MDedge Psychiatry

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I remember what it was like to be a medical student at a well-known cancer hospital where patients were dying of cancer. In life’s final stages, it was not uncommon for physicians to increase the dose of morphine; it alleviated pain, eased labored breathing, and yes, probably hastened the inevitable for patients who were in their final hours. In these scenarios, no one considered this euthanasia, and no one questioned whether it was the right thing to do.

Fast-forward to 2023 when the act of a physician hastening a patient’s death has become a controversial topic as criteria have expanded. Like all such topics in our polarized society, people aligned on sides, politics and religion rush to the head of the room, legislation is proposed, and words take on new meanings. If you’re in favor of legalization of clinician assistance in a patient’s death, the term is “medical assistance in dying”. If you’re opposed, the term is the more graphic physician-assisted suicide.

The scenario is entirely different from what I saw in my medical school rotations decades ago. It’s no longer an issue of easing the pain and discomfort of patients’ final hours; the question now is whether, faced with a potentially terminal or progressively debilitating physical illness, a patient has the right to determine when, and how, their life will end, and the medical profession is given a role in this.

In many places the bar has been further lowered to incorporate nonterminal conditions, and Belgium and the Netherlands now allow physician-facilitated suicide for psychiatric conditions, a practice that many find reprehensible. In these countries, patients may be provided with medications to ingest, but psychiatrists also administer lethal injections.

While Belgium and the Netherlands were the first countries to legalize physician-facilitated death, it could be argued that Canada has embraced it with the most gusto; physician-assisted suicide has been legal there since 2016.

Canada already has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths of any nation, with 10,064 in 2021 – an increase of 32% from 2020. The Canadian federal government is currently considering adding serious mental illness as an eligible category. If this law passes, the country will have the most liberal assisted-death policy in the world. The Canadian government planned to make serious mental illness an eligible category in March 2023, but in an eleventh-hour announcement, it deferred its decision until March 2024.

In a press release, the government said that the 1-year extension would “provide additional time to prepare for the safe and consistent assessment and provision of MAID in all cases, including where the person’s sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. It will also allow time for the Government of Canada to fully consider the final report of the Special Joint Committee on MAID, tabled in Parliament on Feb. 15, 2023.”

As a psychiatrist who treats patients with treatment-refractory conditions, I have watched people undergo trial after trial of medications while having psychotherapy, and sometimes transcranial magnetic stimulation or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The thing that is sustaining for patients is the hope that they will get better and go on to find meaning and purpose in life, even if it is not in the form they once envisioned.

To offer the option of a death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get them better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide.

Where is the line, one wonders, when the patient has not responded to two medications or 12? Must they have ECT before we consider helping them end their lives? Do we try for 6 months or 6 years? What about new research pointing to better medications or psychedelics that are not yet available? According to Canada’s proposed legislation, the patient must be aware that treatment options exist, including facilitated suicide.

Physician-assisted suicide for psychiatric conditions creates a conundrum for psychiatrists. As mental health professionals, we work to prevent suicide and view it as an act that is frequently fueled by depression. Those who are determined to die by their own hand often do. Depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loved ones would be better off without them.

These cognitive distortions are part of their illness. So, how do we, as psychiatrists, move from a stance of preventing suicide – using measures such as involuntary treatment when necessary – to being the people who offer and facilitate death for our patients? I’ll leave this for my Canadian colleagues to contemplate, as I live in a state where assisted suicide for any condition remains illegal.

As Canada moves toward facilitating death for serious mental illness, we have to wonder whether racial or socioeconomic factors will play a role. Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death? And how do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?

As psychiatrists, we often struggle to help our patients overcome the stigma associated with treatments for mental illness. Still, patients often refuse potentially helpful treatments because they worry about the consequences of getting care. These include career repercussions and the disapproval of others. When this legislation is finally passed, will our Canadian colleagues offer it as an option when their patient refuses lithium or antipsychotics, inpatient care, or ECT?

Susan Kalish, MD, is a geriatric and palliative care physician in Boston who favors the availability of facilitated death. She practices in a state where this option is not available.

She told me that she is “in favor of expanding acceptance of, and access to, medical aid in dying for patients who choose to exercise autonomy over their dying process, for those who remain with irremediable suffering, despite provision of optimal palliative care.” However, she added, some countries have lowered the threshold “way too far.”

She noted, “It is complicated and harmful to the general issue of medical aid in dying.”

As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it? Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out? If we, as psychiatrists, aren’t the emissaries of hope, who exactly are we?

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I remember what it was like to be a medical student at a well-known cancer hospital where patients were dying of cancer. In life’s final stages, it was not uncommon for physicians to increase the dose of morphine; it alleviated pain, eased labored breathing, and yes, probably hastened the inevitable for patients who were in their final hours. In these scenarios, no one considered this euthanasia, and no one questioned whether it was the right thing to do.

Fast-forward to 2023 when the act of a physician hastening a patient’s death has become a controversial topic as criteria have expanded. Like all such topics in our polarized society, people aligned on sides, politics and religion rush to the head of the room, legislation is proposed, and words take on new meanings. If you’re in favor of legalization of clinician assistance in a patient’s death, the term is “medical assistance in dying”. If you’re opposed, the term is the more graphic physician-assisted suicide.

The scenario is entirely different from what I saw in my medical school rotations decades ago. It’s no longer an issue of easing the pain and discomfort of patients’ final hours; the question now is whether, faced with a potentially terminal or progressively debilitating physical illness, a patient has the right to determine when, and how, their life will end, and the medical profession is given a role in this.

In many places the bar has been further lowered to incorporate nonterminal conditions, and Belgium and the Netherlands now allow physician-facilitated suicide for psychiatric conditions, a practice that many find reprehensible. In these countries, patients may be provided with medications to ingest, but psychiatrists also administer lethal injections.

While Belgium and the Netherlands were the first countries to legalize physician-facilitated death, it could be argued that Canada has embraced it with the most gusto; physician-assisted suicide has been legal there since 2016.

Canada already has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths of any nation, with 10,064 in 2021 – an increase of 32% from 2020. The Canadian federal government is currently considering adding serious mental illness as an eligible category. If this law passes, the country will have the most liberal assisted-death policy in the world. The Canadian government planned to make serious mental illness an eligible category in March 2023, but in an eleventh-hour announcement, it deferred its decision until March 2024.

In a press release, the government said that the 1-year extension would “provide additional time to prepare for the safe and consistent assessment and provision of MAID in all cases, including where the person’s sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. It will also allow time for the Government of Canada to fully consider the final report of the Special Joint Committee on MAID, tabled in Parliament on Feb. 15, 2023.”

As a psychiatrist who treats patients with treatment-refractory conditions, I have watched people undergo trial after trial of medications while having psychotherapy, and sometimes transcranial magnetic stimulation or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The thing that is sustaining for patients is the hope that they will get better and go on to find meaning and purpose in life, even if it is not in the form they once envisioned.

To offer the option of a death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get them better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide.

Where is the line, one wonders, when the patient has not responded to two medications or 12? Must they have ECT before we consider helping them end their lives? Do we try for 6 months or 6 years? What about new research pointing to better medications or psychedelics that are not yet available? According to Canada’s proposed legislation, the patient must be aware that treatment options exist, including facilitated suicide.

Physician-assisted suicide for psychiatric conditions creates a conundrum for psychiatrists. As mental health professionals, we work to prevent suicide and view it as an act that is frequently fueled by depression. Those who are determined to die by their own hand often do. Depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loved ones would be better off without them.

These cognitive distortions are part of their illness. So, how do we, as psychiatrists, move from a stance of preventing suicide – using measures such as involuntary treatment when necessary – to being the people who offer and facilitate death for our patients? I’ll leave this for my Canadian colleagues to contemplate, as I live in a state where assisted suicide for any condition remains illegal.

As Canada moves toward facilitating death for serious mental illness, we have to wonder whether racial or socioeconomic factors will play a role. Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death? And how do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?

As psychiatrists, we often struggle to help our patients overcome the stigma associated with treatments for mental illness. Still, patients often refuse potentially helpful treatments because they worry about the consequences of getting care. These include career repercussions and the disapproval of others. When this legislation is finally passed, will our Canadian colleagues offer it as an option when their patient refuses lithium or antipsychotics, inpatient care, or ECT?

Susan Kalish, MD, is a geriatric and palliative care physician in Boston who favors the availability of facilitated death. She practices in a state where this option is not available.

She told me that she is “in favor of expanding acceptance of, and access to, medical aid in dying for patients who choose to exercise autonomy over their dying process, for those who remain with irremediable suffering, despite provision of optimal palliative care.” However, she added, some countries have lowered the threshold “way too far.”

She noted, “It is complicated and harmful to the general issue of medical aid in dying.”

As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it? Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out? If we, as psychiatrists, aren’t the emissaries of hope, who exactly are we?

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I remember what it was like to be a medical student at a well-known cancer hospital where patients were dying of cancer. In life’s final stages, it was not uncommon for physicians to increase the dose of morphine; it alleviated pain, eased labored breathing, and yes, probably hastened the inevitable for patients who were in their final hours. In these scenarios, no one considered this euthanasia, and no one questioned whether it was the right thing to do.

Fast-forward to 2023 when the act of a physician hastening a patient’s death has become a controversial topic as criteria have expanded. Like all such topics in our polarized society, people aligned on sides, politics and religion rush to the head of the room, legislation is proposed, and words take on new meanings. If you’re in favor of legalization of clinician assistance in a patient’s death, the term is “medical assistance in dying”. If you’re opposed, the term is the more graphic physician-assisted suicide.

The scenario is entirely different from what I saw in my medical school rotations decades ago. It’s no longer an issue of easing the pain and discomfort of patients’ final hours; the question now is whether, faced with a potentially terminal or progressively debilitating physical illness, a patient has the right to determine when, and how, their life will end, and the medical profession is given a role in this.

In many places the bar has been further lowered to incorporate nonterminal conditions, and Belgium and the Netherlands now allow physician-facilitated suicide for psychiatric conditions, a practice that many find reprehensible. In these countries, patients may be provided with medications to ingest, but psychiatrists also administer lethal injections.

While Belgium and the Netherlands were the first countries to legalize physician-facilitated death, it could be argued that Canada has embraced it with the most gusto; physician-assisted suicide has been legal there since 2016.

Canada already has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths of any nation, with 10,064 in 2021 – an increase of 32% from 2020. The Canadian federal government is currently considering adding serious mental illness as an eligible category. If this law passes, the country will have the most liberal assisted-death policy in the world. The Canadian government planned to make serious mental illness an eligible category in March 2023, but in an eleventh-hour announcement, it deferred its decision until March 2024.

In a press release, the government said that the 1-year extension would “provide additional time to prepare for the safe and consistent assessment and provision of MAID in all cases, including where the person’s sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. It will also allow time for the Government of Canada to fully consider the final report of the Special Joint Committee on MAID, tabled in Parliament on Feb. 15, 2023.”

As a psychiatrist who treats patients with treatment-refractory conditions, I have watched people undergo trial after trial of medications while having psychotherapy, and sometimes transcranial magnetic stimulation or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The thing that is sustaining for patients is the hope that they will get better and go on to find meaning and purpose in life, even if it is not in the form they once envisioned.

To offer the option of a death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get them better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide.

Where is the line, one wonders, when the patient has not responded to two medications or 12? Must they have ECT before we consider helping them end their lives? Do we try for 6 months or 6 years? What about new research pointing to better medications or psychedelics that are not yet available? According to Canada’s proposed legislation, the patient must be aware that treatment options exist, including facilitated suicide.

Physician-assisted suicide for psychiatric conditions creates a conundrum for psychiatrists. As mental health professionals, we work to prevent suicide and view it as an act that is frequently fueled by depression. Those who are determined to die by their own hand often do. Depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loved ones would be better off without them.

These cognitive distortions are part of their illness. So, how do we, as psychiatrists, move from a stance of preventing suicide – using measures such as involuntary treatment when necessary – to being the people who offer and facilitate death for our patients? I’ll leave this for my Canadian colleagues to contemplate, as I live in a state where assisted suicide for any condition remains illegal.

As Canada moves toward facilitating death for serious mental illness, we have to wonder whether racial or socioeconomic factors will play a role. Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death? And how do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?

As psychiatrists, we often struggle to help our patients overcome the stigma associated with treatments for mental illness. Still, patients often refuse potentially helpful treatments because they worry about the consequences of getting care. These include career repercussions and the disapproval of others. When this legislation is finally passed, will our Canadian colleagues offer it as an option when their patient refuses lithium or antipsychotics, inpatient care, or ECT?

Susan Kalish, MD, is a geriatric and palliative care physician in Boston who favors the availability of facilitated death. She practices in a state where this option is not available.

She told me that she is “in favor of expanding acceptance of, and access to, medical aid in dying for patients who choose to exercise autonomy over their dying process, for those who remain with irremediable suffering, despite provision of optimal palliative care.” However, she added, some countries have lowered the threshold “way too far.”

She noted, “It is complicated and harmful to the general issue of medical aid in dying.”

As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it? Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out? If we, as psychiatrists, aren’t the emissaries of hope, who exactly are we?

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Our fear of death is exposed often in medicine. It is not uncommon to hear the last moments of a patient’s life described as a series of futile, sterile medical interventions that attempt to prolong that life in quasi-sadistic fashion. So much effort is placed in making sure that “everything necessary” is tried that less emphasis is made on providing a comfortable death.

It seems obvious that a profession dedicated to prolonging health would have difficulty confronting death. But it should also be natural for psychiatry to be the specialty able to integrate this discomfort within the medical psyche.

Dr. Neha Akkoor

Yet, in training, we have noted much more time spent on the assessment of capacity in patients in order to refuse medical intervention than on time spent educating about the importance to die at the right time, as suggested by Friedrich Nietzsche.¹ A psychiatry resident may graduate knowing dozens of questions to assess the ability of a family member to consider the risk, benefits, and alternatives of continued intubation in a comatose patient, but may feel very ill-equipped in discussing the meaning of a rightful life and a rightful death.

Death anxiety can also come outside the context of not having endured enough traumas or successes in one’s life, or not having lived life right. As poignantly described by Dostoevsky in his 1864 novella, “Notes from the Underground,” death anxiety can manifest as a result of the deterministic nature of life.² Doing everything which is expected of us can feel like a betrayal of our one chance to have lived life authentically. This concept is also particularly familiar to physicians, who may have – in part – chosen their career path in response to a recommendation from their parents, rather than a more authentic feeling. Dostoevsky goads us to transgress, to act in a rebellious way, to truly feel alive. This can serve as a solution for death anxiety – if you are scared to die then live, live your fullest. Even if that means doing the unexpected or changing your path.

The fear of being forgotten after death can also drive many to pursue a legacy. Even a parent choosing to have children and teaching them values and belief systems is a way of leaving behind a mark on the world. For some, finding ways for being remembered after death – whether through fame, fortune, or having children, is a way of dealing with death anxiety.

The Mexican holiday “Dia de los Muertos,” or Day of the Dead, and the Japanese holiday “Obon” are examples from cultures where deceased ancestors are celebrated through rituals and offerings. Such cultures may relieve the anxiety of death by suggesting that one’s descendants will still care for the departed, and their legacy may remain.
 

Coping with death anxiety

For others, the road to recovery from death anxiety may take a completely different approach. Some may find comfort in the position that, to extinguish death anxiety, one should not live to the fullest but accept the tragic and mostly inconsequential aspects of life. The philosophical movement of “absurdism” addresses this perspective.

In our modern world, where we are so deeply attached to finding the cause and reason for things, absurdism reminds us that most of our lives and world do not have to make sense. While Albert Camus, arguably the most famous of the absurdist philosophers, encourages us to create meaning and transcend the tragedy and randomness of life,³ some patients can also find comfort in the idea that life is absurd, and thus one should not judge one’s own life and not fear own’s inevitable death.

Death anxiety can also be therapeutic. Especially in the existential tradition, one can enlist the fear of death for motivation. Many patients come to see us with a lack of motivation or drive. They feel paralyzed by their predicament and mental illness. As in the experiments of Martin Seligman, PhD, who shocked animals at random, a human exposed to repeated failure and abuse can get a sense of learned helplessness.⁴ Such patients can be very hard to reach, yet ultimately their despondence is no match for the reality that life will end. Reminding a patient that any day spent not feeling alive might as well be a metaphor for death is a challenging interpretation, but one that can lead to significant growth.

When considering the fear of death, psychiatry has generally taken the position that it is pathological, a form of anxiety. Psychiatry argues that one should strive to find fulfillment and joy in life. It thus may be a surprise to find that this is not a universally shared perspective.

In his 2010 book, author Thomas Ligotti argues on behalf of pessimistic and antinatalist views.⁵ Throughout the book he emphasizes the suffering that life can offer and argues against the endless pursuit of more life. To some psychiatrists, such arguments will be understood as insulting to our profession. Some may even interpret his texts as an argument in favor of ending one’s life.

However, psychiatrists must ask themselves “what are my answers to those arguments?” Mr. Ligotti’s book is a series of arguments against the idea that life will be pleasurable. Understanding those arguments and formulating a rebuttal would be an important process for any mental health provider. It is foolish to think that our patients do not have a rich and complicated relationship to death, and that none of our patients find death attractive in some ways. After all, accepting our fears as an important part of our body is a natural coping skill, which can also be taught.⁶

Part of the difficulty in discussing death and the fear of death may come from society’s resistance at having complicated conversations. It is not uncommon, currently, to include trigger warnings at the mention of discussions about death, even abstract ones. While we appreciate and encourage the articulation of feelings that a discussion about death may raise, we worry that such trigger warnings may be a form of censure that only makes society more resistant to talk about those important topics.

For another example of the avoidance of discussions about death, recall the “death panel” debates of 2009.⁷ When the U.S. government considered encouraging physicians to have discussions with their patients about end-of-life care, politicians and pundits decried that such discussions were “death panels,” and claimed they were an encouragement to patients to “cut [their] life short.” Such public projection of one’s anxiety about death has made it particularly difficult for psychiatry to make meaningful progress.
 

Acknowledging and addressing the fear

Death anxiety is such a common aspect of human life that most religions make some effort to address this fear. Many do so by offering a form of afterlife, often one described in idyllic fashion without anxiety.

Heaven, if one believes in it, is appealing for the person dreading death anxiety. Heaven is often described as being offered to those who have lived a rightful life, thus relieving the anxiety regarding the decisions one has made. Reincarnation can also be interpreted as another way of calming death anxiety, by promising a continual repetition of chances at getting life right. However, for many patients, religion doesn’t have the appeal that it once had.

Ultimately, the fear of death is a complex and multifaceted issue that can manifest in various ways. The medical profession, especially psychiatry, has a responsibility to address this fear in patients, but it also struggles with its own discomfort with the topic. The importance of providing a comfortable death is often overshadowed by the emphasis on prolonging life, which may manifest as a series of futile medical interventions.

The fear of death can be therapeutic and motivating, but it can also be pathological and lead to a lack of motivation or drive. The philosophical movements of absurdism and antinatalism offer alternative perspectives on death and life, and it is important for mental health providers to understand and engage with these views.

Society’s resistance to having a meaningful conversation about death only perpetuates the fear and makes progress difficult. Yet acknowledging and addressing the fear of death is an important aspect of mental health care and a crucial part of the human experience.

Dr. Akkoor is a psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She is interested in immigrant mental health, ethics, consultation-liaison psychiatry, and medical education. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Badre and Dr. Akkoor have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Nietzsche F. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. 1883-1892.

2. Dostoevsky F. Notes from the Underground. 1864.

3. Camus A. The Plague. 1947.

4. Seligman M. Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. 1975.

5. Ligotti T. The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. 2010.

6. Hayes SC. Behav Ther. 2016 Nov;47(6):869-85. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2016.11.006.

7. Nyhan B. The Forum. 2010 April 27;8(1). doi: 10.2202/1540-8884.1354.

Our fear of death is exposed often in medicine. It is not uncommon to hear the last moments of a patient’s life described as a series of futile, sterile medical interventions that attempt to prolong that life in quasi-sadistic fashion. So much effort is placed in making sure that “everything necessary” is tried that less emphasis is made on providing a comfortable death.

It seems obvious that a profession dedicated to prolonging health would have difficulty confronting death. But it should also be natural for psychiatry to be the specialty able to integrate this discomfort within the medical psyche.

Dr. Neha Akkoor

Yet, in training, we have noted much more time spent on the assessment of capacity in patients in order to refuse medical intervention than on time spent educating about the importance to die at the right time, as suggested by Friedrich Nietzsche.¹ A psychiatry resident may graduate knowing dozens of questions to assess the ability of a family member to consider the risk, benefits, and alternatives of continued intubation in a comatose patient, but may feel very ill-equipped in discussing the meaning of a rightful life and a rightful death.

Death anxiety can also come outside the context of not having endured enough traumas or successes in one’s life, or not having lived life right. As poignantly described by Dostoevsky in his 1864 novella, “Notes from the Underground,” death anxiety can manifest as a result of the deterministic nature of life.² Doing everything which is expected of us can feel like a betrayal of our one chance to have lived life authentically. This concept is also particularly familiar to physicians, who may have – in part – chosen their career path in response to a recommendation from their parents, rather than a more authentic feeling. Dostoevsky goads us to transgress, to act in a rebellious way, to truly feel alive. This can serve as a solution for death anxiety – if you are scared to die then live, live your fullest. Even if that means doing the unexpected or changing your path.

The fear of being forgotten after death can also drive many to pursue a legacy. Even a parent choosing to have children and teaching them values and belief systems is a way of leaving behind a mark on the world. For some, finding ways for being remembered after death – whether through fame, fortune, or having children, is a way of dealing with death anxiety.

The Mexican holiday “Dia de los Muertos,” or Day of the Dead, and the Japanese holiday “Obon” are examples from cultures where deceased ancestors are celebrated through rituals and offerings. Such cultures may relieve the anxiety of death by suggesting that one’s descendants will still care for the departed, and their legacy may remain.
 

Coping with death anxiety

For others, the road to recovery from death anxiety may take a completely different approach. Some may find comfort in the position that, to extinguish death anxiety, one should not live to the fullest but accept the tragic and mostly inconsequential aspects of life. The philosophical movement of “absurdism” addresses this perspective.

In our modern world, where we are so deeply attached to finding the cause and reason for things, absurdism reminds us that most of our lives and world do not have to make sense. While Albert Camus, arguably the most famous of the absurdist philosophers, encourages us to create meaning and transcend the tragedy and randomness of life,³ some patients can also find comfort in the idea that life is absurd, and thus one should not judge one’s own life and not fear own’s inevitable death.

Death anxiety can also be therapeutic. Especially in the existential tradition, one can enlist the fear of death for motivation. Many patients come to see us with a lack of motivation or drive. They feel paralyzed by their predicament and mental illness. As in the experiments of Martin Seligman, PhD, who shocked animals at random, a human exposed to repeated failure and abuse can get a sense of learned helplessness.⁴ Such patients can be very hard to reach, yet ultimately their despondence is no match for the reality that life will end. Reminding a patient that any day spent not feeling alive might as well be a metaphor for death is a challenging interpretation, but one that can lead to significant growth.

When considering the fear of death, psychiatry has generally taken the position that it is pathological, a form of anxiety. Psychiatry argues that one should strive to find fulfillment and joy in life. It thus may be a surprise to find that this is not a universally shared perspective.

In his 2010 book, author Thomas Ligotti argues on behalf of pessimistic and antinatalist views.⁵ Throughout the book he emphasizes the suffering that life can offer and argues against the endless pursuit of more life. To some psychiatrists, such arguments will be understood as insulting to our profession. Some may even interpret his texts as an argument in favor of ending one’s life.

However, psychiatrists must ask themselves “what are my answers to those arguments?” Mr. Ligotti’s book is a series of arguments against the idea that life will be pleasurable. Understanding those arguments and formulating a rebuttal would be an important process for any mental health provider. It is foolish to think that our patients do not have a rich and complicated relationship to death, and that none of our patients find death attractive in some ways. After all, accepting our fears as an important part of our body is a natural coping skill, which can also be taught.⁶

Part of the difficulty in discussing death and the fear of death may come from society’s resistance at having complicated conversations. It is not uncommon, currently, to include trigger warnings at the mention of discussions about death, even abstract ones. While we appreciate and encourage the articulation of feelings that a discussion about death may raise, we worry that such trigger warnings may be a form of censure that only makes society more resistant to talk about those important topics.

For another example of the avoidance of discussions about death, recall the “death panel” debates of 2009.⁷ When the U.S. government considered encouraging physicians to have discussions with their patients about end-of-life care, politicians and pundits decried that such discussions were “death panels,” and claimed they were an encouragement to patients to “cut [their] life short.” Such public projection of one’s anxiety about death has made it particularly difficult for psychiatry to make meaningful progress.
 

Acknowledging and addressing the fear

Death anxiety is such a common aspect of human life that most religions make some effort to address this fear. Many do so by offering a form of afterlife, often one described in idyllic fashion without anxiety.

Heaven, if one believes in it, is appealing for the person dreading death anxiety. Heaven is often described as being offered to those who have lived a rightful life, thus relieving the anxiety regarding the decisions one has made. Reincarnation can also be interpreted as another way of calming death anxiety, by promising a continual repetition of chances at getting life right. However, for many patients, religion doesn’t have the appeal that it once had.

Ultimately, the fear of death is a complex and multifaceted issue that can manifest in various ways. The medical profession, especially psychiatry, has a responsibility to address this fear in patients, but it also struggles with its own discomfort with the topic. The importance of providing a comfortable death is often overshadowed by the emphasis on prolonging life, which may manifest as a series of futile medical interventions.

The fear of death can be therapeutic and motivating, but it can also be pathological and lead to a lack of motivation or drive. The philosophical movements of absurdism and antinatalism offer alternative perspectives on death and life, and it is important for mental health providers to understand and engage with these views.

Society’s resistance to having a meaningful conversation about death only perpetuates the fear and makes progress difficult. Yet acknowledging and addressing the fear of death is an important aspect of mental health care and a crucial part of the human experience.

Dr. Akkoor is a psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She is interested in immigrant mental health, ethics, consultation-liaison psychiatry, and medical education. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Badre and Dr. Akkoor have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Nietzsche F. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. 1883-1892.

2. Dostoevsky F. Notes from the Underground. 1864.

3. Camus A. The Plague. 1947.

4. Seligman M. Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. 1975.

5. Ligotti T. The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. 2010.

6. Hayes SC. Behav Ther. 2016 Nov;47(6):869-85. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2016.11.006.

7. Nyhan B. The Forum. 2010 April 27;8(1). doi: 10.2202/1540-8884.1354.

Our fear of death is exposed often in medicine. It is not uncommon to hear the last moments of a patient’s life described as a series of futile, sterile medical interventions that attempt to prolong that life in quasi-sadistic fashion. So much effort is placed in making sure that “everything necessary” is tried that less emphasis is made on providing a comfortable death.

It seems obvious that a profession dedicated to prolonging health would have difficulty confronting death. But it should also be natural for psychiatry to be the specialty able to integrate this discomfort within the medical psyche.

Dr. Neha Akkoor

Yet, in training, we have noted much more time spent on the assessment of capacity in patients in order to refuse medical intervention than on time spent educating about the importance to die at the right time, as suggested by Friedrich Nietzsche.¹ A psychiatry resident may graduate knowing dozens of questions to assess the ability of a family member to consider the risk, benefits, and alternatives of continued intubation in a comatose patient, but may feel very ill-equipped in discussing the meaning of a rightful life and a rightful death.

Death anxiety can also come outside the context of not having endured enough traumas or successes in one’s life, or not having lived life right. As poignantly described by Dostoevsky in his 1864 novella, “Notes from the Underground,” death anxiety can manifest as a result of the deterministic nature of life.² Doing everything which is expected of us can feel like a betrayal of our one chance to have lived life authentically. This concept is also particularly familiar to physicians, who may have – in part – chosen their career path in response to a recommendation from their parents, rather than a more authentic feeling. Dostoevsky goads us to transgress, to act in a rebellious way, to truly feel alive. This can serve as a solution for death anxiety – if you are scared to die then live, live your fullest. Even if that means doing the unexpected or changing your path.

The fear of being forgotten after death can also drive many to pursue a legacy. Even a parent choosing to have children and teaching them values and belief systems is a way of leaving behind a mark on the world. For some, finding ways for being remembered after death – whether through fame, fortune, or having children, is a way of dealing with death anxiety.

The Mexican holiday “Dia de los Muertos,” or Day of the Dead, and the Japanese holiday “Obon” are examples from cultures where deceased ancestors are celebrated through rituals and offerings. Such cultures may relieve the anxiety of death by suggesting that one’s descendants will still care for the departed, and their legacy may remain.
 

Coping with death anxiety

For others, the road to recovery from death anxiety may take a completely different approach. Some may find comfort in the position that, to extinguish death anxiety, one should not live to the fullest but accept the tragic and mostly inconsequential aspects of life. The philosophical movement of “absurdism” addresses this perspective.

In our modern world, where we are so deeply attached to finding the cause and reason for things, absurdism reminds us that most of our lives and world do not have to make sense. While Albert Camus, arguably the most famous of the absurdist philosophers, encourages us to create meaning and transcend the tragedy and randomness of life,³ some patients can also find comfort in the idea that life is absurd, and thus one should not judge one’s own life and not fear own’s inevitable death.

Death anxiety can also be therapeutic. Especially in the existential tradition, one can enlist the fear of death for motivation. Many patients come to see us with a lack of motivation or drive. They feel paralyzed by their predicament and mental illness. As in the experiments of Martin Seligman, PhD, who shocked animals at random, a human exposed to repeated failure and abuse can get a sense of learned helplessness.⁴ Such patients can be very hard to reach, yet ultimately their despondence is no match for the reality that life will end. Reminding a patient that any day spent not feeling alive might as well be a metaphor for death is a challenging interpretation, but one that can lead to significant growth.

When considering the fear of death, psychiatry has generally taken the position that it is pathological, a form of anxiety. Psychiatry argues that one should strive to find fulfillment and joy in life. It thus may be a surprise to find that this is not a universally shared perspective.

In his 2010 book, author Thomas Ligotti argues on behalf of pessimistic and antinatalist views.⁵ Throughout the book he emphasizes the suffering that life can offer and argues against the endless pursuit of more life. To some psychiatrists, such arguments will be understood as insulting to our profession. Some may even interpret his texts as an argument in favor of ending one’s life.

However, psychiatrists must ask themselves “what are my answers to those arguments?” Mr. Ligotti’s book is a series of arguments against the idea that life will be pleasurable. Understanding those arguments and formulating a rebuttal would be an important process for any mental health provider. It is foolish to think that our patients do not have a rich and complicated relationship to death, and that none of our patients find death attractive in some ways. After all, accepting our fears as an important part of our body is a natural coping skill, which can also be taught.⁶

Part of the difficulty in discussing death and the fear of death may come from society’s resistance at having complicated conversations. It is not uncommon, currently, to include trigger warnings at the mention of discussions about death, even abstract ones. While we appreciate and encourage the articulation of feelings that a discussion about death may raise, we worry that such trigger warnings may be a form of censure that only makes society more resistant to talk about those important topics.

For another example of the avoidance of discussions about death, recall the “death panel” debates of 2009.⁷ When the U.S. government considered encouraging physicians to have discussions with their patients about end-of-life care, politicians and pundits decried that such discussions were “death panels,” and claimed they were an encouragement to patients to “cut [their] life short.” Such public projection of one’s anxiety about death has made it particularly difficult for psychiatry to make meaningful progress.
 

Acknowledging and addressing the fear

Death anxiety is such a common aspect of human life that most religions make some effort to address this fear. Many do so by offering a form of afterlife, often one described in idyllic fashion without anxiety.

Heaven, if one believes in it, is appealing for the person dreading death anxiety. Heaven is often described as being offered to those who have lived a rightful life, thus relieving the anxiety regarding the decisions one has made. Reincarnation can also be interpreted as another way of calming death anxiety, by promising a continual repetition of chances at getting life right. However, for many patients, religion doesn’t have the appeal that it once had.

Ultimately, the fear of death is a complex and multifaceted issue that can manifest in various ways. The medical profession, especially psychiatry, has a responsibility to address this fear in patients, but it also struggles with its own discomfort with the topic. The importance of providing a comfortable death is often overshadowed by the emphasis on prolonging life, which may manifest as a series of futile medical interventions.

The fear of death can be therapeutic and motivating, but it can also be pathological and lead to a lack of motivation or drive. The philosophical movements of absurdism and antinatalism offer alternative perspectives on death and life, and it is important for mental health providers to understand and engage with these views.

Society’s resistance to having a meaningful conversation about death only perpetuates the fear and makes progress difficult. Yet acknowledging and addressing the fear of death is an important aspect of mental health care and a crucial part of the human experience.

Dr. Akkoor is a psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She is interested in immigrant mental health, ethics, consultation-liaison psychiatry, and medical education. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Badre and Dr. Akkoor have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Nietzsche F. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. 1883-1892.

2. Dostoevsky F. Notes from the Underground. 1864.

3. Camus A. The Plague. 1947.

4. Seligman M. Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. 1975.

5. Ligotti T. The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. 2010.

6. Hayes SC. Behav Ther. 2016 Nov;47(6):869-85. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2016.11.006.

7. Nyhan B. The Forum. 2010 April 27;8(1). doi: 10.2202/1540-8884.1354.

Roughly 3.7 million adults have a history of schizophrenia spectrum disorders – a figure two to three times higher than previously assumed, according to the first study to estimate the national prevalence of schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

This finding is “especially important,” given that people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders experience “high levels of disability that present significant challenges in all aspects of their life,” principal investigator Heather Ringeisen, PhD, with RTI International, a nonprofit research institute based on Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in a statement.

The results “highlight the need to improve systems of care and access to treatment for people with schizophrenia and other mental health disorders,” added co–principal investigator Mark J. Edlund, MD, PhD, also with RTI.

The study also found that prevalence rates of many other nonpsychotic disorders were generally within an expected range in light of findings from prior research – with three exceptions.

Rates of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) were higher than reported in past nationally representative samples.

The new data come from the Mental and Substance Use Disorder Prevalence Study (MDPS), a pilot program funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

A nationally representative sample of 5,679 adults aged 18-65 residing in U.S. households, prisons, homeless shelters, and state psychiatric hospitals were interviewed, virtually or in person, between October 2020 and October 2022.

The research team used a population-based version of the Structured Clinical Interview of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; SCID-5) for mental health and substance use disorder diagnostic assessment.

Among the key findings in the report:

• Nearly 2% of adults (about 3.7 million) had a lifetime history of schizophrenia spectrum disorders, which include schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophreniform disorder.
• Roughly 2.5 million adults (1.2%) met diagnostic criteria for a schizophrenia spectrum disorder in the past year.
• The two most common mental disorders among adults were MDD (15.5%, or about 31.4 million) and GAD (10.0%, or about 20.2 million).
• Approximately 8.2 million adults (4.1%) had past-year posttraumatic stress disorder, about 5.0 million (2.5%) had OCD, and roughly 3.1 million (1.5%) had bipolar I disorder.
• Alcohol use disorder (AUD) was the most common substance use disorder among adults aged 18-65; roughly 13.4 million adults (6.7%) met criteria for AUD in the past year.
• About 7.7 million adults (3.8%) had cannabis use disorder, about 3.2 million (1.6%) had stimulant use disorder, and about 1 million (0.5%) had opioid use disorder.

Multiple comorbidities

The data also show that one in four adults had at least one mental health disorder in the past year, most commonly MDD and GAD.

About 11% of adults met the criteria for at least one substance use disorder, with AUD and cannabis use disorder the most common.

In addition, an estimated 11 million adults aged 18-65 had both a mental health disorder and a substance use disorder in the past year.

Encouragingly, the findings suggest that more individuals are seeking and accessing treatment compared with previous studies, the authors noted; 61% of adults with a mental health disorder reported having at least one visit with a treatment provider in the past year.

However, considerable treatment gaps still exist for the most common mental health disorders, they reported. Within the past year, more than 40% of adults with MDD and more than 30% of those with GAD did not receive any treatment services.

The full report is available online.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Roughly 3.7 million adults have a history of schizophrenia spectrum disorders – a figure two to three times higher than previously assumed, according to the first study to estimate the national prevalence of schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

This finding is “especially important,” given that people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders experience “high levels of disability that present significant challenges in all aspects of their life,” principal investigator Heather Ringeisen, PhD, with RTI International, a nonprofit research institute based on Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in a statement.

The results “highlight the need to improve systems of care and access to treatment for people with schizophrenia and other mental health disorders,” added co–principal investigator Mark J. Edlund, MD, PhD, also with RTI.

The study also found that prevalence rates of many other nonpsychotic disorders were generally within an expected range in light of findings from prior research – with three exceptions.

Rates of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) were higher than reported in past nationally representative samples.

The new data come from the Mental and Substance Use Disorder Prevalence Study (MDPS), a pilot program funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

A nationally representative sample of 5,679 adults aged 18-65 residing in U.S. households, prisons, homeless shelters, and state psychiatric hospitals were interviewed, virtually or in person, between October 2020 and October 2022.

The research team used a population-based version of the Structured Clinical Interview of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; SCID-5) for mental health and substance use disorder diagnostic assessment.

Among the key findings in the report:

• Nearly 2% of adults (about 3.7 million) had a lifetime history of schizophrenia spectrum disorders, which include schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophreniform disorder.
• Roughly 2.5 million adults (1.2%) met diagnostic criteria for a schizophrenia spectrum disorder in the past year.
• The two most common mental disorders among adults were MDD (15.5%, or about 31.4 million) and GAD (10.0%, or about 20.2 million).
• Approximately 8.2 million adults (4.1%) had past-year posttraumatic stress disorder, about 5.0 million (2.5%) had OCD, and roughly 3.1 million (1.5%) had bipolar I disorder.
• Alcohol use disorder (AUD) was the most common substance use disorder among adults aged 18-65; roughly 13.4 million adults (6.7%) met criteria for AUD in the past year.
• About 7.7 million adults (3.8%) had cannabis use disorder, about 3.2 million (1.6%) had stimulant use disorder, and about 1 million (0.5%) had opioid use disorder.

Multiple comorbidities

The data also show that one in four adults had at least one mental health disorder in the past year, most commonly MDD and GAD.

About 11% of adults met the criteria for at least one substance use disorder, with AUD and cannabis use disorder the most common.

In addition, an estimated 11 million adults aged 18-65 had both a mental health disorder and a substance use disorder in the past year.

Encouragingly, the findings suggest that more individuals are seeking and accessing treatment compared with previous studies, the authors noted; 61% of adults with a mental health disorder reported having at least one visit with a treatment provider in the past year.

However, considerable treatment gaps still exist for the most common mental health disorders, they reported. Within the past year, more than 40% of adults with MDD and more than 30% of those with GAD did not receive any treatment services.

The full report is available online.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Roughly 3.7 million adults have a history of schizophrenia spectrum disorders – a figure two to three times higher than previously assumed, according to the first study to estimate the national prevalence of schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

This finding is “especially important,” given that people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders experience “high levels of disability that present significant challenges in all aspects of their life,” principal investigator Heather Ringeisen, PhD, with RTI International, a nonprofit research institute based on Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in a statement.

The results “highlight the need to improve systems of care and access to treatment for people with schizophrenia and other mental health disorders,” added co–principal investigator Mark J. Edlund, MD, PhD, also with RTI.

The study also found that prevalence rates of many other nonpsychotic disorders were generally within an expected range in light of findings from prior research – with three exceptions.

Rates of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) were higher than reported in past nationally representative samples.

The new data come from the Mental and Substance Use Disorder Prevalence Study (MDPS), a pilot program funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

A nationally representative sample of 5,679 adults aged 18-65 residing in U.S. households, prisons, homeless shelters, and state psychiatric hospitals were interviewed, virtually or in person, between October 2020 and October 2022.

The research team used a population-based version of the Structured Clinical Interview of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; SCID-5) for mental health and substance use disorder diagnostic assessment.

Among the key findings in the report:

• Nearly 2% of adults (about 3.7 million) had a lifetime history of schizophrenia spectrum disorders, which include schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophreniform disorder.
• Roughly 2.5 million adults (1.2%) met diagnostic criteria for a schizophrenia spectrum disorder in the past year.
• The two most common mental disorders among adults were MDD (15.5%, or about 31.4 million) and GAD (10.0%, or about 20.2 million).
• Approximately 8.2 million adults (4.1%) had past-year posttraumatic stress disorder, about 5.0 million (2.5%) had OCD, and roughly 3.1 million (1.5%) had bipolar I disorder.
• Alcohol use disorder (AUD) was the most common substance use disorder among adults aged 18-65; roughly 13.4 million adults (6.7%) met criteria for AUD in the past year.
• About 7.7 million adults (3.8%) had cannabis use disorder, about 3.2 million (1.6%) had stimulant use disorder, and about 1 million (0.5%) had opioid use disorder.

Multiple comorbidities

The data also show that one in four adults had at least one mental health disorder in the past year, most commonly MDD and GAD.

About 11% of adults met the criteria for at least one substance use disorder, with AUD and cannabis use disorder the most common.

In addition, an estimated 11 million adults aged 18-65 had both a mental health disorder and a substance use disorder in the past year.

Encouragingly, the findings suggest that more individuals are seeking and accessing treatment compared with previous studies, the authors noted; 61% of adults with a mental health disorder reported having at least one visit with a treatment provider in the past year.

However, considerable treatment gaps still exist for the most common mental health disorders, they reported. Within the past year, more than 40% of adults with MDD and more than 30% of those with GAD did not receive any treatment services.

The full report is available online.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Topline

A new study provides early evidence of sex differences in rapid effects of stress systems on the cognitive control of negative emotions.

Methodology

• The study included 80 healthy participants, mean age 24 years.
• Half the subjects immersed their nondominant hand (including the wrist) in ice water for up to 3 minutes; the other half, which served as the control group, immersed their hand in warm water for 3 minutes.
• Participants were asked to deliberately downregulate emotional responses to high-intensity negative pictures.
• Participants regularly provided saliva samples to check cortisol levels and were monitored for cardiovascular activity.
• Researchers assessed pupil dilation, which along with subject ratings of their affective state served as emotion regulation (ER) outcome measures.

Takeaway

• In men, stress rapidly improved the ability to downregulate emotional arousal via distraction that was fully mediated by cortisol.
• In women, sympathetic nervous system (SNS) reactivity was linked to decreased regulatory performances.
• Direct stress effects on ER were smaller than expected.

In practice

The study contributes to a “better understanding of the neuroendocrinological mechanisms of stress effects on ER that may help to develop adequate preventive and curative interventions of stress- and emotion-related disorders,” the researchers write.

Source

The study was conducted by Katja Langer, Valerie Jentsch, and Oliver Wolf from the Department of Cognitive Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). It was published in the May 2023 issue of Psychoneuroendocrinology.

Limitations

The results have some inconsistencies. The ER paradigm is somewhat artificial and not fully comparable with emotional trigger and regulatory requirements in everyday life. The study did not directly assess levels of catecholamines such as adrenaline and noradrenaline.

Disclosures

The study received support from the German Research Foundation (DFG). The authors have no reported conflicts of interest.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Topline

A new study provides early evidence of sex differences in rapid effects of stress systems on the cognitive control of negative emotions.

Methodology

• The study included 80 healthy participants, mean age 24 years.
• Half the subjects immersed their nondominant hand (including the wrist) in ice water for up to 3 minutes; the other half, which served as the control group, immersed their hand in warm water for 3 minutes.
• Participants were asked to deliberately downregulate emotional responses to high-intensity negative pictures.
• Participants regularly provided saliva samples to check cortisol levels and were monitored for cardiovascular activity.
• Researchers assessed pupil dilation, which along with subject ratings of their affective state served as emotion regulation (ER) outcome measures.

Takeaway

• In men, stress rapidly improved the ability to downregulate emotional arousal via distraction that was fully mediated by cortisol.
• In women, sympathetic nervous system (SNS) reactivity was linked to decreased regulatory performances.
• Direct stress effects on ER were smaller than expected.

In practice

The study contributes to a “better understanding of the neuroendocrinological mechanisms of stress effects on ER that may help to develop adequate preventive and curative interventions of stress- and emotion-related disorders,” the researchers write.

Source

The study was conducted by Katja Langer, Valerie Jentsch, and Oliver Wolf from the Department of Cognitive Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). It was published in the May 2023 issue of Psychoneuroendocrinology.

Limitations

The results have some inconsistencies. The ER paradigm is somewhat artificial and not fully comparable with emotional trigger and regulatory requirements in everyday life. The study did not directly assess levels of catecholamines such as adrenaline and noradrenaline.

Disclosures

The study received support from the German Research Foundation (DFG). The authors have no reported conflicts of interest.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Topline

A new study provides early evidence of sex differences in rapid effects of stress systems on the cognitive control of negative emotions.

Methodology

• The study included 80 healthy participants, mean age 24 years.
• Half the subjects immersed their nondominant hand (including the wrist) in ice water for up to 3 minutes; the other half, which served as the control group, immersed their hand in warm water for 3 minutes.
• Participants were asked to deliberately downregulate emotional responses to high-intensity negative pictures.
• Participants regularly provided saliva samples to check cortisol levels and were monitored for cardiovascular activity.
• Researchers assessed pupil dilation, which along with subject ratings of their affective state served as emotion regulation (ER) outcome measures.

Takeaway

• In men, stress rapidly improved the ability to downregulate emotional arousal via distraction that was fully mediated by cortisol.
• In women, sympathetic nervous system (SNS) reactivity was linked to decreased regulatory performances.
• Direct stress effects on ER were smaller than expected.

In practice

The study contributes to a “better understanding of the neuroendocrinological mechanisms of stress effects on ER that may help to develop adequate preventive and curative interventions of stress- and emotion-related disorders,” the researchers write.

Source

The study was conducted by Katja Langer, Valerie Jentsch, and Oliver Wolf from the Department of Cognitive Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). It was published in the May 2023 issue of Psychoneuroendocrinology.

Limitations

The results have some inconsistencies. The ER paradigm is somewhat artificial and not fully comparable with emotional trigger and regulatory requirements in everyday life. The study did not directly assess levels of catecholamines such as adrenaline and noradrenaline.

Disclosures

The study received support from the German Research Foundation (DFG). The authors have no reported conflicts of interest.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In a move that raises the stakes in doctors’ ongoing scope-creep battle against nonphysician providers, the American Medical Association’s legislative body voted recently to change its policy on the supervision of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). AMA’s House of Delegates called for state medical boards to regulate APRNs in addition to nursing boards.

The AMA has long claimed that nonphysician providers, such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), need greater oversight because expanded scope of practice for advanced practice practitioners threatens patient safety and undermines the physician-led team model.

APRNs have been touted as a solution to expand access to care and reduce disparities, especially in rural and underserved communities, and they have been promoted by organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine. But the AMA disputes that scope expansions are necessary to increase access to care.

The organization that represents the nation’s physicians said in a prepared statement that it opposes scope expansions because removing doctors from the care team results in higher costs to the patient and lower quality care.

Several nursing organizations swiftly criticized the policy recommendation, including the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.

The policy shift would create more administrative burdens for APRNs and generate “a downstream effect that only hurts patients,” particularly those in underserved communities without timely access to care, ANA president Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, NEA-BC, told this news organization.  

“The licensing and regulation of APRNs have never required the oversight of state medical boards,” she said, adding that it should remain the obligation of nursing regulatory bodies.

Jon Fanning, MS, CAE, CNED, chief executive officer of the AANP, called the AMA proposal “flawed.”

“The restrictive involvement of the board of medicine directly contributes to health care access challenges, resulting in continued low health care rankings, geographic disparities in care, and unnecessary regulatory cost in these states,” he said in a press release.

Still, the AMA has vowed to #StopScopeCreep. Securing stricter practice guidelines was a central theme of the association’s recent annual meeting and a goal of its plan to strengthen the physician workforce. The organization invests heavily in advocacy and education efforts to defeat state bills seeking to extend APRN authority. To that end, the AMA Scope of Practice Partnership, a coalition of over 100 medical associations, has awarded members $3.5 million in grants to combat scope-expansion legislation.

The AMA and the American College of Radiology recently partnered to create advocacy materials, including handouts encouraging patients to ask questions such as: “Will a physician be reviewing my chart, lab results, x-rays, and other tests?”

The policy recommendation comes as concerns mount over the potential for significant physician shortages, fueled partly by older physicians’ retirements and doctors reducing hours or exiting the workforce due to pandemic fatigue and burnout.

While practice regulations vary by state, a new federal bill could change that by broadening the authority of APRNs under Medicare and Medicaid guidelines. Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in April and supported by the ANA, the Improving Care and Access to Nurses Act would allow APRNs to perform more procedures, including cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation and certification of terminal illness for hospice, according to an ANA press release.

In the meantime, several state legislatures are considering bills that would expand APRN scope of practice. Utah is the latest to join a growing list of states – about half now – offering full practice authority to NPs.

Other states offer a reduced scope of practice for APRNs, typically requiring a collaborative agreement with a supervising physician. The remaining states enforce tighter regulations and physician oversight.

A recent Medscape survey found that most physicians report having a good rapport with NPs but many have mixed feelings about giving them expanded practice roles, with one-third saying it would harm patient care. Feelings were only slightly more favorable toward PAs. However, about 75% of patients were either neutral or supportive of independent practice for NPs and PAs.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a move that raises the stakes in doctors’ ongoing scope-creep battle against nonphysician providers, the American Medical Association’s legislative body voted recently to change its policy on the supervision of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). AMA’s House of Delegates called for state medical boards to regulate APRNs in addition to nursing boards.

The AMA has long claimed that nonphysician providers, such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), need greater oversight because expanded scope of practice for advanced practice practitioners threatens patient safety and undermines the physician-led team model.

APRNs have been touted as a solution to expand access to care and reduce disparities, especially in rural and underserved communities, and they have been promoted by organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine. But the AMA disputes that scope expansions are necessary to increase access to care.

The organization that represents the nation’s physicians said in a prepared statement that it opposes scope expansions because removing doctors from the care team results in higher costs to the patient and lower quality care.

Several nursing organizations swiftly criticized the policy recommendation, including the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.

The policy shift would create more administrative burdens for APRNs and generate “a downstream effect that only hurts patients,” particularly those in underserved communities without timely access to care, ANA president Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, NEA-BC, told this news organization.  

“The licensing and regulation of APRNs have never required the oversight of state medical boards,” she said, adding that it should remain the obligation of nursing regulatory bodies.

Jon Fanning, MS, CAE, CNED, chief executive officer of the AANP, called the AMA proposal “flawed.”

“The restrictive involvement of the board of medicine directly contributes to health care access challenges, resulting in continued low health care rankings, geographic disparities in care, and unnecessary regulatory cost in these states,” he said in a press release.

Still, the AMA has vowed to #StopScopeCreep. Securing stricter practice guidelines was a central theme of the association’s recent annual meeting and a goal of its plan to strengthen the physician workforce. The organization invests heavily in advocacy and education efforts to defeat state bills seeking to extend APRN authority. To that end, the AMA Scope of Practice Partnership, a coalition of over 100 medical associations, has awarded members $3.5 million in grants to combat scope-expansion legislation.

The AMA and the American College of Radiology recently partnered to create advocacy materials, including handouts encouraging patients to ask questions such as: “Will a physician be reviewing my chart, lab results, x-rays, and other tests?”

The policy recommendation comes as concerns mount over the potential for significant physician shortages, fueled partly by older physicians’ retirements and doctors reducing hours or exiting the workforce due to pandemic fatigue and burnout.

While practice regulations vary by state, a new federal bill could change that by broadening the authority of APRNs under Medicare and Medicaid guidelines. Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in April and supported by the ANA, the Improving Care and Access to Nurses Act would allow APRNs to perform more procedures, including cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation and certification of terminal illness for hospice, according to an ANA press release.

In the meantime, several state legislatures are considering bills that would expand APRN scope of practice. Utah is the latest to join a growing list of states – about half now – offering full practice authority to NPs.

Other states offer a reduced scope of practice for APRNs, typically requiring a collaborative agreement with a supervising physician. The remaining states enforce tighter regulations and physician oversight.

A recent Medscape survey found that most physicians report having a good rapport with NPs but many have mixed feelings about giving them expanded practice roles, with one-third saying it would harm patient care. Feelings were only slightly more favorable toward PAs. However, about 75% of patients were either neutral or supportive of independent practice for NPs and PAs.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a move that raises the stakes in doctors’ ongoing scope-creep battle against nonphysician providers, the American Medical Association’s legislative body voted recently to change its policy on the supervision of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). AMA’s House of Delegates called for state medical boards to regulate APRNs in addition to nursing boards.

The AMA has long claimed that nonphysician providers, such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), need greater oversight because expanded scope of practice for advanced practice practitioners threatens patient safety and undermines the physician-led team model.

APRNs have been touted as a solution to expand access to care and reduce disparities, especially in rural and underserved communities, and they have been promoted by organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine. But the AMA disputes that scope expansions are necessary to increase access to care.

The organization that represents the nation’s physicians said in a prepared statement that it opposes scope expansions because removing doctors from the care team results in higher costs to the patient and lower quality care.

Several nursing organizations swiftly criticized the policy recommendation, including the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.

The policy shift would create more administrative burdens for APRNs and generate “a downstream effect that only hurts patients,” particularly those in underserved communities without timely access to care, ANA president Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, NEA-BC, told this news organization.  

“The licensing and regulation of APRNs have never required the oversight of state medical boards,” she said, adding that it should remain the obligation of nursing regulatory bodies.

Jon Fanning, MS, CAE, CNED, chief executive officer of the AANP, called the AMA proposal “flawed.”

“The restrictive involvement of the board of medicine directly contributes to health care access challenges, resulting in continued low health care rankings, geographic disparities in care, and unnecessary regulatory cost in these states,” he said in a press release.

Still, the AMA has vowed to #StopScopeCreep. Securing stricter practice guidelines was a central theme of the association’s recent annual meeting and a goal of its plan to strengthen the physician workforce. The organization invests heavily in advocacy and education efforts to defeat state bills seeking to extend APRN authority. To that end, the AMA Scope of Practice Partnership, a coalition of over 100 medical associations, has awarded members $3.5 million in grants to combat scope-expansion legislation.

The AMA and the American College of Radiology recently partnered to create advocacy materials, including handouts encouraging patients to ask questions such as: “Will a physician be reviewing my chart, lab results, x-rays, and other tests?”

The policy recommendation comes as concerns mount over the potential for significant physician shortages, fueled partly by older physicians’ retirements and doctors reducing hours or exiting the workforce due to pandemic fatigue and burnout.

While practice regulations vary by state, a new federal bill could change that by broadening the authority of APRNs under Medicare and Medicaid guidelines. Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in April and supported by the ANA, the Improving Care and Access to Nurses Act would allow APRNs to perform more procedures, including cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation and certification of terminal illness for hospice, according to an ANA press release.

In the meantime, several state legislatures are considering bills that would expand APRN scope of practice. Utah is the latest to join a growing list of states – about half now – offering full practice authority to NPs.

Other states offer a reduced scope of practice for APRNs, typically requiring a collaborative agreement with a supervising physician. The remaining states enforce tighter regulations and physician oversight.

A recent Medscape survey found that most physicians report having a good rapport with NPs but many have mixed feelings about giving them expanded practice roles, with one-third saying it would harm patient care. Feelings were only slightly more favorable toward PAs. However, about 75% of patients were either neutral or supportive of independent practice for NPs and PAs.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Coffee’s ability to boost alertness is commonly attributed to caffeine, but new research suggests there may be other underlying mechanisms that explain this effect.

“There is a widespread anticipation that coffee boosts alertness and psychomotor performance. By gaining a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying this biological phenomenon, we pave the way for investigating the factors that can influence it and even exploring the potential advantages of those mechanisms,” study investigator Nuno Sousa, MD, PhD, with the University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, said in a statement.

The study was published online in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience.
 

Caffeine can’t take all the credit

Certain compounds in coffee, including caffeine and chlorogenic acids, have well-documented psychoactive effects, but the psychological impact of coffee/caffeine consumption as a whole remains a matter of debate.

The researchers investigated the neurobiological impact of coffee drinking on brain connectivity using resting-state functional MRI (fMRI).

They recruited 47 generally healthy adults (mean age, 30 years; 31 women) who regularly drank a minimum of one cup of coffee per day. Participants refrained from eating or drinking caffeinated beverages for at least 3 hours prior to undergoing fMRI.

To tease out the specific impact of caffeinated coffee intake, 30 habitual coffee drinkers (mean age, 32 years; 27 women) were given hot water containing the same amount of caffeine, but they were not given coffee.

The investigators conducted two fMRI scans – one before, and one 30 minutes after drinking coffee or caffeine-infused water.

Both drinking coffee and drinking plain caffeine in water led to a decrease in functional connectivity of the brain’s default mode network, which is typically active during self-reflection in resting states.

This finding suggests that consuming either coffee or caffeine heightened individuals’ readiness to transition from a state of rest to engaging in task-related activities, the researchers noted.

However, drinking a cup of coffee also boosted connectivity in the higher visual network and the right executive control network, which are linked to working memory, cognitive control, and goal-directed behavior – something that did not occur from drinking caffeinated water.

“Put simply, individuals exhibited a heightened state of preparedness, being more responsive and attentive to external stimuli after drinking coffee,” said first author Maria Picó-Pérez, PhD, with the University of Minho.

Given that some of the effects of coffee also occurred with caffeine alone, it’s “plausible to assume that other caffeinated beverages may share similar effects,” she added.

Still, certain effects were specific to coffee drinking, “likely influenced by factors such as the distinct aroma and taste of coffee or the psychological expectations associated with consuming this particular beverage,” the researcher wrote.

The investigators report that the observations could provide a scientific foundation for the common belief that coffee increases alertness and cognitive functioning. Further research is needed to differentiate the effects of caffeine from the overall experience of drinking coffee.

A limitation of the study is the absence of a nondrinker control sample (to rule out the withdrawal effect) or an alternative group that consumed decaffeinated coffee (to rule out the placebo effect of coffee intake) – something that should be considered in future studies, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the Institute for the Scientific Information on Coffee. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Coffee’s ability to boost alertness is commonly attributed to caffeine, but new research suggests there may be other underlying mechanisms that explain this effect.

“There is a widespread anticipation that coffee boosts alertness and psychomotor performance. By gaining a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying this biological phenomenon, we pave the way for investigating the factors that can influence it and even exploring the potential advantages of those mechanisms,” study investigator Nuno Sousa, MD, PhD, with the University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, said in a statement.

The study was published online in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience.
 

Caffeine can’t take all the credit

Certain compounds in coffee, including caffeine and chlorogenic acids, have well-documented psychoactive effects, but the psychological impact of coffee/caffeine consumption as a whole remains a matter of debate.

The researchers investigated the neurobiological impact of coffee drinking on brain connectivity using resting-state functional MRI (fMRI).

They recruited 47 generally healthy adults (mean age, 30 years; 31 women) who regularly drank a minimum of one cup of coffee per day. Participants refrained from eating or drinking caffeinated beverages for at least 3 hours prior to undergoing fMRI.

To tease out the specific impact of caffeinated coffee intake, 30 habitual coffee drinkers (mean age, 32 years; 27 women) were given hot water containing the same amount of caffeine, but they were not given coffee.

The investigators conducted two fMRI scans – one before, and one 30 minutes after drinking coffee or caffeine-infused water.

Both drinking coffee and drinking plain caffeine in water led to a decrease in functional connectivity of the brain’s default mode network, which is typically active during self-reflection in resting states.

This finding suggests that consuming either coffee or caffeine heightened individuals’ readiness to transition from a state of rest to engaging in task-related activities, the researchers noted.

However, drinking a cup of coffee also boosted connectivity in the higher visual network and the right executive control network, which are linked to working memory, cognitive control, and goal-directed behavior – something that did not occur from drinking caffeinated water.

“Put simply, individuals exhibited a heightened state of preparedness, being more responsive and attentive to external stimuli after drinking coffee,” said first author Maria Picó-Pérez, PhD, with the University of Minho.

Given that some of the effects of coffee also occurred with caffeine alone, it’s “plausible to assume that other caffeinated beverages may share similar effects,” she added.

Still, certain effects were specific to coffee drinking, “likely influenced by factors such as the distinct aroma and taste of coffee or the psychological expectations associated with consuming this particular beverage,” the researcher wrote.

The investigators report that the observations could provide a scientific foundation for the common belief that coffee increases alertness and cognitive functioning. Further research is needed to differentiate the effects of caffeine from the overall experience of drinking coffee.

A limitation of the study is the absence of a nondrinker control sample (to rule out the withdrawal effect) or an alternative group that consumed decaffeinated coffee (to rule out the placebo effect of coffee intake) – something that should be considered in future studies, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the Institute for the Scientific Information on Coffee. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Coffee’s ability to boost alertness is commonly attributed to caffeine, but new research suggests there may be other underlying mechanisms that explain this effect.

“There is a widespread anticipation that coffee boosts alertness and psychomotor performance. By gaining a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying this biological phenomenon, we pave the way for investigating the factors that can influence it and even exploring the potential advantages of those mechanisms,” study investigator Nuno Sousa, MD, PhD, with the University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, said in a statement.

The study was published online in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience.
 

Caffeine can’t take all the credit

Certain compounds in coffee, including caffeine and chlorogenic acids, have well-documented psychoactive effects, but the psychological impact of coffee/caffeine consumption as a whole remains a matter of debate.

The researchers investigated the neurobiological impact of coffee drinking on brain connectivity using resting-state functional MRI (fMRI).

They recruited 47 generally healthy adults (mean age, 30 years; 31 women) who regularly drank a minimum of one cup of coffee per day. Participants refrained from eating or drinking caffeinated beverages for at least 3 hours prior to undergoing fMRI.

To tease out the specific impact of caffeinated coffee intake, 30 habitual coffee drinkers (mean age, 32 years; 27 women) were given hot water containing the same amount of caffeine, but they were not given coffee.

The investigators conducted two fMRI scans – one before, and one 30 minutes after drinking coffee or caffeine-infused water.

Both drinking coffee and drinking plain caffeine in water led to a decrease in functional connectivity of the brain’s default mode network, which is typically active during self-reflection in resting states.

This finding suggests that consuming either coffee or caffeine heightened individuals’ readiness to transition from a state of rest to engaging in task-related activities, the researchers noted.

However, drinking a cup of coffee also boosted connectivity in the higher visual network and the right executive control network, which are linked to working memory, cognitive control, and goal-directed behavior – something that did not occur from drinking caffeinated water.

“Put simply, individuals exhibited a heightened state of preparedness, being more responsive and attentive to external stimuli after drinking coffee,” said first author Maria Picó-Pérez, PhD, with the University of Minho.

Given that some of the effects of coffee also occurred with caffeine alone, it’s “plausible to assume that other caffeinated beverages may share similar effects,” she added.

Still, certain effects were specific to coffee drinking, “likely influenced by factors such as the distinct aroma and taste of coffee or the psychological expectations associated with consuming this particular beverage,” the researcher wrote.

The investigators report that the observations could provide a scientific foundation for the common belief that coffee increases alertness and cognitive functioning. Further research is needed to differentiate the effects of caffeine from the overall experience of drinking coffee.

A limitation of the study is the absence of a nondrinker control sample (to rule out the withdrawal effect) or an alternative group that consumed decaffeinated coffee (to rule out the placebo effect of coffee intake) – something that should be considered in future studies, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the Institute for the Scientific Information on Coffee. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Investigators have developed and validated a new risk calculator to help predict death by suicide in the 6-12 months after an episode of nonfatal self-harm, new research shows.

A study led by Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, University of Oxford, England, suggests the Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-harm (OxSATS) may help guide treatment decisions and target resources to those most in need, the researchers note.

“Many tools use only simple high/low categories, whereas OxSATS includes probability scores, which align more closely with risk calculators in cardiovascular medicine, such as the Framingham Risk Score, and prognostic models in cancer medicine, which provide 5-year survival probabilities. This potentially allows OxSATS to inform clinical decision-making more directly,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
 

Targeted tool

Self-harm is associated with a 1-year risk of suicide that is 20 times higher than that of the general population. Given that about 16 million people self-harm annually, the impact at a population level is potentially quite large, the researchers note.

Current structured approaches to gauge suicide risk among those who have engaged in self-harm are based on tools developed for other purposes and symptom checklists. “Their poor to moderate performance is therefore not unexpected,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

In contrast, OxSATS was specifically developed to predict suicide mortality after self-harm.

Dr. Fazel’s group evaluated data on 53,172 Swedish individuals aged 10 years and older who sought emergency medical care after episodes of self-harm.

The development cohort included 37,523 individuals. Of these, 391 died by suicide within 12 months. The validation cohort included 15,649 individuals; of these people, 178 died by suicide within 12 months.

The final OxSATS model includes 11 predictors related to age and sex, as well as variables related to substance misuse, mental health, and treatment and history of self-harm.

“The performance of the model in external validation was good, with c-index at 6 and 12 months of 0.77,” the researchers note.

Using a cutoff threshold of 1%, the OxSATS correctly identified 68% of those who died by suicide within 6 months, while 71% of those who didn’t die were correctly classified as being at low risk. The figures for risk prediction at 12 months were 82% and 54%, respectively.

The OxSATS has been made into a simple online tool with probability scores for suicide at 6 and 12 months after an episode of self-harm, but without linkage to interventions. A tool on its own is unlikely to improve outcomes, said Dr. Fazel.

“However,” he added, “it can improve consistency in the assessment process, especially in busy clinical settings where people from different professional backgrounds and experience undertake such assessments. It can also highlight the role of modifiable risk factors and provide an opportunity to transparently discuss risk with patients and their carers.”
 

Valuable work

Reached for comment, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that this is a “very solid study with a very large sample size and solid statistical analysis.”

Another strength of the research is the outcome of suicide death versus suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. “In that respect, it is a valuable paper,” Dr. Galynker, who directs the Mount Sinai Beth Israel Suicide Research Laboratory, told this news organization.

He noted that there are no new risk factors in the model. Rather, the model contains the typical risk factors for suicide, which include male sex, substance misuse, past suicide attempt, and psychiatric diagnosis.

“The strongest risk factor in the model is self-harm by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation, which has been shown before and is therefore unsurprising,” said Dr. Galynker.

In general, the risk factors included in the model are often part of administrative tools for suicide risk assessment, said Dr. Galynker, but the OxSATS “seems easier to use because it has 11 items only.”

Broadly speaking, individuals with mental illness and past suicide attempt, past self-harm, alcohol use, and other risk factors “should be treated proactively with suicide prevention measures,” he told this news organization.

As previously reported, Dr. Galynker and colleagues have developed the Abbreviated Suicide Crisis Syndrome Checklist (A-SCS-C), a novel tool to help identify which suicidal patients who present to the emergency department should be admitted to hospital and which patients can be safely discharged.

Funding for the study was provided by Wellcome Trust and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Fazel and Dr. Galynker have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Investigators have developed and validated a new risk calculator to help predict death by suicide in the 6-12 months after an episode of nonfatal self-harm, new research shows.

A study led by Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, University of Oxford, England, suggests the Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-harm (OxSATS) may help guide treatment decisions and target resources to those most in need, the researchers note.

“Many tools use only simple high/low categories, whereas OxSATS includes probability scores, which align more closely with risk calculators in cardiovascular medicine, such as the Framingham Risk Score, and prognostic models in cancer medicine, which provide 5-year survival probabilities. This potentially allows OxSATS to inform clinical decision-making more directly,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
 

Targeted tool

Self-harm is associated with a 1-year risk of suicide that is 20 times higher than that of the general population. Given that about 16 million people self-harm annually, the impact at a population level is potentially quite large, the researchers note.

Current structured approaches to gauge suicide risk among those who have engaged in self-harm are based on tools developed for other purposes and symptom checklists. “Their poor to moderate performance is therefore not unexpected,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

In contrast, OxSATS was specifically developed to predict suicide mortality after self-harm.

Dr. Fazel’s group evaluated data on 53,172 Swedish individuals aged 10 years and older who sought emergency medical care after episodes of self-harm.

The development cohort included 37,523 individuals. Of these, 391 died by suicide within 12 months. The validation cohort included 15,649 individuals; of these people, 178 died by suicide within 12 months.

The final OxSATS model includes 11 predictors related to age and sex, as well as variables related to substance misuse, mental health, and treatment and history of self-harm.

“The performance of the model in external validation was good, with c-index at 6 and 12 months of 0.77,” the researchers note.

Using a cutoff threshold of 1%, the OxSATS correctly identified 68% of those who died by suicide within 6 months, while 71% of those who didn’t die were correctly classified as being at low risk. The figures for risk prediction at 12 months were 82% and 54%, respectively.

The OxSATS has been made into a simple online tool with probability scores for suicide at 6 and 12 months after an episode of self-harm, but without linkage to interventions. A tool on its own is unlikely to improve outcomes, said Dr. Fazel.

“However,” he added, “it can improve consistency in the assessment process, especially in busy clinical settings where people from different professional backgrounds and experience undertake such assessments. It can also highlight the role of modifiable risk factors and provide an opportunity to transparently discuss risk with patients and their carers.”
 

Valuable work

Reached for comment, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that this is a “very solid study with a very large sample size and solid statistical analysis.”

Another strength of the research is the outcome of suicide death versus suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. “In that respect, it is a valuable paper,” Dr. Galynker, who directs the Mount Sinai Beth Israel Suicide Research Laboratory, told this news organization.

He noted that there are no new risk factors in the model. Rather, the model contains the typical risk factors for suicide, which include male sex, substance misuse, past suicide attempt, and psychiatric diagnosis.

“The strongest risk factor in the model is self-harm by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation, which has been shown before and is therefore unsurprising,” said Dr. Galynker.

In general, the risk factors included in the model are often part of administrative tools for suicide risk assessment, said Dr. Galynker, but the OxSATS “seems easier to use because it has 11 items only.”

Broadly speaking, individuals with mental illness and past suicide attempt, past self-harm, alcohol use, and other risk factors “should be treated proactively with suicide prevention measures,” he told this news organization.

As previously reported, Dr. Galynker and colleagues have developed the Abbreviated Suicide Crisis Syndrome Checklist (A-SCS-C), a novel tool to help identify which suicidal patients who present to the emergency department should be admitted to hospital and which patients can be safely discharged.

Funding for the study was provided by Wellcome Trust and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Fazel and Dr. Galynker have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Investigators have developed and validated a new risk calculator to help predict death by suicide in the 6-12 months after an episode of nonfatal self-harm, new research shows.

A study led by Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, University of Oxford, England, suggests the Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-harm (OxSATS) may help guide treatment decisions and target resources to those most in need, the researchers note.

“Many tools use only simple high/low categories, whereas OxSATS includes probability scores, which align more closely with risk calculators in cardiovascular medicine, such as the Framingham Risk Score, and prognostic models in cancer medicine, which provide 5-year survival probabilities. This potentially allows OxSATS to inform clinical decision-making more directly,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
 

Targeted tool

Self-harm is associated with a 1-year risk of suicide that is 20 times higher than that of the general population. Given that about 16 million people self-harm annually, the impact at a population level is potentially quite large, the researchers note.

Current structured approaches to gauge suicide risk among those who have engaged in self-harm are based on tools developed for other purposes and symptom checklists. “Their poor to moderate performance is therefore not unexpected,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

In contrast, OxSATS was specifically developed to predict suicide mortality after self-harm.

Dr. Fazel’s group evaluated data on 53,172 Swedish individuals aged 10 years and older who sought emergency medical care after episodes of self-harm.

The development cohort included 37,523 individuals. Of these, 391 died by suicide within 12 months. The validation cohort included 15,649 individuals; of these people, 178 died by suicide within 12 months.

The final OxSATS model includes 11 predictors related to age and sex, as well as variables related to substance misuse, mental health, and treatment and history of self-harm.

“The performance of the model in external validation was good, with c-index at 6 and 12 months of 0.77,” the researchers note.

Using a cutoff threshold of 1%, the OxSATS correctly identified 68% of those who died by suicide within 6 months, while 71% of those who didn’t die were correctly classified as being at low risk. The figures for risk prediction at 12 months were 82% and 54%, respectively.

The OxSATS has been made into a simple online tool with probability scores for suicide at 6 and 12 months after an episode of self-harm, but without linkage to interventions. A tool on its own is unlikely to improve outcomes, said Dr. Fazel.

“However,” he added, “it can improve consistency in the assessment process, especially in busy clinical settings where people from different professional backgrounds and experience undertake such assessments. It can also highlight the role of modifiable risk factors and provide an opportunity to transparently discuss risk with patients and their carers.”
 

Valuable work

Reached for comment, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that this is a “very solid study with a very large sample size and solid statistical analysis.”

Another strength of the research is the outcome of suicide death versus suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. “In that respect, it is a valuable paper,” Dr. Galynker, who directs the Mount Sinai Beth Israel Suicide Research Laboratory, told this news organization.

He noted that there are no new risk factors in the model. Rather, the model contains the typical risk factors for suicide, which include male sex, substance misuse, past suicide attempt, and psychiatric diagnosis.

“The strongest risk factor in the model is self-harm by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation, which has been shown before and is therefore unsurprising,” said Dr. Galynker.

In general, the risk factors included in the model are often part of administrative tools for suicide risk assessment, said Dr. Galynker, but the OxSATS “seems easier to use because it has 11 items only.”

Broadly speaking, individuals with mental illness and past suicide attempt, past self-harm, alcohol use, and other risk factors “should be treated proactively with suicide prevention measures,” he told this news organization.

As previously reported, Dr. Galynker and colleagues have developed the Abbreviated Suicide Crisis Syndrome Checklist (A-SCS-C), a novel tool to help identify which suicidal patients who present to the emergency department should be admitted to hospital and which patients can be safely discharged.

Funding for the study was provided by Wellcome Trust and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Fazel and Dr. Galynker have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

Mothers with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are more likely to have adverse pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes than are those without the disorder, according to new research.

In an observational study that followed almost 3 million pregnancies in two countries over 20 years, children of women with OCD were at increased risk for low Apgar score at 5 minutes in Sweden (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.62) and British Columbia, Canada (aRR, 2.30). The risks for adverse outcomes were greater among women with OCD who were taking serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs), compared with those who were not.

“To me, the most relevant things to consider are the clinical implications of these findings,” lead author Lorena Fernández de la Cruz, PhD, principal researcher at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, told this news organization. She noted that some of the outcomes, such as preeclampsia, can be prevented or improved with collaboration among clinicians and increased monitoring.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Increased risk

OCD affects roughly 1%-3% of the population. Although it is sometimes seen as a mild psychiatric disorder, OCD entails a range of adverse outcomes, and this research suggests that the adverse outcomes extend to maternal health, Dr. Fernández de la Cruz stressed.

The researchers drew data from population registers in Sweden and British Columbia for all singleton births over a roughly 20-year period ending in 2019, with subcohorts identified by formal OCD diagnosis and exposure to SRIs within 30 days before conception. Statistical analyses were performed on a range of pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes.

In an analysis adjusted for common risk factors such as age, BMI, and smoking, Swedish women with OCD had elevated risk for several adverse outcomes, including a 40% increased risk for gestational diabetes. In British Columbia, fewer adverse pregnancy outcomes for women were associated with an OCD diagnosis.

The study, which also tracked neonatal outcomes, found that infants of mothers with OCD in both Sweden and British Columbia had higher rates of preterm birth (Sweden: aRR, 1.33; BC: aRR, 1.58), low birth weight (Sweden: aRR, 1.28; BC: aRR, 1.40), and neonatal respiratory distress (Sweden: aRR, 1.63; BC: aRR, 1.47).

These results, the authors say, show a need for more monitoring of maternal OCD and collaboration among obstetricians and psychologists. “All this evidence shows that OCD should be detected and treated so that adverse outcomes can be prevented or properly handled,” said Dr. Fernández de la Cruz.
 

SRI medication

SRIs are frequently used to treat OCD. The subclass of selective SRIs, which includes common antidepressants, has been associated with worsened pregnancy outcomes, but it remains unclear whether all SRIs increase pregnancy risks.

To understand the role of SRIs better in this study, the authors compared the outcomes for women taking SRIs and those who were not prescribed the medication, which is a novel aspect of the study, according to Dr. Fernández de la Cruz. Women who took the medication were at greater risk for several adverse outcomes, although all women with an OCD diagnosis were at higher risk than were those without the condition. The investigators hope to continue studying the role of OCD medication during pregnancy in more detail.

The rates of SRI use varied between the two cohorts: 81% of Canadian patients took the medication, compared with 37% of Swedish patients. The disparate rates, along with other clinical practices, may have contributed to differences in outcomes for the two cohorts.

It is also important to bear in mind, however, that patients taking the medication tend to have more severe cases of OCD, said Dr. Fernández de la Cruz. Thus, the increased risk may or may not result from the medication itself. “It is important to understand that there may be other variables besides medication explaining why one group had higher risks than the other,” she said.
 

‘Multifactorial’ reasons

In addition to medication, other factors may play a role in the association between OCD and adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, including genetics, lifestyle, and psychiatric comorbidities. The authors addressed some of these potential confounders in additional analyses, including sister and cousin comparisons in the Swedish arm of the study, which found weakened associations, compared with population wide statistics.

Commenting on the research, Benicio Frey, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., said that acknowledging these confounding factors is a strength of the study. Psychiatric conditions such as depression and anxiety are common among patients with OCD. Of the patients with OCD in this study, 72% and 51% had other psychiatric diagnoses in Sweden and British Columbia, respectively. About 7% of the women without OCD had one of these conditions.

However, Dr. Frey said that the effect of adjusting for psychiatric comorbidities on some outcomes should be stated more clearly. “I see a clear difference,” he said. The relative risk for gestational diabetes among the Swedish cohort, for example, drops from a 40% increased risk to 19% increased when adjusted for mood and anxiety disorders. 

Regardless of the cause, the results are important and demonstrate a need to provide additional care for pregnant women with psychiatric conditions, said Dr. Frey. “The important take-home message for policymakers and health care providers is to make sure that they assess for OCD and then monitor those individuals very closely. What I would suggest as a caution is that the reasons behind it are multifactorial.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr. Fernández de la Cruz and Dr. Frey reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Mothers with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are more likely to have adverse pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes than are those without the disorder, according to new research.

In an observational study that followed almost 3 million pregnancies in two countries over 20 years, children of women with OCD were at increased risk for low Apgar score at 5 minutes in Sweden (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.62) and British Columbia, Canada (aRR, 2.30). The risks for adverse outcomes were greater among women with OCD who were taking serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs), compared with those who were not.

“To me, the most relevant things to consider are the clinical implications of these findings,” lead author Lorena Fernández de la Cruz, PhD, principal researcher at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, told this news organization. She noted that some of the outcomes, such as preeclampsia, can be prevented or improved with collaboration among clinicians and increased monitoring.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Increased risk

OCD affects roughly 1%-3% of the population. Although it is sometimes seen as a mild psychiatric disorder, OCD entails a range of adverse outcomes, and this research suggests that the adverse outcomes extend to maternal health, Dr. Fernández de la Cruz stressed.

The researchers drew data from population registers in Sweden and British Columbia for all singleton births over a roughly 20-year period ending in 2019, with subcohorts identified by formal OCD diagnosis and exposure to SRIs within 30 days before conception. Statistical analyses were performed on a range of pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes.

In an analysis adjusted for common risk factors such as age, BMI, and smoking, Swedish women with OCD had elevated risk for several adverse outcomes, including a 40% increased risk for gestational diabetes. In British Columbia, fewer adverse pregnancy outcomes for women were associated with an OCD diagnosis.

The study, which also tracked neonatal outcomes, found that infants of mothers with OCD in both Sweden and British Columbia had higher rates of preterm birth (Sweden: aRR, 1.33; BC: aRR, 1.58), low birth weight (Sweden: aRR, 1.28; BC: aRR, 1.40), and neonatal respiratory distress (Sweden: aRR, 1.63; BC: aRR, 1.47).

These results, the authors say, show a need for more monitoring of maternal OCD and collaboration among obstetricians and psychologists. “All this evidence shows that OCD should be detected and treated so that adverse outcomes can be prevented or properly handled,” said Dr. Fernández de la Cruz.
 

SRI medication

SRIs are frequently used to treat OCD. The subclass of selective SRIs, which includes common antidepressants, has been associated with worsened pregnancy outcomes, but it remains unclear whether all SRIs increase pregnancy risks.

To understand the role of SRIs better in this study, the authors compared the outcomes for women taking SRIs and those who were not prescribed the medication, which is a novel aspect of the study, according to Dr. Fernández de la Cruz. Women who took the medication were at greater risk for several adverse outcomes, although all women with an OCD diagnosis were at higher risk than were those without the condition. The investigators hope to continue studying the role of OCD medication during pregnancy in more detail.

The rates of SRI use varied between the two cohorts: 81% of Canadian patients took the medication, compared with 37% of Swedish patients. The disparate rates, along with other clinical practices, may have contributed to differences in outcomes for the two cohorts.

It is also important to bear in mind, however, that patients taking the medication tend to have more severe cases of OCD, said Dr. Fernández de la Cruz. Thus, the increased risk may or may not result from the medication itself. “It is important to understand that there may be other variables besides medication explaining why one group had higher risks than the other,” she said.
 

‘Multifactorial’ reasons

In addition to medication, other factors may play a role in the association between OCD and adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, including genetics, lifestyle, and psychiatric comorbidities. The authors addressed some of these potential confounders in additional analyses, including sister and cousin comparisons in the Swedish arm of the study, which found weakened associations, compared with population wide statistics.

Commenting on the research, Benicio Frey, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., said that acknowledging these confounding factors is a strength of the study. Psychiatric conditions such as depression and anxiety are common among patients with OCD. Of the patients with OCD in this study, 72% and 51% had other psychiatric diagnoses in Sweden and British Columbia, respectively. About 7% of the women without OCD had one of these conditions.

However, Dr. Frey said that the effect of adjusting for psychiatric comorbidities on some outcomes should be stated more clearly. “I see a clear difference,” he said. The relative risk for gestational diabetes among the Swedish cohort, for example, drops from a 40% increased risk to 19% increased when adjusted for mood and anxiety disorders. 

Regardless of the cause, the results are important and demonstrate a need to provide additional care for pregnant women with psychiatric conditions, said Dr. Frey. “The important take-home message for policymakers and health care providers is to make sure that they assess for OCD and then monitor those individuals very closely. What I would suggest as a caution is that the reasons behind it are multifactorial.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr. Fernández de la Cruz and Dr. Frey reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Mothers with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are more likely to have adverse pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes than are those without the disorder, according to new research.

In an observational study that followed almost 3 million pregnancies in two countries over 20 years, children of women with OCD were at increased risk for low Apgar score at 5 minutes in Sweden (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.62) and British Columbia, Canada (aRR, 2.30). The risks for adverse outcomes were greater among women with OCD who were taking serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs), compared with those who were not.

“To me, the most relevant things to consider are the clinical implications of these findings,” lead author Lorena Fernández de la Cruz, PhD, principal researcher at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, told this news organization. She noted that some of the outcomes, such as preeclampsia, can be prevented or improved with collaboration among clinicians and increased monitoring.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Increased risk

OCD affects roughly 1%-3% of the population. Although it is sometimes seen as a mild psychiatric disorder, OCD entails a range of adverse outcomes, and this research suggests that the adverse outcomes extend to maternal health, Dr. Fernández de la Cruz stressed.

The researchers drew data from population registers in Sweden and British Columbia for all singleton births over a roughly 20-year period ending in 2019, with subcohorts identified by formal OCD diagnosis and exposure to SRIs within 30 days before conception. Statistical analyses were performed on a range of pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes.

In an analysis adjusted for common risk factors such as age, BMI, and smoking, Swedish women with OCD had elevated risk for several adverse outcomes, including a 40% increased risk for gestational diabetes. In British Columbia, fewer adverse pregnancy outcomes for women were associated with an OCD diagnosis.

The study, which also tracked neonatal outcomes, found that infants of mothers with OCD in both Sweden and British Columbia had higher rates of preterm birth (Sweden: aRR, 1.33; BC: aRR, 1.58), low birth weight (Sweden: aRR, 1.28; BC: aRR, 1.40), and neonatal respiratory distress (Sweden: aRR, 1.63; BC: aRR, 1.47).

These results, the authors say, show a need for more monitoring of maternal OCD and collaboration among obstetricians and psychologists. “All this evidence shows that OCD should be detected and treated so that adverse outcomes can be prevented or properly handled,” said Dr. Fernández de la Cruz.
 

SRI medication

SRIs are frequently used to treat OCD. The subclass of selective SRIs, which includes common antidepressants, has been associated with worsened pregnancy outcomes, but it remains unclear whether all SRIs increase pregnancy risks.

To understand the role of SRIs better in this study, the authors compared the outcomes for women taking SRIs and those who were not prescribed the medication, which is a novel aspect of the study, according to Dr. Fernández de la Cruz. Women who took the medication were at greater risk for several adverse outcomes, although all women with an OCD diagnosis were at higher risk than were those without the condition. The investigators hope to continue studying the role of OCD medication during pregnancy in more detail.

The rates of SRI use varied between the two cohorts: 81% of Canadian patients took the medication, compared with 37% of Swedish patients. The disparate rates, along with other clinical practices, may have contributed to differences in outcomes for the two cohorts.

It is also important to bear in mind, however, that patients taking the medication tend to have more severe cases of OCD, said Dr. Fernández de la Cruz. Thus, the increased risk may or may not result from the medication itself. “It is important to understand that there may be other variables besides medication explaining why one group had higher risks than the other,” she said.
 

‘Multifactorial’ reasons

In addition to medication, other factors may play a role in the association between OCD and adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, including genetics, lifestyle, and psychiatric comorbidities. The authors addressed some of these potential confounders in additional analyses, including sister and cousin comparisons in the Swedish arm of the study, which found weakened associations, compared with population wide statistics.

Commenting on the research, Benicio Frey, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., said that acknowledging these confounding factors is a strength of the study. Psychiatric conditions such as depression and anxiety are common among patients with OCD. Of the patients with OCD in this study, 72% and 51% had other psychiatric diagnoses in Sweden and British Columbia, respectively. About 7% of the women without OCD had one of these conditions.

However, Dr. Frey said that the effect of adjusting for psychiatric comorbidities on some outcomes should be stated more clearly. “I see a clear difference,” he said. The relative risk for gestational diabetes among the Swedish cohort, for example, drops from a 40% increased risk to 19% increased when adjusted for mood and anxiety disorders. 

Regardless of the cause, the results are important and demonstrate a need to provide additional care for pregnant women with psychiatric conditions, said Dr. Frey. “The important take-home message for policymakers and health care providers is to make sure that they assess for OCD and then monitor those individuals very closely. What I would suggest as a caution is that the reasons behind it are multifactorial.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr. Fernández de la Cruz and Dr. Frey reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.