Telepsychiatry appointments in a continuing care setting: kept, cancelled and no-shows.

We reviewed the appointment data for a psychiatry service in California that provided consultations and also therapy through telepsychiatry. Over an 18-month period, there were 7523 telepsychiatry appointments and 115,148 conventional (face-to-face) appointments. A higher proportion of the telepsychiatry appointments was kept (92% telepsychiatry vs. 87% non-telepsychiatry). Also, telepsychiatry appointments were significantly less likely to be cancelled by patients (3.5% vs. 4.8%) and significantly less likely to be no-shows (4.2% vs. 7.8%). These findings were similar in three of the four counties where the service was delivered. However, one county was different, and further examination suggested that the morale of the staff and patients may have contributed to the unenthusiastic acceptance of telepsychiatry. We conclude that telepsychiatry can be used effectively in continuing care settings as well as in evaluation settings, and that staff and patient morale are important factors in successful telepsychiatry.

A proposal for a new multiaxial model of psychiatric diagnosis. A continuum-based patient model derived from evolutionary developmental gene-environment interaction.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To review recent genetic and neuroscientific research on psychiatric syndromes based on the current diagnostic scheme, and develop a better-fitting multiaxial patient-oriented diagnostic model. METHODS: DSM I, published in 1952, considered psychiatric illnesses as reactions or extremes of adaptations of the patient's personality to stressful environmental demands. Personality itself was determined by constitution and psychodynamic development. In 1980, this continuum model gave way to an atheoretical categorical diagnostic scheme (DSM III), based on research diagnostic criteria for obtaining 'pure cultures' of patients for biological research. Subsequent research using the 'pure cultures' suggests that psychiatric syndromes represent a phenotypic continuum determined by genes, childhood traumas, and recent stress, mitigated by childhood nurturance, education, and current social support. Specific gene x childhood abuse x recent stress interactions have been discovered, which may serve as a model of how interacting vulnerability genes may or may not result in a psychiatric syndrome, depending on the individual's developmental history and current stress. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: A continuum model is proposed, with genes interacting with early experiences of stress or nurturance resulting in brain states that may evince minor but persistent symptoms (neurosis) or maladaptive patterns of behavior (personality disorder). The addition of recent or current stress may precipitate a major psychiatric syndrome. While a severe genetic predisposition, such as a mutation, may be sufficient to cause a major syndrome, major psychiatric syndromes are best conceptualized as dysregulation of evolutionarily adaptive brain functions, such as anxiety and vigilance. A new multiaxial model of psychiatric diagnosis is proposed based on this model: axis I for phenomenological diagnoses that include major psychiatric syndromes (e.g. depressive syndrome, psychosis), neuroses, personality disorders, and isolated symptoms; axis II for geno-neuroscience diagnoses, some of which may represent biological conditions associated with axis I, i.e. genes, specific brain morphology, and the functional state of specific brain areas based on laboratory and imaging studies; axis III for medical diseases and conditions; axis IV for stress (childhood, recent, and current); axis V for psychosocial assets (intelligence, education, school/work, social support, and global assessment of functioning) over past 5 years and current.

Teaching psychiatry in primary care residencies: do training directors of primary care and psychiatry see eye to eye?

OBJECTIVE: This study compares the views of psychiatry residency training directors about psychiatry and mental health training in the primary care programs in their institutions with those of the primary care residency training directors. METHODS: A 16-item questionnaire surveying specific areas of training and perceived adequacy of current teaching was distributed to 1,544 U.S. primary care and psychiatry program directors. RESULTS: The response rate was 53%. Among psychiatry training directors, 85% responded that psychiatry training in their primary care programs was minimal to suboptimal, while 68% of family practice training directors responded that their psychiatry training was optimal to extensive. Among psychiatry training directors, 89% were dissatisfied with the psychiatry training in their primary care programs, and only 8% were satisfied. In contrast, almost half of primary care training directors were satisfied. However, within the primary care programs, there was a marked difference between family practice (majority satisfied) and the rest (internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, mostly unsatisfied). All primary care and psychiatry training directors agreed that most basic psychiatric skills and diagnoses were taught in the primary care programs. For all skills and syndromes examined, psychiatry training directors consistently and significantly rated the training to be less adequate than did primary care training directors. There was general agreement that primary care physicians should be able to treat most uncomplicated cases in patients with psychiatric disorders, and some but not other psychiatric conditions. CONCLUSION: Psychiatry and primary care training directors, except in family practice, generally agree that psychiatry training in primary care programs is inadequate and should be significantly enhanced. There should be more communication between psychiatry and primary care training programs for optimal curriculum development.

Mental health and psychiatry training in primary care residency programs. Part I. Who teaches, where, when and how satisfied?

OBJECTIVE: Some 40% of patients treated by primary care physicians have significant mental health problems. Only about half eventually receive mental health care, usually by the primary care physicians, often inadequately. Recently, there has been an increased attempt to incorporate psychiatry in primary care training programs. The authors sought to assess the current status of psychiatry training in Internal Medicine (IM), Family Practice (FP), Pediatrics (Peds) and Obstetrics and Gynecology (Ob/Gyn) residency programs. METHOD: All 1365 directors of accredited residency training programs in IM, FP, Ob/Gyn and Peds received a 16-item anonymous questionnaire in 2001-2002, collecting descriptive data concerning their psychiatry training. RESULTS: A great majority of IM (71%), Ob/Gyn (92%) and Peds (85%) training directors felt that the training was minimal or suboptimal, as compared to 41% of FP training directors (P<.001). Sixty-four percent of FP program directors were satisfied with their training (P<.001). In contrast, 54% of other PC program directors were dissatisfied with their psychiatry training. All programs utilized ambulatory care setting extensively. Family Practice programs had more types of mental health teachers, teaching formats and teaching settings (P<.001). A majority of IM (57%) and Peds (70%) residencies desired more psychiatry training in their programs compared to only a third of FP and 40% of Ob/Gyn programs (P<.001). Teaching in clinical settings was preferred by all except Ob/Gyn programs (P<.001). Psychiatry departments contributed more to IM and Peds programs than others. CONCLUSION: A majority of primary care training programs are dissatisfied with the current status of their psychiatric training except for FP programs. Family Practice programs have the most variety in training formats, venues and teachers. There are some specialty-specific differences in perceived needs and desires in psychiatric training.

Mental health and psychiatry training in primary care residency programs. Part II. What skills and diagnoses are taught, how adequate, and what affects training directors' satisfaction?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to describe the psychiatric skills and diagnostic categories taught in primary care training programs, their adequacy, the perceived needs and desires for curriculum enhancement and the factors affecting training directors' satisfaction. METHOD: All 1365 directors of accredited residency training programs in Internal Medicine (IM), Family Practice (FP), Obstetrics and Gynecology (Ob/Gyn), Pediatrics (Peds) and psychiatry received a 16-item anonymous questionnaire about psychiatry training in their program. Responses to the questionnaire to items concerning the skills and diagnostic categories taught, assessment of adequacy of teaching and desires for curriculum enhancement for specific skills and diagnostic categories were analyzed. The factors affecting training directors' satisfaction were explored. RESULTS: Interviewing skills were taught by a majority of all training programs and were considered adequate by 81% of FP and 54% of IM programs, in contrast to less than a majority of Ob/Gyn and Peds programs (P<.001). A majority provided diagnostic interviewing and counseling training, but only FP considered it adequate. A majority taught psychopharmacology and various psychiatric diagnoses, but only in FP did a majority consider them adequate. Both Peds and FP programs teach child psychiatry; significantly, more Peds compared to FP consider their training to be adequate. A vast majority of IM, Ob/Gyn and Peds programs, and 50% of FP programs desired more training in interviewing techniques and diagnostic interview. A majority of all programs desired more counseling and psychopharmacology training and more training in disorders of childhood and adolescence. The overall satisfaction rate for psychiatric training across specialties was 46% (n=657). Sixty-four percent of FP programs were satisfied compared to 31% of non-FP programs. Satisfaction was associated with increased amount of psychiatric training, diversity of training formats, venues, faculty and settings, the amount of contribution to teaching by psychiatry departments and the presence of current teaching in interviewing skills. There were specialty-specific differences in factors associated with satisfaction. In general, a smaller size of residency program was associated with satisfaction except in IM, where larger size was associated with satisfaction. Satisfaction was associated with the opinion that primary care physician should be ready and willing to treat more psychiatric conditions. CONCLUSION: Most primary care training programs currently offer training in most psychiatric skills and disorders, but a majority of training directors are dissatisfied with their psychiatry training. There is a difference in the estimation of adequacy concerning training between FP, which consistently rates their teaching to be adequate, and all other primary care programs, which consider their teaching inadequate. This difference may be partly due to actual differences in amount and diversity of training as well as differences in the threshold for satisfaction. A vast majority of primary care training programs desire more training in almost all aspects of psychiatry, and there may be specialty-specific needs and areas of curriculum enhancement. To enhance satisfaction, we should improve the quality as well as the quantity of training, as well as the diversity in training formats, venues and faculty.