Quality of education at multidisciplinary case conferences in psychiatry.

PURPOSE: A large Dublin-based teaching hospital facilitates a weekly Psychiatric Case Presentation meeting, which is relatively unique in medicine and even in psychiatry, in that there is a large variety of attendees from various multidisciplinary groups: consultant psychiatrists, psychiatric trainees, nurses, psychologists and psychoanalytic psychotherapists, occupational therapists, social workers and pastoral care staff. The aim of this audit is to assess the quality of education for members of different disciplines at these meetings, and to highlight the differing learning needs of the attendees. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Group-structured assessments and Likert scale questionnaires were used to identify what attendees thought were educational and what needed to be improved. FINDINGS: Overall, the case conference is educationally worthwhile but there were several areas of dissatisfaction. Some felt that the case conference was overly medical in its orientation and that there was excessive medical jargon. The seating arrangements were not conducive to group discussion. Consultants and psychiatric trainees felt that the quality of the clinical presentations could be improved. Presentation skills teaching classes and topic-based classes would be useful inclusions. Feedback to the multidisciplinary group on the patients' progress and feedback to the patient is important. Changes were implemented in areas of dissatisfaction, and these changes evaluated. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The educational qualities of multidisciplinary Case Conferences need to be constantly evaluated to ensure that the learning needs of the different disciplines who attend are being met.

The Myth of Mental Illness: 50 years after publication: What does it mean today?

In 1960, Thomas Szasz published The Myth of Mental Illness, arguing that mental illness was a harmful myth without a demonstrated basis in biological pathology and with the potential to damage current conceptions of human responsibility. Szasz's arguments have provoked considerable controversy over the past five decades. This paper marks the 50th anniversary of The Myth of Mental Illness by providing commentaries on its contemporary relevance from the perspectives of a range of stakeholders, including a consultant psychiatrist, psychiatric patient, professor of philosophy and mental health, a specialist registrar in psychiatry, and a lecturer in psychiatry. This paper also includes responses by Professor Thomas Szasz. Szasz's arguments contain echoes of positivism, Cartesian dualism, and Enlightenment philosophy, and point to a genuine complexity at the heart of contemporary psychiatric taxonomy: how is 'mental illness' to be defined? And by whom? The basis of Szasz's doubts about the similarities between mental and physical illnesses remain apparent today, but it remains equally apparent that a failure to describe a biological basis for mental illness does not mean there is none (eg. consider the position of epilepsy, prior to the electroencephalogram). Psychiatry would probably be different today if The Myth of Mental Illness had not been written, but possibly not in the ways that Szasz might imagine: does the relentless incarceration of individuals with 'mental illness' in the world's prisons represent the logical culmination of Szaszian thought? In response, Professor Szasz emphasises his views that "mental illness" differs fundamentally from physical illness, and that the principal habits the term 'mental illness' involves are stigmatisation, deprivation of liberty (civil commitment) and deprivation of the right to trial for alleged criminal conduct (the insanity defence). He links the incarceration of the mentally ill with the policy of de-institutionalisation (which he opposes) and states that, in his view, the only limitation his work imposes on human activities are limitations on practices which are conventionally and conveniently labelled 'psychiatric abuses'. Clearly, there remains a diversity of views about the merits of Szasz's arguments, but there is little diminution in his ability to provoke an argument.