aging and dementia. Together with aging, it is considered the most significant risk factor for developing dementia, often the Alzheimer’s type.1
MCI is a challenging neuropsychiatric diagnosis to discuss with patients and their family because it is characterized by overlapping features of normal aging and because of its heterogeneity of etiology, clinical presentation, and outcome.2,3 The evolution to dementia and the lack of effective treatments for preventing or forestalling this outcome can be difficult to address—particularly when the patient is in good health and has been leading a productive life.
Successful communication is key
You can take steps to communicate in a helpful way, build a strong treatment alliance, and reduce the potential for the iatrogenic effects of disclosing this diagnosis and its prognostic implications.
Clarify that your findings are consistent with the patient’s or family’s report of sustained and concerning change in cognition and, depending on the patient, concurrent alterations in affect, behavior, or both. Emphasize that these changes are disproportionately severe relative to expectations for the patient’s age and are not caused by psychiatric or clear-cut medical factors.
Highlight contexts in which the patient’s symptoms are likely to become more disruptive and impaired, and situations in which the patient can be expected to function more effectively.
Provide evidence-based support for the rate of progression of symptoms and functional impairment.3
Emphasize that major lifestyle adjustments usually are unnecessary in the absence of progression, especially for patients who are retired or not involved in endeavors that involve significant cognitive and executive functioning demands.
Discuss the role that cognition-enhancing medications might play in managing symptoms.4
Address indications for additional services, including formal psychiatric care for patients who have concomitant affective or behavioral symptoms and who are highly distressed by the diagnosis. Pair these services with longitudinal monitoring for possible exacerbation of symptoms.
Identify psychiatric, medical, and lifestyle factors that can increase the risk of dementia. Depending on the patient’s history, this might include diabetes, hypertension, elevated lipid levels, obesity, smoking, head trauma, depression, physical inactivity, and lack of intellectual stimulation.
Review compensatory strategies. In MCI predominantly amnestic type, for example, having the patient make systematic lists for shopping and other activities of daily living, as well as establishing routines for organizaton, can bolster successful coping.
If psychometric testing was not utilized to establish the diagnosis, discussion can include the value of performing such an assessment for a more finely tuned profile of preserved and impaired neurobehavioral functions. Such a profile can include test patterns that 1) have prognostic value with regard to the likelihood of progression to dementia and 2) establish a baseline against which you can assess stability or progression over time.5
Disclosure
Dr. Pollak reports no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.
1. Albert MS, DeKosky ST, Dickson D, et al. The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging- Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7(3):270-279.
2. Ellison JM, Harper DG, Berlow Y, et al. Beyond the “C” in MCI: noncognitive symptoms in amnestic and non-amnestic mild cognitive impairment. CNS Spectr. 2008;13(1):66-72.
3. Goveas JS, Dixon-Holbrook M, Kerwin D, et al. Mild cognitive impairment: how can you be sure? Current Psychiatry. 2008;7(4):36-40, 46-50.
4. Doody RS, Ferris SH, Salloway S, et al. Donepezil treatment of patients with MCI: a 48-week randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology. 2009;72(18):1555-1561.
5. Summers MJ, Saunders NL. Neuropsychological measures predict decline to Alzheimer’s dementia from mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychology. 2012;26(4):498-508.
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a transitional clinical stage between normal aging and dementia. Together with aging, it is considered the most significant risk factor for developing dementia, often the Alzheimer’s type.1
MCI is a challenging neuropsychiatric diagnosis to discuss with patients and their family because it is characterized by overlapping features of normal aging and because of its heterogeneity of etiology, clinical presentation, and outcome.2,3 The evolution to dementia and the lack of effective treatments for preventing or forestalling this outcome can be difficult to address—particularly when the patient is in good health and has been leading a productive life.
Successful communication is key
You can take steps to communicate in a helpful way, build a strong treatment alliance, and reduce the potential for the iatrogenic effects of disclosing this diagnosis and its prognostic implications.
Clarify that your findings are consistent with the patient’s or family’s report of sustained and concerning change in cognition and, depending on the patient, concurrent alterations in affect, behavior, or both. Emphasize that these changes are disproportionately severe relative to expectations for the patient’s age and are not caused by psychiatric or clear-cut medical factors.
Highlight contexts in which the patient’s symptoms are likely to become more disruptive and impaired, and situations in which the patient can be expected to function more effectively.
Provide evidence-based support for the rate of progression of symptoms and functional impairment.3
Emphasize that major lifestyle adjustments usually are unnecessary in the absence of progression, especially for patients who are retired or not involved in endeavors that involve significant cognitive and executive functioning demands.
Discuss the role that cognition-enhancing medications might play in managing symptoms.4
Address indications for additional services, including formal psychiatric care for patients who have concomitant affective or behavioral symptoms and who are highly distressed by the diagnosis. Pair these services with longitudinal monitoring for possible exacerbation of symptoms.
Identify psychiatric, medical, and lifestyle factors that can increase the risk of dementia. Depending on the patient’s history, this might include diabetes, hypertension, elevated lipid levels, obesity, smoking, head trauma, depression, physical inactivity, and lack of intellectual stimulation.
Review compensatory strategies. In MCI predominantly amnestic type, for example, having the patient make systematic lists for shopping and other activities of daily living, as well as establishing routines for organizaton, can bolster successful coping.
If psychometric testing was not utilized to establish the diagnosis, discussion can include the value of performing such an assessment for a more finely tuned profile of preserved and impaired neurobehavioral functions. Such a profile can include test patterns that 1) have prognostic value with regard to the likelihood of progression to dementia and 2) establish a baseline against which you can assess stability or progression over time.5
Disclosure
Dr. Pollak reports no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a transitional clinical stage between normal aging and dementia. Together with aging, it is considered the most significant risk factor for developing dementia, often the Alzheimer’s type.1
MCI is a challenging neuropsychiatric diagnosis to discuss with patients and their family because it is characterized by overlapping features of normal aging and because of its heterogeneity of etiology, clinical presentation, and outcome.2,3 The evolution to dementia and the lack of effective treatments for preventing or forestalling this outcome can be difficult to address—particularly when the patient is in good health and has been leading a productive life.
Successful communication is key
You can take steps to communicate in a helpful way, build a strong treatment alliance, and reduce the potential for the iatrogenic effects of disclosing this diagnosis and its prognostic implications.
Clarify that your findings are consistent with the patient’s or family’s report of sustained and concerning change in cognition and, depending on the patient, concurrent alterations in affect, behavior, or both. Emphasize that these changes are disproportionately severe relative to expectations for the patient’s age and are not caused by psychiatric or clear-cut medical factors.
Highlight contexts in which the patient’s symptoms are likely to become more disruptive and impaired, and situations in which the patient can be expected to function more effectively.
Provide evidence-based support for the rate of progression of symptoms and functional impairment.3
Emphasize that major lifestyle adjustments usually are unnecessary in the absence of progression, especially for patients who are retired or not involved in endeavors that involve significant cognitive and executive functioning demands.
Discuss the role that cognition-enhancing medications might play in managing symptoms.4
Address indications for additional services, including formal psychiatric care for patients who have concomitant affective or behavioral symptoms and who are highly distressed by the diagnosis. Pair these services with longitudinal monitoring for possible exacerbation of symptoms.
Identify psychiatric, medical, and lifestyle factors that can increase the risk of dementia. Depending on the patient’s history, this might include diabetes, hypertension, elevated lipid levels, obesity, smoking, head trauma, depression, physical inactivity, and lack of intellectual stimulation.
Review compensatory strategies. In MCI predominantly amnestic type, for example, having the patient make systematic lists for shopping and other activities of daily living, as well as establishing routines for organizaton, can bolster successful coping.
If psychometric testing was not utilized to establish the diagnosis, discussion can include the value of performing such an assessment for a more finely tuned profile of preserved and impaired neurobehavioral functions. Such a profile can include test patterns that 1) have prognostic value with regard to the likelihood of progression to dementia and 2) establish a baseline against which you can assess stability or progression over time.5
Disclosure
Dr. Pollak reports no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.
1. Albert MS, DeKosky ST, Dickson D, et al. The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging- Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7(3):270-279.
2. Ellison JM, Harper DG, Berlow Y, et al. Beyond the “C” in MCI: noncognitive symptoms in amnestic and non-amnestic mild cognitive impairment. CNS Spectr. 2008;13(1):66-72.
3. Goveas JS, Dixon-Holbrook M, Kerwin D, et al. Mild cognitive impairment: how can you be sure? Current Psychiatry. 2008;7(4):36-40, 46-50.
4. Doody RS, Ferris SH, Salloway S, et al. Donepezil treatment of patients with MCI: a 48-week randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology. 2009;72(18):1555-1561.
5. Summers MJ, Saunders NL. Neuropsychological measures predict decline to Alzheimer’s dementia from mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychology. 2012;26(4):498-508.
1. Albert MS, DeKosky ST, Dickson D, et al. The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging- Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7(3):270-279.
2. Ellison JM, Harper DG, Berlow Y, et al. Beyond the “C” in MCI: noncognitive symptoms in amnestic and non-amnestic mild cognitive impairment. CNS Spectr. 2008;13(1):66-72.
3. Goveas JS, Dixon-Holbrook M, Kerwin D, et al. Mild cognitive impairment: how can you be sure? Current Psychiatry. 2008;7(4):36-40, 46-50.
4. Doody RS, Ferris SH, Salloway S, et al. Donepezil treatment of patients with MCI: a 48-week randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology. 2009;72(18):1555-1561.
5. Summers MJ, Saunders NL. Neuropsychological measures predict decline to Alzheimer’s dementia from mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychology. 2012;26(4):498-508.
Avoid hospitalization for severe and enduring anorexia nervosa by personalizing your care
Severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (SE-AN) is persistent anorexia nervosa (AN) lasting for ≥7 years with or without a history of treatment. Evidence points to the effectiveness of a patient-tailored plan for treating SE-AN over any universal fix. Proper medication, therapeutic alliance, and strategic discharge planning are the ingredients for treating SE-AN that avoids re-hospitalization (Table).
Nutritional support and pharmacotherapy required
Comprehensive metabolic analysis and initiating nutrition should be the first priority for the medical team. Starved-state patients can have electrolyte and metabolic derangements that place them at risk of fatal arrhythmias or multi-system organ failure. Do not hesitate to initiate nasogastric tube feeding under the observation of a certified nutritionist when necessary for survival. A double-blind, randomized controlled trial demonstrated the benefit of olanzapine compared with placebo to increase body mass index (BMI) of hospitalized AN patients. Olanzapine was titrated from 2.5 to 10 mg/d over a 13-week period, and was associated with higher patient achievement of a BMI > 18.5 kg/m2.1
Although the patient is receiving nutritional support in conjunction with psychotropic medication, the road to BMI recovery can be long. Don’t forget that SE-AN can be incapacitating. In SE-AN, the fear of gaining weight is so severe that the idea of starvation-induced death initially might seem more palatable. Although counterintuitive, as the patient recovers metabolically, self-image deteriorates. Statements praising any new weight gain can derail any therapeutic relationship.
Therapeutic alliance is key
Establishing high-quality therapeutic alliance, as measured by the Helping Relationships Questionnaire, has been shown to have a positive outcome on eating disorder symptoms and comorbid depressed mood in later phases of SE-AN treatment.2,3 Although therapeutic alliance is individualized, maintaining open communication and reiterating how it is the patient’s decision to consume whole food at a level at which the feeding tube can be discontinued are good places to start treatment.
Proper discharge timing and transition to outpatient care for SE-AN patients is paramount. In multicenter studies, treatment ends too early in 57.8% of patients; discharge at sub-ideal BMI is linked to rehospitalization.3 Slower weight gain and delayed establishment of therapeutic alliance are predictors of patients who exit treatment programs too early.3 Clinicians who remain vigilant for the above metrics are less likely to feed into the unacceptably high rate of treatment failure for SE-AN.
Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.
1. Bissada H, Tasca GA, Barber AM, et al. Olanzapine in the treatment of low body weight and obsessive thinking in women with anorexia nervosa: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165(10):1281-1288.
2. Stiles-Shields C, Touyz S, Hay P, et al. Therapeutic alliance in two treatments for adults with severe and enduring anorexia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 2013;46(8):783-789.
3. Sly R, Morgan JF, Mountford VA, et al. Predicting premature termination of hospitalised treatment for anorexia nervosa: the roles of therapeutic alliance, motivation, and behaviour change. Eat Behav. 2013;14(2):119-123.
Severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (SE-AN) is persistent anorexia nervosa (AN) lasting for ≥7 years with or without a history of treatment. Evidence points to the effectiveness of a patient-tailored plan for treating SE-AN over any universal fix. Proper medication, therapeutic alliance, and strategic discharge planning are the ingredients for treating SE-AN that avoids re-hospitalization (Table).
Nutritional support and pharmacotherapy required
Comprehensive metabolic analysis and initiating nutrition should be the first priority for the medical team. Starved-state patients can have electrolyte and metabolic derangements that place them at risk of fatal arrhythmias or multi-system organ failure. Do not hesitate to initiate nasogastric tube feeding under the observation of a certified nutritionist when necessary for survival. A double-blind, randomized controlled trial demonstrated the benefit of olanzapine compared with placebo to increase body mass index (BMI) of hospitalized AN patients. Olanzapine was titrated from 2.5 to 10 mg/d over a 13-week period, and was associated with higher patient achievement of a BMI > 18.5 kg/m2.1
Although the patient is receiving nutritional support in conjunction with psychotropic medication, the road to BMI recovery can be long. Don’t forget that SE-AN can be incapacitating. In SE-AN, the fear of gaining weight is so severe that the idea of starvation-induced death initially might seem more palatable. Although counterintuitive, as the patient recovers metabolically, self-image deteriorates. Statements praising any new weight gain can derail any therapeutic relationship.
Therapeutic alliance is key
Establishing high-quality therapeutic alliance, as measured by the Helping Relationships Questionnaire, has been shown to have a positive outcome on eating disorder symptoms and comorbid depressed mood in later phases of SE-AN treatment.2,3 Although therapeutic alliance is individualized, maintaining open communication and reiterating how it is the patient’s decision to consume whole food at a level at which the feeding tube can be discontinued are good places to start treatment.
Proper discharge timing and transition to outpatient care for SE-AN patients is paramount. In multicenter studies, treatment ends too early in 57.8% of patients; discharge at sub-ideal BMI is linked to rehospitalization.3 Slower weight gain and delayed establishment of therapeutic alliance are predictors of patients who exit treatment programs too early.3 Clinicians who remain vigilant for the above metrics are less likely to feed into the unacceptably high rate of treatment failure for SE-AN.
Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.
Severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (SE-AN) is persistent anorexia nervosa (AN) lasting for ≥7 years with or without a history of treatment. Evidence points to the effectiveness of a patient-tailored plan for treating SE-AN over any universal fix. Proper medication, therapeutic alliance, and strategic discharge planning are the ingredients for treating SE-AN that avoids re-hospitalization (Table).
Nutritional support and pharmacotherapy required
Comprehensive metabolic analysis and initiating nutrition should be the first priority for the medical team. Starved-state patients can have electrolyte and metabolic derangements that place them at risk of fatal arrhythmias or multi-system organ failure. Do not hesitate to initiate nasogastric tube feeding under the observation of a certified nutritionist when necessary for survival. A double-blind, randomized controlled trial demonstrated the benefit of olanzapine compared with placebo to increase body mass index (BMI) of hospitalized AN patients. Olanzapine was titrated from 2.5 to 10 mg/d over a 13-week period, and was associated with higher patient achievement of a BMI > 18.5 kg/m2.1
Although the patient is receiving nutritional support in conjunction with psychotropic medication, the road to BMI recovery can be long. Don’t forget that SE-AN can be incapacitating. In SE-AN, the fear of gaining weight is so severe that the idea of starvation-induced death initially might seem more palatable. Although counterintuitive, as the patient recovers metabolically, self-image deteriorates. Statements praising any new weight gain can derail any therapeutic relationship.
Therapeutic alliance is key
Establishing high-quality therapeutic alliance, as measured by the Helping Relationships Questionnaire, has been shown to have a positive outcome on eating disorder symptoms and comorbid depressed mood in later phases of SE-AN treatment.2,3 Although therapeutic alliance is individualized, maintaining open communication and reiterating how it is the patient’s decision to consume whole food at a level at which the feeding tube can be discontinued are good places to start treatment.
Proper discharge timing and transition to outpatient care for SE-AN patients is paramount. In multicenter studies, treatment ends too early in 57.8% of patients; discharge at sub-ideal BMI is linked to rehospitalization.3 Slower weight gain and delayed establishment of therapeutic alliance are predictors of patients who exit treatment programs too early.3 Clinicians who remain vigilant for the above metrics are less likely to feed into the unacceptably high rate of treatment failure for SE-AN.
Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.
1. Bissada H, Tasca GA, Barber AM, et al. Olanzapine in the treatment of low body weight and obsessive thinking in women with anorexia nervosa: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165(10):1281-1288.
2. Stiles-Shields C, Touyz S, Hay P, et al. Therapeutic alliance in two treatments for adults with severe and enduring anorexia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 2013;46(8):783-789.
3. Sly R, Morgan JF, Mountford VA, et al. Predicting premature termination of hospitalised treatment for anorexia nervosa: the roles of therapeutic alliance, motivation, and behaviour change. Eat Behav. 2013;14(2):119-123.
1. Bissada H, Tasca GA, Barber AM, et al. Olanzapine in the treatment of low body weight and obsessive thinking in women with anorexia nervosa: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165(10):1281-1288.
2. Stiles-Shields C, Touyz S, Hay P, et al. Therapeutic alliance in two treatments for adults with severe and enduring anorexia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 2013;46(8):783-789.
3. Sly R, Morgan JF, Mountford VA, et al. Predicting premature termination of hospitalised treatment for anorexia nervosa: the roles of therapeutic alliance, motivation, and behaviour change. Eat Behav. 2013;14(2):119-123.