Somatising Disorders Untangling the Pathology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Chronic Pain and Biopsychosocial Disorders
VOLUME 5, ISSUE 7 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005 The journal with the practitioner in mind. ChronicChronic PPainain andand BiopsychosocialBiopsychosocial DisordersDisorders ©2005 PPM Communications, Inc. Reprinted with permission. www.ppmjournal.com . The BHI™2 Approach to Classification and Assessment By Daniel Bruns, PsyD and John Mark Disorbio, EdD ccounting for over 35 million of- pain. In other cases however, the psycho- While chronic pain is generally recog- fice visits a year, pain represents logical difficulties may be the conse- nized as being a biopsychosocial phe- A the most prevalent reason why an quence of the pain condition, itself.12 nomenon, what is often overlooked is that individual chooses to seek out medical Thus, when pain appears in conjunction illness, injury, psychological and social treatment.1 So prevalent, in fact, research with stress, anxiety, depression or other factors interact over the course of time to has shown that the cost associated with the psychiatric syndromes, the arrow of produce distinctly different types of treatment of pain exceeds the costs at- causality can sometimes point from pain biopsychosocial disorders. Effective treat- tributable to the treatment of other dis- to psychiatric condition, and in other ment requires that the clinician not only orders, such as heart disease, respiratory cases from psychiatric condition to pain. identify the biological, psychological and disease, or cancer.2 Pain also represents a Overall, the research literature suggests social aspects of a condition, but also -
Psychogenic Pseudoepileptic Seizures – from Ancient Time to the Present
11 Psychogenic Pseudoepileptic Seizures – From Ancient Time to the Present Joanna Jędrzejczak1,* and Krzysztof Owczarek2 1Department of Neurology and Epileptology Medical Centre for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw 2Department of Medical Psychology Medical University, Warsaw Poland 1. Introduction Clinicians who work with patients with epilepsy are confronted with many diagnostic and therapeutic challenges when have to differentiate between epileptic and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). At the end of the twentieth century, the introduction of electroencephalography (EEG) recording with simultaneous monitoring of patient behaviour helped to correct false positive and false negative diagnoses of the nature of convulsive conditions. This technological advancement sensitized physicians to the high incidence of patients with PNES receiving referrals to clinical centres specializing in the treatment of epilepsy. When PNES is erroneously diagnosed as epilepsy, patients are at risk of prolonged, unnecessary, and above all, ineffective treatment with antiepileptic drugs. These drugs do not reduce the number of psychogenic convulsive incidents. Moreover , ineffective treatment leads to frequent visits to outpatient clinics and hospitalizations. It also leads to frequent change of doctors, strategies and forms of treatments. All this increases the cost of erroneous diagnosis and inadequate treatment. PNES are defined as “episodes of altered movement, sensation or experience similar to epilepsy, but casued by a psychological process and not associated with abnormal electrical discharges un the brain” (Reuber and Elger, 2003) In current diagnostic schemes PNES are categorized as a manifestation of dissociative or somatoform (conversion) disorder (ICD-10). This mean that they are caused by unconscious, symbolically expressed psychological processes leading to conversion, i.e. the pressing need to interpret one’s problems in ways which are both rationally and socially acceptable. -
Mental Health Diagnosis Codes
Mental Health Diagnosis Codes Code Description Code System 10007009 Coffin-Siris syndrome (disorder) SNOMEDCT 10278007 Factitious purpura (disorder) SNOMEDCT 10327003 Cocaine-induced mood disorder (disorder) SNOMEDCT 10349009 Multi-infarct dementia with delirium (disorder) SNOMEDCT 10532003 Primary degenerative dementia of the Alzheimer type, presenile onset, with SNOMEDCT depression (disorder) 10586006 Occupation-related stress disorder (disorder) SNOMEDCT 106013002 Mental disorder of infancy, childhood or adolescence (disorder) SNOMEDCT 106014008 Organic mental disorder of unknown etiology (disorder) SNOMEDCT 106015009 Mental disorder AND/OR culture bound syndrome (disorder) SNOMEDCT 109006 Anxiety disorder of childhood OR adolescence (disorder) SNOMEDCT 109478007 Kohlschutter's syndrome (disorder) SNOMEDCT 109805003 Factitious cheilitis (disorder) SNOMEDCT 109896009 Indication for modification of patient status (disorder) SNOMEDCT 109897000 Indication for modification of patient behavior status (disorder) SNOMEDCT 109898005 Indication for modification of patient cognitive status (disorder) SNOMEDCT 109899002 Indication for modification of patient emotional status (disorder) SNOMEDCT 109900007 Indication for modification of patient physical status (disorder) SNOMEDCT 109901006 Indication for modification of patient psychological status (disorder) SNOMEDCT 11061003 Psychoactive substance use disorder (disorder) SNOMEDCT 111475002 Neurosis (disorder) SNOMEDCT 111476001 Mental disorder usually first evident in infancy, childhood AND/OR -
The Diagnosis of Ganser Syndrome in the Practice of Forensic Psychology
Drob, S., & Meehan, K. (2000). The diagnosis of Ganser Syndrome in the practice of forensic psychology. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 18(3), 37-62. The Diagnosis of Ganser Syndrome in the Practice of Forensic Psychology Sanford L. Drob, Ph.D. and Kevin Meehan Forensic Psychiatry Service, New York University—Bellevue Medical Center The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Robert H. Berger, M.D., Alexander Bardey, M.D., David Trachtenberg, M.D., Ruth Jonas, Ph.D. and Arthur Zitrin, M.D. for their assistance in helping to formulate the case example presented herein. 1 Drob, S., & Meehan, K. (2000). The diagnosis of Ganser Syndrome in the practice of forensic psychology. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 18(3), 37-62. Abstract Ganser syndrome, which is briefly described as a Dissociative Disorder NOS in the DSM-IV is a poorly understood and often overlooked clinical phenomenon. The authors review the literature on Ganser syndrome, offer proposed screening criteria, and propose a model for distinguishing Ganser syndrome from malingering. The “SHAM LIDO” model urges clinicians to pay close attention to Subtle symptoms, History of dissociation, Abuse in childhood, Motivation to malinger, Lying and manipulation, Injury to the brain, Diagnostic testing, and longitudinal Observations, in the assessment of forensic cases that present with approximate answers, pseudo-dementia, and absurd psychiatric symptoms. A case example illustrating the application of this model is provided. 2 Drob, S., & Meehan, K. (2000). The diagnosis of Ganser Syndrome in the practice of forensic psychology. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 18(3), 37-62. In this paper we propose a model for diagnosing the Ganser syndrome and related dissociative/hysterical presentations and evaluating this syndrome in connection with forensic assessments. -
Psychogenic Nonepileptic Seizures: Diagnostic Challenges and Treatment Dilemmas Taoufik Alsaadi1* and Tarek M Shahrour2
Alsaadi and Shahrour. Int J Neurol Neurother 2015, 2:1 International Journal of DOI: 10.23937/2378-3001/2/1/1020 Volume 2 | Issue 1 Neurology and Neurotherapy ISSN: 2378-3001 Review Article: Open Access Psychogenic Nonepileptic Seizures: Diagnostic Challenges and Treatment Dilemmas Taoufik Alsaadi1* and Tarek M Shahrour2 1Department of Neurology, Sheikh Khalifa Medical City, UAE 2Department of Psychiatry, Sheikh Khalifa Medical City, UAE *Corresponding author: Taoufik Alsaadi, Department of Neurology, Sheikh Khalifa Medical City, UAE, E-mail: [email protected] They are thought to be a form of physical manifestation of psychological Abstract distress. Psychogenic Non-Epileptic Seizures (PNES) are grouped in Psychogenic Nonepileptic Seizures (PNES) are episodes of the category of psycho-neurologic illnesses like other conversion and movement, sensation or behavior changes similar to epileptic somatization disorders, in which symptoms are psychological in origin seizures but without neurological origin. They are somatic but neurologic in expression [4]. The purpose of this review is to shed manifestations of psychological distress. Patients with PNES are often misdiagnosed and treated for epilepsy for years, resulting in light on this common, but, often times, misdiagnosed problem. It has significant morbidity. Video-EEG monitoring is the gold standard for been estimated that approximately 20 to 30% of patients referred to diagnosis. Five to ten percent of outpatient epilepsy populations and epilepsy centers have PNES [5]. Still, it takes an average of 7 years before 20 to 40 percent of inpatient and specialty epilepsy center patients accurate diagnosis and appropriate referral is made [6]. Early recognition have PNES. These patients inevitably have comorbid psychiatric and appropriate treatment can prevent significant iatrogenic harm, and illnesses, most commonly depression, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), other dissociative and somatoform disorders, may result in a better outcome. -
Validity Assessment in Traumatic Brain Injury Impairment and Disability Evaluations
Validity Assessment in Traumatic Brain Injury Impairment and Disability Evaluations a,b,c,d, Nathan D. Zasler, MD, DABPMR, BIM-C, FIAIME, DAIPM, CBIST *, e Scott D. Bender, PhD, ABPP-CN KEYWORDS Traumatic brain injury Validity Response bias Malingering Physical examination Cognition Behavior Forensic KEY POINTS Differential diagnosis in cases of claimed post-traumatic brain injury (TBI) impairment re- quires an understanding of the principles of validity assessment and their application in the context of physical and cognitive-behavioral assessment. Clinicians must appreciate the nuances between effort and response bias assessment, and performance and symptom validity testing in the context of assessing anyone with a reported history of TBI, particularly when there are potential secondary gain incentives present that may impact examination validity. Practitioners must be aware that there are many reasons for symptom magnification and that the driving factors may not necessarily be consciously mediated or discoverable by the clinician/examiner. Continued INTRODUCTION In the context of impairment and disability evaluations following claimed or docu- mented traumatic brain injury (TBI), it is crucial to understand the importance of validity assessment methodologies, and their impact on impairment assessment accuracy Disclosure Statement: Dr N.D. Zasler reports no funding support for this work. He acknowl- edges ownership of Concussion Care Center of Virginia Ltd and Tree of Life Services, Inc, which are providers of health care -
CHAPTER 114 Factitious Disorders and Malingering Jag S
CHAPTER 114 Factitious Disorders and Malingering Jag S. Heer 14,16 PERSPECTIVE children. Other names applied include Polle’s syndrome (Polle was a child of Baron Munchausen who died mysteriously),3,10 fac- Patients may present to the emergency department with symp- titious disorder by proxy,17 pediatric condition falsification,18 and toms that are simulated or intentionally produced. The reasons Meadow’s syndrome.2 that cause this behavior define two distinct varieties: factitious Malingering is the simulation of disease by the intentional pro- disorders and malingering. duction of false or grossly exaggerated physical or psychological Factitious disorders are characterized by symptoms or signs that symptoms, motivated by external incentives, such as avoidance of are intentionally produced or feigned by the patient in the absence military conscription or duty, avoidance of work, obtainment of of apparent external incentives.1,2 Factitious disorders have been financial compensation, evasion of criminal prosecution, obtain- present throughout history. In the second century, Galen described ment of drugs, gaining of hospital admission (for the purpose of Roman patients inducing and feigning vomiting and rectal bleed- obtaining free room and board), or securing of better living condi- ing.3 Hector Gavin sought to categorize this behavior in 1834.3 tions.2,19-21 The most common goal among such “patients” present- These patients constitute approximately 1% of general psychiatric ing to the emergency department is to obtain drugs, whereas in -
Psychogenic Backache: the Missing Dimension
Psychogenic Backache: The Missing Dimension John E. Sarno, M.D. New York, New York Experience with a population of patients with conversion pain and a third group with the common complaint of low back pain pain due to excessive muscle tension. The suggests that a substantial proportion of theoretical basis for these states is described these patients are suffering with pain of and a plea made for the inclusion of psychogenic causation. These patients appear these etiologic categories in the differential to fall into one of three categories: those diagnosis of low back pain. A brief whose somatic pain is intensified by psychic diagnostic and therapeutic modus operandi factors, those who have what has been called is presented. here is probably no group of disorders which afflict that much of the confusion which exists in the diagnosis T modern man that is more ubiquitous and more disturb and treatment of patients with backache results from the ing than the variety of pathologies which have low back widespread tendency to attribute back pain in every case to pain as their major symptom. Despite the scientific method some neurological or mechanical musculoskeletal derange ologies that characterize the investigative and therapeutic ment. This article will outline the evidence for psychogenic armamentarium of today's medical practice, this problem backache, describe our experience with this problem, and still eludes solution. Perhaps it does so because it is not one suggest some diagnostic and therapeutic approaches which but many diseases. Further, because the major manifesta should be helpful to family physicians caring for patients tion of these conditions is pain, the problem is more com with this.common problem. -
The Unholy Trinity: Childhood Trauma, Adulthood Anxiety and Long
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article The Unholy Trinity: Childhood Trauma, Adulthood Anxiety, and Long-Term Pain Natalia Kascakova 1,2,* , Jana Furstova 1 , Jozef Hasto 1,3,4, Andrea Madarasova Geckova 1,5 and Peter Tavel 1 1 Olomouc University Social Health Institute, Palacky University Olomouc, Univerzitni 22, 77111 Olomouc, Czech Republic; [email protected] (J.F.); [email protected] (J.H.); [email protected] (A.M.G.); [email protected] (P.T.) 2 Psychiatric-Psychotherapeutic Outpatient Clinic, Heydukova 27, 81108 Bratislava, Slovakia 3 Department of Social Work, St. Elizabeth College of Health and Social Work, Palackeho 1, 81102 Bratislava, Slovakia 4 Department of Psychiatry, Slovak Medical University, Faculty of Medicine, Limbova 12, 833 03 Bratislava, Slovakia 5 Department of Health Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, P. J. Safarik University, Trieda SNP 1, 04011 Kosice, Slovakia * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +421-918-655-113 Received: 17 December 2019; Accepted: 6 January 2020; Published: 8 January 2020 Abstract: Background: Childhood trauma is considered to be a risk factor for developing anxiety as well as chronic pain. The aim of this study was to assess the association between childhood trauma and reporting anxiety and long-term pain conditions in the general and clinical populations. Methods: Respondents from a representative sample in the Czech Republic (n = 1800, mean age: 46.6 years, 48.7% male) and patients with a clinically diagnosed anxiety or adjustment disorder (n = 67, mean age: 40.5 years, 18.0% male) were asked to report anxiety, various chronic and pain-related conditions, and childhood trauma (The Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, CTQ) in a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey conducted in 2016 and 2017. -
Observations on Pain
The Bristol Medico-Chirurgical Journal " Scire est nescire, nisi id me Scire alius sciret WINTER, 1935. THE TWENTY-FOURTH LONG FOX MEMORIAL LECTURE DELIVERED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22ND, 1935. Dr. H. H. CARLETON, F.R.C.P., in the Chair. BY Macdonald Critchley, M.D., F.R.C.P., Neurologist, King's College Hospital; Physician to Out-patients, National Hospital, Queen Square. ON OBSERVATIONS ON PAIN. We have assembled to pay homage to the memory of Dr. Long Fox, whose birth 103 years ago was an important event in the medical history of Bristol. The lectureship associated with his name is an honour of which I am deeply conscious. I have endeavoured to select a subject which will not only be of general interest, but at the same time would have earned the R Vol. LII. No. 198. 192 Dr. Macdonald Critchley approval of Dr. Long Fox himself. I believe that the problem of pain, though an ambitious theme for the present lecturer, would fulfil these requirements. Some of the recent work would have had particular appeal to Dr. Long Fox. As a pioneer in the study of the sympathetic nervous system, he would have been interested in the modern discussion of whether pain sensations may be conducted by the autonomic system. As a neuro-psychiatrist, his views upon the psychological aspects of pain would have been especially valuable. It is upon this latter side that I particularly wish to dwell in this lecture. INTROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS. A study of the psychological processes which accompany and follow painful stimulation brings to light a number of interesting and important data. -
Malingering.2018.Neuroinstitute Format
Malingering: The Impact of Effort on Outcome Gordon J. Horn, PhD Clinical Neuropsychologist National Deputy Director of Clinical Outcomes Introduction Sometimes it is quite difficult to distinguish effort from many other things that influence outcomes. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between various conditions or disorders by presentation alone. An example…. Which one is malingering? Answer: None Learning Objectives At the conclusion of this activity, the participant will be able to… 1. Understand the term “effort” and how this may be positive, negative, or involuntary. 2. Understand Somatic symptom disorder. 3. Understand Conversion disorder. 4. Understand Malingering (and Factitious Disorder) 5. Understand how to detect and assess for each of the conditions described in a rehabilitation context. Effort. … is difficult to assess and may have positive or negative effects. Therefore, it can be assessed in multiple ways so that accuracy increases. Does standing on a ball take effort? Effort - Defined Clinically: . “Exertion of physical and/or mental effort” “An earnest or strenuous attempt” Statistically: “Reliability and Validity measurement” Legally: “Truthfulness” Dictionary.com Effort Effort is difficult to assess and may have positive or negative effects. Therefore, it can be assessed in multiple ways so that accuracy increases. In rehabilitation, effort can be as simple as showing up for the correct appointment at the correct time. It may also include compliance with homework. It may be seen in the completion of therapist request. In outcomes, effort may be related to unexpected changes in score on outcome measures. For instance, those of you with NeuroRestorative know that if we see an outcome measure that is “out of the ordinary” then we directly call the programs or send the data back for rescoring. -
Mental Health Diagnosis Codes
Mental Health Diagnosis Codes ICD-10 CODE DESCRIPTION F03.90 Unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance F03.91 Unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance F20.0 Paranoid schizophrenia F20.1 Disorganized schizophrenia F20.2 Catatonic schizophrenia F20.3 Undifferentiated schizophrenia F20.5 Residual schizophrenia F20.81 Schizophreniform disorder F20.89 Other schizophrenia F20.9 Schizophrenia, unspecified F21 Schizotypal disorder F22 Delusional disorders F23 Brief psychotic disorder F24 Shared psychotic disorder F25.0 Schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type F25.1 Schizoaffective disorder, depressive type F25.8 Other schizoaffective disorders F25.9 Schizoaffective disorder, unspecified F28 Other psychotic disorder not due to a substance or known physiological condition F29 Unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition F30.10 Manic episode without psychotic symptoms, unspecified F30.11 Manic episode without psychotic symptoms, mild F30.12 Manic episode without psychotic symptoms, moderate F30.13 Manic episode, severe, without psychotic symptoms F30.2 Manic episode, severe with psychotic symptoms F30.3 Manic episode in partial remission F30.4 Manic episode in full remission F30.8 Other manic episodes F30.9 Manic episode, unspecified F31.0 Bipolar disorder, current episode hypomanic F31.10 Bipolar disorder, current episode manic without psychotic features, unspecified F31.11 Bipolar disorder, current episode manic without psychotic features, mild F31.12 Bipolar disorder, current episode manic without