Approaching differential diagnosis and decisional capacity assessment in the context of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs: A narrative review and clinical discussion

Objective COVID-19 conspiracy theories have become widespread since the onset of the pandemic and compound the existing challenges of decisional capacity assessment. This paper aims to review the literature pertaining to decisional capacity assessment in the context of COVID-19 conspiracy theories and synthesize a practical approach with an emphasis on differential diagnosis and clinical pearls for the practicing physician. Methods We reviewed papers on decisional capacity assessment and differential diagnosis in the context of COVID-19 conspiracy theories. A literature search was conducted using the US National Library of Medicine's PubMed.gov resource and Google Scholar. Results The resulting article content was utilized to synthesize a practical approach to decisional capacity assessment in the context of COVID-19 conspiracy theories. Specifically, aspects related to the history, taxonomy, evaluation, and management are reviewed. Conclusions Appreciating the nuanced differences between delusions, overvalued ideas, and obsessions while with integrating the non-cognitive domains of capacity into the assessment are crucial to navigating the wide differential diagnosis of COVID-19 conspiracy theories. It is important to attempt to clarify and optimize patient decision-making abilities by addressing circumstances, attitudes, and cognitive styles specific to patients with seemingly irrational beliefs about COVID-19.

Demographic Features, Physical Examination Findings, and Medication Use in Hospitalized, Delirious Patients With and Without COVID-19 Infection: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in the setting of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Anecdotal evidence and case reports suggest that patients with delirium in the setting of Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) may exhibit specific features, including increased tone, abulia, and alogia. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether differences exist in sociodemographic and medical characteristics, physical examination findings, and medication use in delirious patients with and without COVID-19 infection referred for psychiatric consultation. METHODS: We undertook an exploratory, retrospective chart review of 486 patients seen by the psychiatry consultation service at a tertiary care hospital from March 10 to May 15, 2020. Delirious patients were diagnosed via clinical examination by a psychiatric consultant, and these patients were stratified by COVID-19 infection status. The strata were described and compared using bivariate analyses across sociodemographic, historical, objective, and treatment-related variables. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients were diagnosed with delirium during the study period. Thirty-six were COVID-19+. Median age was 63 years and did not differ between groups. COVID-19+ patients with delirium were more likely to present from nursing facilities (39% vs 11%; Fisher's exact test; P = 0.001) and have a history of schizophrenia (11% vs 0%; Fisher's exact test; P = 0.011). Myoclonus (28% vs 4%; P = 0.002), hypertonia (36% vs 10%; P = 0.003), withdrawal (36% vs 15%; P = 0.011), akinesia (19% vs 6%; P = 0.034), abulia (19% vs 3%; P = 0.004), and alogia (25% vs 8%; P = 0.012) were more common in COVID-19+ patients. COVID-19+ delirious patients were significantly more likely to have received ketamine (28% vs 7%; P = 0.006), alpha-adrenergic agents besides dexmedetomidine (36% vs 14%; P = 0.014), and enteral antipsychotics (92% vs 66%; P = 0.007) at some point. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 delirium referred for psychiatric consultation are more likely to reside in nursing facilities and have a history of schizophrenia than delirious patients without COVID-19. Patients with delirium in the setting of COVID-19 may exhibit features consistent with akinetic mutism. Psychiatrists must assess for such features, as they may influence management choices and the risk of side effects with agents commonly used in the setting of delirium.

Ethics in Public and Community Psychiatry

Public and community psychiatrists who care for patients with serious mental illnesses regularly face ethical challenges. This article summarizes key ethical considerations in the care of a population that can be difficult to engage and may reject treatment, sometimes necessitating coercive care. The digital revolution in medicine, with its promises and perils and accelerated by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has added ethical complexity regarding privacy and access to care. Shared decision-making, a process to resolve ethical dilemmas, and commitments to professionalism and reflective practice are emphasized as three ways to practice ethically in public and community psychiatrists' daily work. Additionally, COVID-19 has highlighted that engagement in social justice is a critical element of ethical practice for physicians today. [Psychiatr Ann. 2021;51(6):272–277.]

Identifying the Most Important Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry Publications in 2020 Using a Novel Literature Assessment Instrument.

BACKGROUND: As the science of consultation-liaison psychiatry advances, the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry's Guidelines and Evidence-Based Medicine Subcommittee reviews articles of interest to help academy members remain familiar with the latest in evidence-based practice. OBJECTIVE: We identify the 10 most important articles for clinical practice in consultation-liaison psychiatry from 2020 using the new Importance and Quality instrument for assessing scientific literature. METHODS: The subcommittee published annotated abstracts for 97 articles on the academy website in 2020. Reviewers then rated all articles on clinical importance to practice and quality of scholarship using the Importance and Quality instrument. We describe the 10 articles with the highest aggregate scores and analyze the reliability of Importance and Quality instrument. RESULTS: Twenty-four raters identified the top 10 scoring articles of 2020. These articles provide practical guidance on key areas of consultation-liaison psychiatry including management of COVID-19, lithium treatment for complex patients, medical risks among patients with severe mental illness, and substance use disorders in medical settings. The assessment instrument demonstrated good to excellent interrater reliability. CONCLUSION: These articles offer valuable guidance for consultation-liaison psychiatrists regardless of their practice area. Collaborative literature reviews with standardized assessments help clinicians deliver evidence-based care and foster a high standard of practice across the specialty.

Delirium in COVID-19: A case series and exploration of potential mechanisms for central nervous system involvement.

INTRODUCTION: Neuropsychiatric manifestations of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been described, including anosmia, ageusia, headache, paresthesia, encephalitis and encephalopathy. Little is known about the mechanisms by which the virus causes central nervous system (CNS) symptoms, and therefore little guidance is available regarding potential workup or management options. CASES: We present a series of four consecutive cases, seen by our psychiatry consultation service over a one-week period, each of which manifested delirium as a result of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). DISCUSSION: The four cases highlighted here all occurred in older patients with premorbid evidence of cognitive decline. Unique features seen in multiple cases included rigidity, alogia, abulia, and elevated inflammatory markers. In all four cases, a change in mental status was the presenting symptom, and three of the four cases lacked significant respiratory symptoms. In addition to discussing unique features of the cases, we discuss possible pathophysiologic explanations for COVID-19 delirium. CONCLUSIONS: Delirium should be recognized as a potential feature of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and may be the only presenting symptom. Based on the high rates of delirium demonstrated in prior studies, hospitals should consider adding mental status changes to the list of testing criteria. Further research is needed to determine if delirium in COVID-19 represents a primary encephalopathy heralding invasion of the CNS by the virus, or a secondary encephalopathy related to systemic inflammatory response or other factors.