Clinical practice guidelines for bipolar disorder from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

BACKGROUND: For the last several years, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been involved in the development of practice guidelines for major medical, surgical, and mental disorders. This article describes the development and content of the VA-Clinical Practice Guidelines for Bipolar Disorder, which are available in their entirety on the Journal Web site (http://www. psychiatrist.com). METHOD: A multidisciplinary work group composed of content experts in the field of bipolar disorder and practitioners in general clinical practice was convened by the VA's Office of Performance and Quality and the Mental Health Strategic Health Group. The work group was instructed in algorithm development and methods of evidence evaluation. Draft guidelines were developed over the course of 6 months of meetings and conference calls, and that draft was then sent to nationally prominent content experts for final critique. RESULTS: The Bipolar Guidelines are part of the family of the VA Clinical Guidelines for Management of Persons with Psychosis and consist of explicit algorithms supplemented by annotations that explain the specific decision points and their basis in the scientific literature. The guidelines are organized into 5 modules: a Core Module for diagnosis and assignment to mood state plus 4 treatment modules (Manic/Hypomanic/Mixed Episode, Bipolar Depressive Episode, Rapid Cycling, and Bipolar Disorder With Psychotic Features). The modules specify particular diagnostic and treatment tasks at each step, including both somatotherapeutic and psychotherapeutic interventions. CONCLUSION: The VA Bipolar Guidelines are designed for easy clinical reference in decision making with individual patients, as well as for use as a scholarly reference tool. They also have utility in training activities and quality improvement programs.

A ten-year review of the validity and clinical utility of depression screening.

OBJECTIVE: Use of depression screening instruments in primary care is controversial. The authors reviewed research studies published since the development of national practice guidelines to determine whether new evidence might favor screening. The review focused on evidence-related validity and clinical utility of depression screening instruments. METHODS: Silver Platter MEDLINE was searched for English-language studies of depression screening instruments published between 1986 and 1995. Studies were classified by type--reviews of studies, outcome studies, validation studies. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Fifty-nine studies met criteria for review. Validation studies were the most frequent type (39 studies) and were subclassified according to population, type of comparison, and analytical method. These studies documented the validity of screening instruments compared with formal criteria and demonstrated consistently better performance for systematic approaches compared with clinical impressions. Thirteen studies were reviews; those reviewing evidence for effectiveness disagreed in their conclusions. Only seven outcome studies related to depression screening instruments were found, and none showed measurable benefit in a screened population. Several studies showed that very brief instruments performed about as well as longer, well-validated questionnaires for screening in general populations.

Dental management considerations for the patient with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Vietnam veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder are frequently encountered in the dental office. They are often anxious, hostile, depressed, withdrawn, or resistant to treatment. Their psychological set and relatively high incidence of alcohol and drug-related problems frequently require modification of their dental therapy. An attractive and biologically sound restoration of the orofacial structures may improve long-term rehabilitation by enhancing self-esteem and social interactions.