Obsessive-compulsive disorder: Under-recognized and responsive to treatment.

Mood or anxiety concerns, when explored, may reveal associated OCD symptoms. Pharmacotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy have proven effective.

Who gets a lung transplant? Assessing the psychosocial decision-making process for transplant listing.

In the United States, there is a significant shortage of available donor organs. This requires transplant professionals to hold simultaneous, yet divergent roles as (1) advocates for patients who are in need of a lifesaving transplant, and (2) responsible stewards in the allocation of scarce donor organs. In order to balance these roles, most transplant teams utilize a committee based decision-making process to select suitable candidates for the transplant waiting list. These committees use medical and psychosocial criteria to guide their decision to list a patient. Transplant regulatory bodies have established medical standards for identifying appropriate medical candidates for transplantation. However, transplant regulatory bodies have not developed policies to standardize psychosocial criteria for listing patients. This affords transplant centers the autonomy to develop their own psychosocial criteria for determining which patients will be placed on the transplant waiting list. This lack of a standardized policy has resulted in inconsistent psychosocial practices amongst transplant centers nationwide. Since there has been no formal review of the inconsistency in psychosocial policy and practice, this paper seeks to explore the non-standardized psychosocial approach to organ transplant listing. The authors review factors that are relevant to the standardization of the psychosocial decision-making process, including shared decision-making, clinician judgment, bias in decision-making and moral distress in transplant staff. We conclude with a discussion about the impact of these issues on psychosocial practices in solid organ transplantation.

"I fired my last doctor for not taking me seriously": collaborating with a difficult medical patient in a multidisciplinary primary care facility.

We present the case of a multidisciplinary primary care assessment of a 32-year-old woman with multiple medical and psychological complaints. Following the collaborative care model, this assessment was conducted by a team consisting of a clinical health psychologist, Dr. J. L. Skillings, and a family physician, Dr. W. J. Murdoch. We describe the primary care environment in which this referral was made including the methods that were utilized to insure a successful professional collaboration. We report the results and recommendations from a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment; we place emphasis on the psychological diagnosis and pain symptoms. We also describe the feedback session in which the assessment results were provided to the patient and her spouse by both physician and psychologist. Multiperspective commentary about the assessment is offered by the patient and her husband as well as the physician and psychologist assessors.

Contextualizing SEGUE: Evaluating Residents' Communication Skills Within the Framework of a Structured Medical Interview.

BACKGROUND: The SEGUE (Set the stage, Elicit information, Give information, Understand the patient's perspective, and End the encounter) Framework is a checklist-style rating scale to facilitate the teaching and assessment of communication skills in medical learners. It has been used for over 15 years, and it is recommended in the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education toolbox of assessment methods for resident training. When it was developed, its ability to provide objective scoring was a substantial improvement over global ratings. METHODS: In this article we describe the strengths and weaknesses of the SEGUE Framework. We highlight one residency program's experience with using the SEGUE Framework to evaluate residents' communication skills. Specifically, we cite previous studies and describe our own analysis of resident interviewing performance that demonstrates how the SEGUE Framework did not distinguish between different levels of interviewing skill level in our sample. RESULTS: Two case examples illustrate how the SEGUE Framework is not an ideal instrument to measure either the quality or the process of medical interviews. CONCLUSION: Therefore, we propose a new method of contextualized assessment that builds on the SEGUE Framework. Our system evaluates discrete interviewing behaviors within the context of an ambulatory medical interview. We describe our interview structure, as well as a new instrument (the Wy-Mii, pronounced "why me"), to assess both communication and interpersonal skills. We expect that our new method of contextualized assessment will better differentiate between beginning and advanced levels of medical interviewing skills for residents.

Diagnosis-specific management of somatoform disorders: moving beyond "vague complaints of pain".

UNLABELLED: The DSM IV category, somatoform disorders, is composed of disorders that are characterized by symptom amplification-most typically, amplification of pain. Other than this commonality, there is considerable variability among the disorders in terms of etiology, course, comorbidities, and the presence or absence of insight. The heterogeneous nature of the somatoform group has led to calls to remove or radically alter the category in the next DSM revision. Despite these concerns, teaching articles addressing somatoform disorders tend to generalize across the category when making patient treatment recommendations. In this report, the authors encourage moving beyond catch phrases such as, "the somatic patient" and "vague complaints of pain," and toward accurate differential diagnosis between somatoform disorders. They argue that accurate diagnosis of somatoform disorders is both achievable and necessary to provide optimal care for this diverse population of patients. Diagnosis and patient-centered management is contrasted with more generalized treatment recommendations. PERSPECTIVE: This article highlights the appropriate diagnosis and treatment of somatoform disorders for patients with pain. In contrast to the majority of literature on the subject, the authors emphasize the importance of differential diagnosis between somatoform disorders as well as patient-specific and diagnosis-specific treatment. The authors argue that there has been an incorrect tendency to overgeneralize across disorders, an error that is magnified by the exceptional weakness of the somatoform category.