[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: In reading this be aware the esteemed New York-Presbyterian Hospital funded this study. Dr. Ferrando has received honoraria from Pfizer, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. The article appeared in Psychosomatics. 2003:44:382-387 Also be aware of the caveat from Vera Sharav: "The unthinkable is possible when medicine deviates from the physician's personal oath to patients to "do no harm." When medicine serves government or corporate agendas illegitimate medical practices are concealed by a veil of secrecy and protected by a fraternal culture of silence." In private practice it is not uncommon to find admitting physicians "gifting" their consultant friends, ordering consultations whether they are need or not. This is much the same thing. What if their was a "screen" for problems within every specialty? With 43 million Americans unable to afford health care insurance, this "padding" to the benefit both of psychiatry and, more importantly to the almightly pharmaceutical industry will only result in psychiatric labels and drugs for persons whose primary problems are medical (and surgical), to the detriment of their financial situation and, to the detriment of their medical/surgical situation, since no psychiatric condition is an actual disease, and psychiatric drugs can only stand to complicate their medical or surgical conditions. The New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Cornell and Medscape should be ashamed of themselves. Colluding thusly they have become part of the biggest of all drug cartels in the name of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. None of these parties are patient advocates any longer. Having sold their souls to Big Pharma they cannot be.] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/462577 Cornell Psychiatric Screen Validated: A Newsmaker Interview With Stephen J. Ferrando, MD Laurie Barclay, MD Oct. 7, 2003 - Editor's Note: The Cornell Psychiatric Screen suggests that many medical inpatients[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: persons with real diseases. Who is behind this?] would benefit from psychiatric services, according to the results of a preliminary validation study published in the September-October issue of Psychosomatics. This brief, reliable, and valid[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: Valid for what, the placement of DSM-IV labels that stick, making them psychiatric patients in perpetuity] screening tool includes items assessing cognition and behavior, depressive symptoms, anxiety, drug and alcohol history, and the patient's desire to see a psychiatrist. Among patients in whom the screen suggested possible psychopathology[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: There is no such thing as pathology = physical abnormality = disease, in psychiatry; saying "psychopathology" they coopt the language of medicine to make the patient/pyblic think they dx. and rx actual diseases when none are] , 89% had documented psychiatric comorbidity according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, criteria. To learn more about how this screen should be used, Medscape's Laurie Barclay interviewed Stephen J. Ferrando, MD, an associate professor of psychiatry at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University in New York City and the director of the psychiatric consultation liaison service at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. Medscape: Why is a psychiatric screen needed for hospitalized medical patients? Dr. Ferrando: The prevalence of psychiatric comorbidity is very high in medical inpatients, up to 40% to 50% in some studies[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: Dr. Ferrando claims 40-50 percent of those in the hospital for medical diagnoses such as cancer, stomach ulcer, diabetes, stroke, multiple sclerosis etc.have a co-morbid (co-existent) psychiatric diagnosis (or 2 or 3 or more) Might their psychiatric problem be related to the medical problem that has landed them in the hospital?] . Despite that, the rate of psychiatric consultation is very low, usually less than 5%.[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: Apparently, most of their primary physicians think their psychiatric problems are explained by the medical problem that got them into the hospital, feeling that just 5% need psychiatric consultation.] Identifying psychiatric disease in this population is important because psychopathology increases length of stay and medical morbidity and results in poor functional outcomes. The idea of the screen is to identify these patients and to intervene early to improve outcomes[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: Suggesting that it would be best if all of the 40-50 percent had psychiatric consultation, dx. and rx.] . Medscape: What were the main findings of this study? Dr. Ferrando: The study's intent was to develop this screening instrument, which we did, as well as to validate it. We started with a large number of questions, then honed it down to seven items, five of which are self-reported, and the other two are rated by a paraprofessional, nurse, or an attendant who is trained to ask simple but directed questions. This screen gives the patient a mental health severity rating and only takes about five minutes to administer. We looked at the predictive value of the instrument and developed cutoff criteria. When the score met the criteria, the screen was accurate 90% of the time in predicting psychiatric disease. The absolute score also correlated with the length of stay. Now we're using this screening instrument in a randomized trial of early psychiatric intervention versus standard care, with 200 medically ill patients in each group. The results are in preparation. Medscape: Could psychiatric symptoms associated with medical illness, such as fatigue associated with cancer or hallucinations accompanying metabolic delirium, confound the results of this screen? Dr. Ferrando: Not really. Any of these symptoms can be associated with overall medical morbidity, but the psychiatrists still have to deal with it. With the symptom of fatigue in a cancer patient, for example, the primary medical team is pushing chemotherapy while the psychiatrist should be addressing quality-of-life issues, perhaps prescribing a stimulant like Provigil or suggesting other ways to cope with the fatigue. So even though the psychiatric symptoms may have a medical basis, the psychiatrist can still be helpful. Medscape: Does the screen help distinguish patients with psychopathology who are not in need of acute psychiatric intervention from those who could benefit from psychiatric consultation while hospitalized for other conditions? Dr. Ferrando: It's possible that the screen could detect patients with psychopathology mild enough not to require intervention. We tried to minimize that by setting the cutoff to reflect greater severity. To get counted toward the total score, for example, symptoms had to be present most or all of the time. Medscape: Should all hospitalized medical patients be screened, or are there certain criteria that identify groups at high risk? Dr. Ferrando: For this study, we chose patients in the moderate range of medical severity, because the impact of psychiatric comorbidity is probably greatest in these patients in the middle of the spectrum. Patients with less severe medical problems are in and out of the hospital too quickly for psychiatric intervention, and those with very severe problems have more pressing medical issues that must be addressed first. Medscape: What are the limitations of this screen in detecting mental illness? Dr. Ferrando: Our study was not designed to test the false-negative rate of the screen, because we didn't do a psychiatric evaluation on every patient, but only on those in whom the screen was positive. That's a very important limitation of our study. It is certainly possible that subtle manifestations of mental illness could be missed. Medscape: Are there any potential negative consequences of this screen, such as having a fragile but compensated individual decompensate under the stress of discussing psychiatric disease, creating concern in a patient that the doctor thinks their medical illness is "all in their head," or otherwise alienating the staff from the patient? Dr. Ferrando: It's theoretically possible, but we just didn't find that at all. The literature also suggests that screening instruments tend to decrease rather than increase patient stress. We've tested the screen in more than 400 patients, and it is generally very well accepted when we present it as a part of their overall comprehensive, holistic care. New York-Presbyterian Hospital funded this study. Dr. Ferrando has received honoraria from Pfizer, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Psychosomatics. 2003:44:382-387 Reviewed by Gary D. Vogin, MD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Laurie Barclay, MD Writer for Medscape Medical News Medscape Medical News is edited by Deborah Flapan, assistant managing editor of news at Medscape. Send press releases and comments to news@webmd.net. |