Commentary

In 1975, Julia and Joseph Quinlan approached the administrator of St. Clare’s Hospital in Denville, New Jersey, and requested that the mechanical ventilator on which their adopted daughter, Karen, was dependent be turned off. Karen Ann Quinlan, 21 years old, was in a permanent vegetative state after a severe anoxic event, and her parents had been informed by the hospital’s medical staff that she would never regain consciousness.

See related article

To the Quinlans’ request to withdraw the ventilator, the hospital administrator replied, “You have to understand our position, Mrs. Quinlan. In this hospital we don’t kill people.”¹

The administrator’s response was consistent with prevailing ethical and legal perspectives, analyses, and directives at that time related to discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment. In the mid-1970s, the American Medical Association’s position was that it was permissible to not put a patient on a ventilator (ie, a physician could withhold a life-sustaining treatment), but once a patient was on a ventilator, it was not permissible to take the patient off if the intention was to allow death to occur.¹ However, the New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately found this distinction between withholding and withdrawing unconvincing, and ruled unanimously that Karen Quinlan’s ventilator could be turned off.²

THE HASTINGS CENTER REPORT: STOPPING IS THE SAME AS NOT STARTING

During the subsequent decade, further ethical analysis and additional legal cases resulted in new insights and more nuanced thinking about forgoing life-sustaining treatment.

These developments were summarized in a 1987 report by the Hastings Center,³ a leading bioethics research and policy institute. The report provided normative guidance for the termination of life-sustaining treatment and for the care of dying patients. It acknowledged that deciding not to start a life-sustaining treatment can emotionally and psychologically affect healthcare professionals differently than deciding to stop such a treatment. However, the report also asserted that there is no morally important difference between withholding and withdrawing such treatments.

There is no ethical requirement that treatment, once started, must continue against the patient’s wishes

Reflecting a partnership model between patients and professionals for healthcare decision-making, and affirming the ethical significance of both a burden-benefit analysis and patient autonomy, the report stated that when a patient or surrogate in collaboration with a responsible healthcare professional decides that a treatment under way and the life it supports have become more burdensome than beneficial to the patient, that is sufficient reason to stop. There is no ethical requirement that treatment, once initiated, must continue against the patient’s wishes or when the surrogate determines that it is more burdensome than beneficial from the patient’s perspective. In fact, imposing treatment in such circumstances violates the patient’s right to self-determination.³

The report noted further that, because of frequent uncertainty about the efficacy of proposed treatments, it is preferable to initiate time-limited trials of treatments and then later stop them if they prove ineffective or become overly burdensome from a patient’s perspective.

ICDs ARE LIKE OTHER LIFE-SUSTAINING THERAPIES

In this issue of Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Baibars et al⁴ address the question of how implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) should be managed at the end of life. The historical events and developments recounted above regarding withdrawing life-sustaining technologies are an appropriate context for ethically assessing the management of ICDs for dying patients.

ICDs are not ventilators, but like ventilators, they are a life-sustaining therapy

Obviously, ICDs are not ventilators, but like ventilators, they are life-sustaining therapy, as are dialysis machines, blood transfusions, medically supplied nutrition and hydration, ventricular assist devices, and other implantable electronic cardiac devices such as pacemakers. Each of these life-sustaining therapies, depending on a patient’s clinical condition, underlying illness, and comorbidities, can become a death-prolonging technology.

An ethical framework and analysis about whether to continue any life-sustaining therapy, including an ICD, must include an assessment of the benefit-to-burden ratio from the patient’s perspective. Does the therapy enhance or maintain a quality of life acceptable to the patient? Or has it become overly burdensome and does it maintain a quality of life the patient finds (or would find) unacceptable? If the latter is true, and especially in the context of an underlying terminal condition, then shifting the goals of care to focus on comfort is always appropriate and ethically justified. Treatments—including ICDs—that do not contribute to patient comfort should be withdrawn.

TOWARD COMPETENCY IN ETHICAL MANAGEMENT

Baibars et al note that much more needs to be done to enhance competencies, increase proficiencies, and mitigate the moral distress of healthcare professionals caring for dying patients with ICDs and other devices. To help clinicians achieve a personal and professional “comfort zone” for ethically managing patients with ICDs, we recommend that healthcare institutions, medical schools, and nursing schools take the following steps:

Develop comprehensive end-of-life policies, procedures, and protocols that incorporate specific guidance for managing cardiac devices and that have been endorsed by a hospital ethics committee. Such guidance can be informative and educational and can ensure that decisions and resulting actions (including stopping cardiac devices) are ethically supportable.

Provide more palliative care training in medical and nursing schools, residency programs, and continuing education activities so that front-line clinicians can deliver “basic,” “primary” palliative care not requiring specialty palliative medicine. This training, called for in the Institute of Medicine’s 2014 report, Dying in America,⁵ should include explicit ethics discussions about managing cardiac devices at the end of life.

Provide ongoing training in communication skills needed for all patient-professional encounters. Effectively engaging patients in goals-of-care discussions, especially patients with life-limiting illnesses such as heart failure, cannot be achieved without these skills.

In 1975, Julia and Joseph Quinlan approached the administrator of St. Clare’s Hospital in Denville, New Jersey, and requested that the mechanical ventilator on which their adopted daughter, Karen, was dependent be turned off. Karen Ann Quinlan, 21 years old, was in a permanent vegetative state after a severe anoxic event, and her parents had been informed by the hospital’s medical staff that she would never regain consciousness.

See related article

To the Quinlans’ request to withdraw the ventilator, the hospital administrator replied, “You have to understand our position, Mrs. Quinlan. In this hospital we don’t kill people.”¹

The administrator’s response was consistent with prevailing ethical and legal perspectives, analyses, and directives at that time related to discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment. In the mid-1970s, the American Medical Association’s position was that it was permissible to not put a patient on a ventilator (ie, a physician could withhold a life-sustaining treatment), but once a patient was on a ventilator, it was not permissible to take the patient off if the intention was to allow death to occur.¹ However, the New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately found this distinction between withholding and withdrawing unconvincing, and ruled unanimously that Karen Quinlan’s ventilator could be turned off.²

THE HASTINGS CENTER REPORT: STOPPING IS THE SAME AS NOT STARTING

During the subsequent decade, further ethical analysis and additional legal cases resulted in new insights and more nuanced thinking about forgoing life-sustaining treatment.

These developments were summarized in a 1987 report by the Hastings Center,³ a leading bioethics research and policy institute. The report provided normative guidance for the termination of life-sustaining treatment and for the care of dying patients. It acknowledged that deciding not to start a life-sustaining treatment can emotionally and psychologically affect healthcare professionals differently than deciding to stop such a treatment. However, the report also asserted that there is no morally important difference between withholding and withdrawing such treatments.

There is no ethical requirement that treatment, once started, must continue against the patient’s wishes

Reflecting a partnership model between patients and professionals for healthcare decision-making, and affirming the ethical significance of both a burden-benefit analysis and patient autonomy, the report stated that when a patient or surrogate in collaboration with a responsible healthcare professional decides that a treatment under way and the life it supports have become more burdensome than beneficial to the patient, that is sufficient reason to stop. There is no ethical requirement that treatment, once initiated, must continue against the patient’s wishes or when the surrogate determines that it is more burdensome than beneficial from the patient’s perspective. In fact, imposing treatment in such circumstances violates the patient’s right to self-determination.³

The report noted further that, because of frequent uncertainty about the efficacy of proposed treatments, it is preferable to initiate time-limited trials of treatments and then later stop them if they prove ineffective or become overly burdensome from a patient’s perspective.

ICDs ARE LIKE OTHER LIFE-SUSTAINING THERAPIES

In this issue of Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Baibars et al⁴ address the question of how implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) should be managed at the end of life. The historical events and developments recounted above regarding withdrawing life-sustaining technologies are an appropriate context for ethically assessing the management of ICDs for dying patients.

ICDs are not ventilators, but like ventilators, they are a life-sustaining therapy

Obviously, ICDs are not ventilators, but like ventilators, they are life-sustaining therapy, as are dialysis machines, blood transfusions, medically supplied nutrition and hydration, ventricular assist devices, and other implantable electronic cardiac devices such as pacemakers. Each of these life-sustaining therapies, depending on a patient’s clinical condition, underlying illness, and comorbidities, can become a death-prolonging technology.

An ethical framework and analysis about whether to continue any life-sustaining therapy, including an ICD, must include an assessment of the benefit-to-burden ratio from the patient’s perspective. Does the therapy enhance or maintain a quality of life acceptable to the patient? Or has it become overly burdensome and does it maintain a quality of life the patient finds (or would find) unacceptable? If the latter is true, and especially in the context of an underlying terminal condition, then shifting the goals of care to focus on comfort is always appropriate and ethically justified. Treatments—including ICDs—that do not contribute to patient comfort should be withdrawn.

TOWARD COMPETENCY IN ETHICAL MANAGEMENT

Baibars et al note that much more needs to be done to enhance competencies, increase proficiencies, and mitigate the moral distress of healthcare professionals caring for dying patients with ICDs and other devices. To help clinicians achieve a personal and professional “comfort zone” for ethically managing patients with ICDs, we recommend that healthcare institutions, medical schools, and nursing schools take the following steps:

Develop comprehensive end-of-life policies, procedures, and protocols that incorporate specific guidance for managing cardiac devices and that have been endorsed by a hospital ethics committee. Such guidance can be informative and educational and can ensure that decisions and resulting actions (including stopping cardiac devices) are ethically supportable.

Provide more palliative care training in medical and nursing schools, residency programs, and continuing education activities so that front-line clinicians can deliver “basic,” “primary” palliative care not requiring specialty palliative medicine. This training, called for in the Institute of Medicine’s 2014 report, Dying in America,⁵ should include explicit ethics discussions about managing cardiac devices at the end of life.

Provide ongoing training in communication skills needed for all patient-professional encounters. Effectively engaging patients in goals-of-care discussions, especially patients with life-limiting illnesses such as heart failure, cannot be achieved without these skills.

In 1975, Julia and Joseph Quinlan approached the administrator of St. Clare’s Hospital in Denville, New Jersey, and requested that the mechanical ventilator on which their adopted daughter, Karen, was dependent be turned off. Karen Ann Quinlan, 21 years old, was in a permanent vegetative state after a severe anoxic event, and her parents had been informed by the hospital’s medical staff that she would never regain consciousness.

See related article

To the Quinlans’ request to withdraw the ventilator, the hospital administrator replied, “You have to understand our position, Mrs. Quinlan. In this hospital we don’t kill people.”¹

The administrator’s response was consistent with prevailing ethical and legal perspectives, analyses, and directives at that time related to discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment. In the mid-1970s, the American Medical Association’s position was that it was permissible to not put a patient on a ventilator (ie, a physician could withhold a life-sustaining treatment), but once a patient was on a ventilator, it was not permissible to take the patient off if the intention was to allow death to occur.¹ However, the New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately found this distinction between withholding and withdrawing unconvincing, and ruled unanimously that Karen Quinlan’s ventilator could be turned off.²

THE HASTINGS CENTER REPORT: STOPPING IS THE SAME AS NOT STARTING

During the subsequent decade, further ethical analysis and additional legal cases resulted in new insights and more nuanced thinking about forgoing life-sustaining treatment.

These developments were summarized in a 1987 report by the Hastings Center,³ a leading bioethics research and policy institute. The report provided normative guidance for the termination of life-sustaining treatment and for the care of dying patients. It acknowledged that deciding not to start a life-sustaining treatment can emotionally and psychologically affect healthcare professionals differently than deciding to stop such a treatment. However, the report also asserted that there is no morally important difference between withholding and withdrawing such treatments.

There is no ethical requirement that treatment, once started, must continue against the patient’s wishes

Reflecting a partnership model between patients and professionals for healthcare decision-making, and affirming the ethical significance of both a burden-benefit analysis and patient autonomy, the report stated that when a patient or surrogate in collaboration with a responsible healthcare professional decides that a treatment under way and the life it supports have become more burdensome than beneficial to the patient, that is sufficient reason to stop. There is no ethical requirement that treatment, once initiated, must continue against the patient’s wishes or when the surrogate determines that it is more burdensome than beneficial from the patient’s perspective. In fact, imposing treatment in such circumstances violates the patient’s right to self-determination.³

The report noted further that, because of frequent uncertainty about the efficacy of proposed treatments, it is preferable to initiate time-limited trials of treatments and then later stop them if they prove ineffective or become overly burdensome from a patient’s perspective.

ICDs ARE LIKE OTHER LIFE-SUSTAINING THERAPIES

In this issue of Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Baibars et al⁴ address the question of how implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) should be managed at the end of life. The historical events and developments recounted above regarding withdrawing life-sustaining technologies are an appropriate context for ethically assessing the management of ICDs for dying patients.

ICDs are not ventilators, but like ventilators, they are a life-sustaining therapy

Obviously, ICDs are not ventilators, but like ventilators, they are life-sustaining therapy, as are dialysis machines, blood transfusions, medically supplied nutrition and hydration, ventricular assist devices, and other implantable electronic cardiac devices such as pacemakers. Each of these life-sustaining therapies, depending on a patient’s clinical condition, underlying illness, and comorbidities, can become a death-prolonging technology.

An ethical framework and analysis about whether to continue any life-sustaining therapy, including an ICD, must include an assessment of the benefit-to-burden ratio from the patient’s perspective. Does the therapy enhance or maintain a quality of life acceptable to the patient? Or has it become overly burdensome and does it maintain a quality of life the patient finds (or would find) unacceptable? If the latter is true, and especially in the context of an underlying terminal condition, then shifting the goals of care to focus on comfort is always appropriate and ethically justified. Treatments—including ICDs—that do not contribute to patient comfort should be withdrawn.

TOWARD COMPETENCY IN ETHICAL MANAGEMENT

Baibars et al note that much more needs to be done to enhance competencies, increase proficiencies, and mitigate the moral distress of healthcare professionals caring for dying patients with ICDs and other devices. To help clinicians achieve a personal and professional “comfort zone” for ethically managing patients with ICDs, we recommend that healthcare institutions, medical schools, and nursing schools take the following steps:

Develop comprehensive end-of-life policies, procedures, and protocols that incorporate specific guidance for managing cardiac devices and that have been endorsed by a hospital ethics committee. Such guidance can be informative and educational and can ensure that decisions and resulting actions (including stopping cardiac devices) are ethically supportable.

Provide more palliative care training in medical and nursing schools, residency programs, and continuing education activities so that front-line clinicians can deliver “basic,” “primary” palliative care not requiring specialty palliative medicine. This training, called for in the Institute of Medicine’s 2014 report, Dying in America,⁵ should include explicit ethics discussions about managing cardiac devices at the end of life.

Provide ongoing training in communication skills needed for all patient-professional encounters. Effectively engaging patients in goals-of-care discussions, especially patients with life-limiting illnesses such as heart failure, cannot be achieved without these skills.

Suicidal behavior is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States,1 and active-duty and reserve military personnel and veterans account for nearly 18% of suicide deaths.² By one estimate, as many as 22 veterans die by suicide each day.³ These rates are thought to be due to a higher incidence of mental illness in certain veteran populations relative to the general population.^4–8 Consequently, a number of mental health services are available to veterans in a variety of clinical and community settings.

See related commentary

Chaplains and clinicians bring complementary skills and services to the problem of suicide risk among veterans. In particular, helping at-risk veterans deal with experiences of guilt is an opportunity for interdisciplinary collaboration. Available literature supports the potential utility of chaplaincy services in supporting at-risk veteran populations.^9–15

But while most healthcare facilities have chaplains on staff, there is little information to guide any such collaboration. Further, healthcare providers appear to have a limited understanding of chaplaincy services, the “language” within which chaplains operate, or the roles chaplains play in healthcare settings.¹⁶

In the following discussion, using the example of experiences of guilt, we offer our insights and suggestions on how chaplaincy services may prove useful in alleviating this complex emotion in veterans at risk of suicide.

BENEFITS OF TALKING TO A CHAPLAIN

By one estimate, as many as 22 veterans die by suicide each day

Collaboration between healthcare providers and pastoral care professionals has been suggested as a means of enhancing the treatment of patients with mental illness.^17,18 Chaplains draw from a variety of faith traditions and are usually trained to respond to the needs of people from a variety of religious and spiritual backgrounds. They provide some non-faith­based services (eg, crisis intervention, life review, bereavement counseling) resembling those also provided in formal mental healthcare settings.¹⁹ By facilitating religious and spiritual coping and religious practice and responding to religious and spiritual needs, chaplains also offer a level of support not typically offered by formal mental healthcare providers.²⁰

Veterans at risk of suicide sometimes look to pastoral care providers, particularly chaplains, for mental health support.^9,10 Research on the effects of chaplaincy services on suicidal behavior is just beginning to emerge.¹⁵ Still, the US Department of Health and Human Services has recognized pastoral care services as having a “beneficial and therapeutic effect on the medical condition of a patient.”¹¹

For example, in one study, hospital inpatients reported higher satisfaction if they had been visited by a chaplain.¹² Chaplains help align treatment plans with patient values and wishes.¹³ In another study,¹⁴ patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting who were randomized to receive five visits from a chaplain were found to have a higher rate of positive religious coping (eg, forgiveness, letting go of anger). Positive religious coping has been correlated with lower levels of psychological stress and better mental health outcomes.

EXPERIENCING GUILT IS LINKED TO RISK OF SUICIDE

Suicidal behavior is complex, multifaceted, and linked to genetic, neurologic, psychological, social, and cultural factors.²¹

Assessing for and addressing certain complex emotions, such as guilt and shame, is an important part of suicide prevention efforts. Guilt is defined as a “controllable psychological state that is typically linked to a specific action or behavior, and which entails regret or remorse.”²²

Close to 75% of veterans who had thought about suicide said they frequently experienced guilt

Guilt has been linked to risk of suicide in veterans.^23–25 In one study, close to 75% of veterans who had thought about suicide said they frequently experienced guilt about having violated the precepts of their faith group, family, God, life, or the military.²⁶

Such findings suggest that the sense of guilt experienced by some at-risk veterans may be grounded in a variety of contexts. For example, faith communities that place a strong emphasis on obedience to moral, ethical, and religious precepts may contribute to the experience of guilt unless balanced by a message of grace or favor from a benevolent God or deity. Without this balance, engaging in activities that are not fully sanctioned by one’s faith community may lead to guilt.

Families might also contribute to veterans’ experiences of guilt by placing unrealistic expectations on them. And the family environment may not be conducive to resolving feelings of guilt in veterans, harboring resentment and antipathies and making it very difficult to alleviate any ensuing sense of distress.

CLINICIAN’S ROLE IN ASSESSING GUILT

In addressing and assessing guilt in veterans at risk of suicide, clinicians should try to recognize the source and clinical implications of this emotion.

Recognize the source of guilt

Guilt may indicate a clinical disorder such as a mood disorder (eg, major depression).²⁷ Mood disorders significantly increase the risk of suicidal behavior.^28,29

Beyond diagnosing a clinical disorder, prescribing pharmacotherapy, and referring for mental healthcare services, recognizing the source of this emotion remains an important part of addressing a patient’s experience of guilt. Especially when associated with a clinical disorder, guilt is often irrational and excessive and does not appropriately reflect the experience or situation in question.

Case conceptualization, defined as “synthesizing the patient’s experience with relevant clinical theory and research,”³⁰ can be used to understand the context in which the guilt-inducing action or behavior occurred and the veteran’s own interpretation of his or her actions. Understanding the source of the patient’s guilt could be used to plan treatment and resolve any underlying sense of distress.

As with other negative emotions, the affective component of guilt is often the result of cognitive distortions made as the person tries to make sense of what has occurred or to reconcile beliefs of right and wrong with the guilt-inducing behavior.³¹ The common cognitive errors associated with guilt include:

• Hindsight bias (a belief that one should have known what was going to happen as a result of one’s actions)
• Responsibility distortion (a belief that one’s actions directly caused an adverse event)
• Justification distortion (a belief that one’s actions were not justified by the situation)
• Wrongdoing distortion (a belief that one violated one’s own standards of right and wrong).³¹

Cognitive therapy to counter cognitive distortions

A variety of clinical options exist to help veterans manage and resolve guilt.

Mood disorders significantly increase the risk of suicidal behavior

Cognitive therapy can counter the cognitive distortions that drive feelings of guilt. The goal is to guide patients to examine the evidence, process the event, and realize that their behavior was appropriate for the given situation. Cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure therapy have both been shown to decrease trauma-related guilt, though cognitive processing therapy was found to be better at decreasing guilt that arose from cognitive distortions.³²

Guilt and suicide ideation have also been associated with a belief that one’s actions constituted an unforgivable sin.³³ Responding to these inherently religious-spiritual cognitive distortions may be beyond the scope of expertise for many healthcare professionals. In such cases, it may be prudent to consider complementing clinical services with pastoral care. It follows that pastoral care services should only be provided if the veteran voices a desire and readiness for them. The clinician and chaplain can then work together to provide coordinated care to best meet the patient’s needs, to address the experience of guilt, and to alleviate the sense of distress.

A CHAPLAIN’S PERSPECTIVE ON GUILT

A prominent feature of pastoral practice is  helping people, including at-risk veterans, resolve feelings of guilt regardless of the context on which the emotion is founded (eg, religion, shame).¹⁰ For many people, guilt is an impenetrable barrier, preventing resolution of whatever experience led to a sense of inner turmoil.

Forgiveness

In the context of pastoral care, resolution of guilt is ordinarily tied to a need for forgiveness. There are multiple ways in which forgiveness can be grounded in religious and spiritual contexts.³⁴ Examples include forgiving others (ie, forswearing resentment, anger, or hatred directed toward another person), being forgiven by God or another benevolent deity, and forgiving oneself for violating perceived personal transgressions.³⁵ In some cases, divine forgiveness may be conditional on interpersonal forgiveness.³⁶ Forgiveness is also sometimes seen as a remedy for sin and a way to restore moral order.³⁷

Some people may initially think they can never be forgiven. With time and the weight of one’s experiences, the impossibility of forgiveness can become so ingrained that it becomes a core belief. These core beliefs set up a vicious circle of thoughts and feelings, in which people and places and events from the past are continuously brought forward into the present. Anger and resentment become the steady diet for the tormented self that feels forever powerless over experienced injustices. These relived experiences drive the person into a deep isolation where the self becomes less human—a thing, an object. This experience of losing oneself proves excruciating and often leads to contemplation of suicide as a way to resolve anguish.

Hope emerges

Pastoral care services provide a means to reframe one’s core beliefs, manage and resolve the burden of guilt, and uncover new motivation for living.

The practice of spiritual direction within the discipline of pastoral care listens for these inner movements and encourages the person to give voice to them in his or her own words. No longer limited by a diminished, tormented self, the real self begins to relate to another reality that changes his or her identity, relieves the burden of guilt, and gives reason, purpose, and meaning to life.

Even with this opportunity for a new life, however, cognitive distortions based on a disproportional “faith-based prism” may persist. In this case, clinicians and chaplains must work closely together to reframe old understandings of self and incorrect understandings of religion and spirituality into one that continues to reinforce this newfound sense of hope.³⁸

A VETERAN OF IRAQ WITH SUICIDE IDEATION

The following case illustrates how clinicians and chaplains may be able to work together to help facilitate the resolution of guilt.

A veteran who had served in Iraq had entered the Domiciliary Care Program at a US Department of Veterans Affairs medical center. He reported experiencing problems with guilt, forgiveness, and suicide ideation. A clinical therapeutic program was prescribed after a psychological evaluation uncovered that he was also struggling with depression and posttraumatic stress disorder.

Guilt is often irrational and excessive and does not appropriately reflect the experience or situation

His mental healthcare providers recognized the importance of incorporating a religious-spiritual component into the therapeutic plan, and so consulted with a chaplain to plan a suitable course of action. Specifically, this veteran reported feeling that he could not be forgiven for his military experiences, a feeling that was giving way to alienation and isolation from the God of his faith tradition.

The chaplain helped this veteran reflect on his military experiences, giving him the perspective he needed to view his God as one who truly loves him. He recognized instances in which he could have lost his life had it not been for others who intervened on his behalf at just the right time. This awareness caused him to think about his life differently, challenging him to reframe his relationship with God. Instead of simple coincidences, the veteran began to consider the mystery behind these times and places.

Over time and in keeping with the tenets of his faith tradition, the veteran stated that he was ultimately able to accept and receive God’s love and forgiveness. He now reports that these inner spiritual movements serve as a source of support during occasional relapses into emotional distress. These movements allow him to consider the mystery of his present life and its value based on his experience of his God’s love and forgiveness.

CARE FOR SUICIDE SURVIVORS

The experience of guilt is not limited to veterans. Those bereaved by suicide are also left to manage their own experiences of the loss and ensuing complex emotions. Friends and loved ones who survive a suicide decedent may experience guilt, feeling that they somehow contributed to or failed to prevent the suicide. Such feelings of guilt are hypothesized to lower the threshold for suicidal behavior in those bereaved.³⁹

Guilt and shame are also frequently encountered in survivors of nonfatal suicide attempts.⁴⁰ Chaplaincy services might also prove useful for these individuals.

TIME IS EVERYTHING

Patients who may have an active psychopathology should have their clinical therapeutic needs attended to first. If the clinician deems pastoral care services to be an appropriate complementary support option, care should be taken to select a pastoral care provider who is adequately prepared for this role. Different professional organizations (eg, Association of Professional Chaplains) have established board-certification procedures, minimum education requirements, and supervised practical experience required for chaplaincy certification.

Also, spiritual growth and development remain a core focus of pastoral practice. Clinicians should discontinue any collaboration with pastoral care providers who question an individual’s faith or commitment to his or her faith, or who promote thinking or actions that could be deleterious to the patient’s therapeutic trajectory.

SUMMING UP

We have here presented our perspectives on how chaplaincy services can be used to complement clinical services in support of at-risk veterans struggling with experiences of guilt. Unfortunately, the current level of collaboration between chaplains and clinicians in support of at-risk veteran populations is limited.²⁰ Our hope is that clinicians managing these at-risk patients will develop a greater awareness of how chaplaincy services might be able to help in alleviating experiences of guilt in at-risk veteran populations. A further hope is that such cases will serve as an opportunity for greater interdisciplinary collaboration, benefiting at-risk veterans most in need of support.
 

Acknowledgment: Dr. Rasmussen was supported by the Office of Academic Affiliations, Advanced Fellowship Program in Mental Illness Research and Treatment, US Department of Veterans Affairs, VISN 2 Center of Excellence for Suicide Prevention.

Suicidal behavior is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States,1 and active-duty and reserve military personnel and veterans account for nearly 18% of suicide deaths.² By one estimate, as many as 22 veterans die by suicide each day.³ These rates are thought to be due to a higher incidence of mental illness in certain veteran populations relative to the general population.^4–8 Consequently, a number of mental health services are available to veterans in a variety of clinical and community settings.

See related commentary

Chaplains and clinicians bring complementary skills and services to the problem of suicide risk among veterans. In particular, helping at-risk veterans deal with experiences of guilt is an opportunity for interdisciplinary collaboration. Available literature supports the potential utility of chaplaincy services in supporting at-risk veteran populations.^9–15

But while most healthcare facilities have chaplains on staff, there is little information to guide any such collaboration. Further, healthcare providers appear to have a limited understanding of chaplaincy services, the “language” within which chaplains operate, or the roles chaplains play in healthcare settings.¹⁶

In the following discussion, using the example of experiences of guilt, we offer our insights and suggestions on how chaplaincy services may prove useful in alleviating this complex emotion in veterans at risk of suicide.

BENEFITS OF TALKING TO A CHAPLAIN

By one estimate, as many as 22 veterans die by suicide each day

Collaboration between healthcare providers and pastoral care professionals has been suggested as a means of enhancing the treatment of patients with mental illness.^17,18 Chaplains draw from a variety of faith traditions and are usually trained to respond to the needs of people from a variety of religious and spiritual backgrounds. They provide some non-faith­based services (eg, crisis intervention, life review, bereavement counseling) resembling those also provided in formal mental healthcare settings.¹⁹ By facilitating religious and spiritual coping and religious practice and responding to religious and spiritual needs, chaplains also offer a level of support not typically offered by formal mental healthcare providers.²⁰

Veterans at risk of suicide sometimes look to pastoral care providers, particularly chaplains, for mental health support.^9,10 Research on the effects of chaplaincy services on suicidal behavior is just beginning to emerge.¹⁵ Still, the US Department of Health and Human Services has recognized pastoral care services as having a “beneficial and therapeutic effect on the medical condition of a patient.”¹¹

For example, in one study, hospital inpatients reported higher satisfaction if they had been visited by a chaplain.¹² Chaplains help align treatment plans with patient values and wishes.¹³ In another study,¹⁴ patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting who were randomized to receive five visits from a chaplain were found to have a higher rate of positive religious coping (eg, forgiveness, letting go of anger). Positive religious coping has been correlated with lower levels of psychological stress and better mental health outcomes.

EXPERIENCING GUILT IS LINKED TO RISK OF SUICIDE

Suicidal behavior is complex, multifaceted, and linked to genetic, neurologic, psychological, social, and cultural factors.²¹

Assessing for and addressing certain complex emotions, such as guilt and shame, is an important part of suicide prevention efforts. Guilt is defined as a “controllable psychological state that is typically linked to a specific action or behavior, and which entails regret or remorse.”²²

Close to 75% of veterans who had thought about suicide said they frequently experienced guilt

Guilt has been linked to risk of suicide in veterans.^23–25 In one study, close to 75% of veterans who had thought about suicide said they frequently experienced guilt about having violated the precepts of their faith group, family, God, life, or the military.²⁶

Such findings suggest that the sense of guilt experienced by some at-risk veterans may be grounded in a variety of contexts. For example, faith communities that place a strong emphasis on obedience to moral, ethical, and religious precepts may contribute to the experience of guilt unless balanced by a message of grace or favor from a benevolent God or deity. Without this balance, engaging in activities that are not fully sanctioned by one’s faith community may lead to guilt.

Families might also contribute to veterans’ experiences of guilt by placing unrealistic expectations on them. And the family environment may not be conducive to resolving feelings of guilt in veterans, harboring resentment and antipathies and making it very difficult to alleviate any ensuing sense of distress.

CLINICIAN’S ROLE IN ASSESSING GUILT

In addressing and assessing guilt in veterans at risk of suicide, clinicians should try to recognize the source and clinical implications of this emotion.

Recognize the source of guilt

Guilt may indicate a clinical disorder such as a mood disorder (eg, major depression).²⁷ Mood disorders significantly increase the risk of suicidal behavior.^28,29

Beyond diagnosing a clinical disorder, prescribing pharmacotherapy, and referring for mental healthcare services, recognizing the source of this emotion remains an important part of addressing a patient’s experience of guilt. Especially when associated with a clinical disorder, guilt is often irrational and excessive and does not appropriately reflect the experience or situation in question.

Case conceptualization, defined as “synthesizing the patient’s experience with relevant clinical theory and research,”³⁰ can be used to understand the context in which the guilt-inducing action or behavior occurred and the veteran’s own interpretation of his or her actions. Understanding the source of the patient’s guilt could be used to plan treatment and resolve any underlying sense of distress.

As with other negative emotions, the affective component of guilt is often the result of cognitive distortions made as the person tries to make sense of what has occurred or to reconcile beliefs of right and wrong with the guilt-inducing behavior.³¹ The common cognitive errors associated with guilt include:

• Hindsight bias (a belief that one should have known what was going to happen as a result of one’s actions)
• Responsibility distortion (a belief that one’s actions directly caused an adverse event)
• Justification distortion (a belief that one’s actions were not justified by the situation)
• Wrongdoing distortion (a belief that one violated one’s own standards of right and wrong).³¹

Cognitive therapy to counter cognitive distortions

A variety of clinical options exist to help veterans manage and resolve guilt.

Mood disorders significantly increase the risk of suicidal behavior

Cognitive therapy can counter the cognitive distortions that drive feelings of guilt. The goal is to guide patients to examine the evidence, process the event, and realize that their behavior was appropriate for the given situation. Cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure therapy have both been shown to decrease trauma-related guilt, though cognitive processing therapy was found to be better at decreasing guilt that arose from cognitive distortions.³²

Guilt and suicide ideation have also been associated with a belief that one’s actions constituted an unforgivable sin.³³ Responding to these inherently religious-spiritual cognitive distortions may be beyond the scope of expertise for many healthcare professionals. In such cases, it may be prudent to consider complementing clinical services with pastoral care. It follows that pastoral care services should only be provided if the veteran voices a desire and readiness for them. The clinician and chaplain can then work together to provide coordinated care to best meet the patient’s needs, to address the experience of guilt, and to alleviate the sense of distress.

A CHAPLAIN’S PERSPECTIVE ON GUILT

A prominent feature of pastoral practice is  helping people, including at-risk veterans, resolve feelings of guilt regardless of the context on which the emotion is founded (eg, religion, shame).¹⁰ For many people, guilt is an impenetrable barrier, preventing resolution of whatever experience led to a sense of inner turmoil.

Forgiveness

In the context of pastoral care, resolution of guilt is ordinarily tied to a need for forgiveness. There are multiple ways in which forgiveness can be grounded in religious and spiritual contexts.³⁴ Examples include forgiving others (ie, forswearing resentment, anger, or hatred directed toward another person), being forgiven by God or another benevolent deity, and forgiving oneself for violating perceived personal transgressions.³⁵ In some cases, divine forgiveness may be conditional on interpersonal forgiveness.³⁶ Forgiveness is also sometimes seen as a remedy for sin and a way to restore moral order.³⁷

Some people may initially think they can never be forgiven. With time and the weight of one’s experiences, the impossibility of forgiveness can become so ingrained that it becomes a core belief. These core beliefs set up a vicious circle of thoughts and feelings, in which people and places and events from the past are continuously brought forward into the present. Anger and resentment become the steady diet for the tormented self that feels forever powerless over experienced injustices. These relived experiences drive the person into a deep isolation where the self becomes less human—a thing, an object. This experience of losing oneself proves excruciating and often leads to contemplation of suicide as a way to resolve anguish.

Hope emerges

Pastoral care services provide a means to reframe one’s core beliefs, manage and resolve the burden of guilt, and uncover new motivation for living.

The practice of spiritual direction within the discipline of pastoral care listens for these inner movements and encourages the person to give voice to them in his or her own words. No longer limited by a diminished, tormented self, the real self begins to relate to another reality that changes his or her identity, relieves the burden of guilt, and gives reason, purpose, and meaning to life.

Even with this opportunity for a new life, however, cognitive distortions based on a disproportional “faith-based prism” may persist. In this case, clinicians and chaplains must work closely together to reframe old understandings of self and incorrect understandings of religion and spirituality into one that continues to reinforce this newfound sense of hope.³⁸

A VETERAN OF IRAQ WITH SUICIDE IDEATION

The following case illustrates how clinicians and chaplains may be able to work together to help facilitate the resolution of guilt.

A veteran who had served in Iraq had entered the Domiciliary Care Program at a US Department of Veterans Affairs medical center. He reported experiencing problems with guilt, forgiveness, and suicide ideation. A clinical therapeutic program was prescribed after a psychological evaluation uncovered that he was also struggling with depression and posttraumatic stress disorder.

Guilt is often irrational and excessive and does not appropriately reflect the experience or situation

His mental healthcare providers recognized the importance of incorporating a religious-spiritual component into the therapeutic plan, and so consulted with a chaplain to plan a suitable course of action. Specifically, this veteran reported feeling that he could not be forgiven for his military experiences, a feeling that was giving way to alienation and isolation from the God of his faith tradition.

The chaplain helped this veteran reflect on his military experiences, giving him the perspective he needed to view his God as one who truly loves him. He recognized instances in which he could have lost his life had it not been for others who intervened on his behalf at just the right time. This awareness caused him to think about his life differently, challenging him to reframe his relationship with God. Instead of simple coincidences, the veteran began to consider the mystery behind these times and places.

Over time and in keeping with the tenets of his faith tradition, the veteran stated that he was ultimately able to accept and receive God’s love and forgiveness. He now reports that these inner spiritual movements serve as a source of support during occasional relapses into emotional distress. These movements allow him to consider the mystery of his present life and its value based on his experience of his God’s love and forgiveness.

CARE FOR SUICIDE SURVIVORS

The experience of guilt is not limited to veterans. Those bereaved by suicide are also left to manage their own experiences of the loss and ensuing complex emotions. Friends and loved ones who survive a suicide decedent may experience guilt, feeling that they somehow contributed to or failed to prevent the suicide. Such feelings of guilt are hypothesized to lower the threshold for suicidal behavior in those bereaved.³⁹

Guilt and shame are also frequently encountered in survivors of nonfatal suicide attempts.⁴⁰ Chaplaincy services might also prove useful for these individuals.

TIME IS EVERYTHING

Patients who may have an active psychopathology should have their clinical therapeutic needs attended to first. If the clinician deems pastoral care services to be an appropriate complementary support option, care should be taken to select a pastoral care provider who is adequately prepared for this role. Different professional organizations (eg, Association of Professional Chaplains) have established board-certification procedures, minimum education requirements, and supervised practical experience required for chaplaincy certification.

Also, spiritual growth and development remain a core focus of pastoral practice. Clinicians should discontinue any collaboration with pastoral care providers who question an individual’s faith or commitment to his or her faith, or who promote thinking or actions that could be deleterious to the patient’s therapeutic trajectory.

SUMMING UP

We have here presented our perspectives on how chaplaincy services can be used to complement clinical services in support of at-risk veterans struggling with experiences of guilt. Unfortunately, the current level of collaboration between chaplains and clinicians in support of at-risk veteran populations is limited.²⁰ Our hope is that clinicians managing these at-risk patients will develop a greater awareness of how chaplaincy services might be able to help in alleviating experiences of guilt in at-risk veteran populations. A further hope is that such cases will serve as an opportunity for greater interdisciplinary collaboration, benefiting at-risk veterans most in need of support.
 

Acknowledgment: Dr. Rasmussen was supported by the Office of Academic Affiliations, Advanced Fellowship Program in Mental Illness Research and Treatment, US Department of Veterans Affairs, VISN 2 Center of Excellence for Suicide Prevention.

Suicidal behavior is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States,1 and active-duty and reserve military personnel and veterans account for nearly 18% of suicide deaths.² By one estimate, as many as 22 veterans die by suicide each day.³ These rates are thought to be due to a higher incidence of mental illness in certain veteran populations relative to the general population.^4–8 Consequently, a number of mental health services are available to veterans in a variety of clinical and community settings.

See related commentary

Chaplains and clinicians bring complementary skills and services to the problem of suicide risk among veterans. In particular, helping at-risk veterans deal with experiences of guilt is an opportunity for interdisciplinary collaboration. Available literature supports the potential utility of chaplaincy services in supporting at-risk veteran populations.^9–15

But while most healthcare facilities have chaplains on staff, there is little information to guide any such collaboration. Further, healthcare providers appear to have a limited understanding of chaplaincy services, the “language” within which chaplains operate, or the roles chaplains play in healthcare settings.¹⁶

In the following discussion, using the example of experiences of guilt, we offer our insights and suggestions on how chaplaincy services may prove useful in alleviating this complex emotion in veterans at risk of suicide.

BENEFITS OF TALKING TO A CHAPLAIN

By one estimate, as many as 22 veterans die by suicide each day

Collaboration between healthcare providers and pastoral care professionals has been suggested as a means of enhancing the treatment of patients with mental illness.^17,18 Chaplains draw from a variety of faith traditions and are usually trained to respond to the needs of people from a variety of religious and spiritual backgrounds. They provide some non-faith­based services (eg, crisis intervention, life review, bereavement counseling) resembling those also provided in formal mental healthcare settings.¹⁹ By facilitating religious and spiritual coping and religious practice and responding to religious and spiritual needs, chaplains also offer a level of support not typically offered by formal mental healthcare providers.²⁰

Veterans at risk of suicide sometimes look to pastoral care providers, particularly chaplains, for mental health support.^9,10 Research on the effects of chaplaincy services on suicidal behavior is just beginning to emerge.¹⁵ Still, the US Department of Health and Human Services has recognized pastoral care services as having a “beneficial and therapeutic effect on the medical condition of a patient.”¹¹

For example, in one study, hospital inpatients reported higher satisfaction if they had been visited by a chaplain.¹² Chaplains help align treatment plans with patient values and wishes.¹³ In another study,¹⁴ patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting who were randomized to receive five visits from a chaplain were found to have a higher rate of positive religious coping (eg, forgiveness, letting go of anger). Positive religious coping has been correlated with lower levels of psychological stress and better mental health outcomes.

EXPERIENCING GUILT IS LINKED TO RISK OF SUICIDE

Suicidal behavior is complex, multifaceted, and linked to genetic, neurologic, psychological, social, and cultural factors.²¹

Assessing for and addressing certain complex emotions, such as guilt and shame, is an important part of suicide prevention efforts. Guilt is defined as a “controllable psychological state that is typically linked to a specific action or behavior, and which entails regret or remorse.”²²

Close to 75% of veterans who had thought about suicide said they frequently experienced guilt

Guilt has been linked to risk of suicide in veterans.^23–25 In one study, close to 75% of veterans who had thought about suicide said they frequently experienced guilt about having violated the precepts of their faith group, family, God, life, or the military.²⁶

Such findings suggest that the sense of guilt experienced by some at-risk veterans may be grounded in a variety of contexts. For example, faith communities that place a strong emphasis on obedience to moral, ethical, and religious precepts may contribute to the experience of guilt unless balanced by a message of grace or favor from a benevolent God or deity. Without this balance, engaging in activities that are not fully sanctioned by one’s faith community may lead to guilt.

Families might also contribute to veterans’ experiences of guilt by placing unrealistic expectations on them. And the family environment may not be conducive to resolving feelings of guilt in veterans, harboring resentment and antipathies and making it very difficult to alleviate any ensuing sense of distress.

CLINICIAN’S ROLE IN ASSESSING GUILT

In addressing and assessing guilt in veterans at risk of suicide, clinicians should try to recognize the source and clinical implications of this emotion.

Recognize the source of guilt

Guilt may indicate a clinical disorder such as a mood disorder (eg, major depression).²⁷ Mood disorders significantly increase the risk of suicidal behavior.^28,29

Beyond diagnosing a clinical disorder, prescribing pharmacotherapy, and referring for mental healthcare services, recognizing the source of this emotion remains an important part of addressing a patient’s experience of guilt. Especially when associated with a clinical disorder, guilt is often irrational and excessive and does not appropriately reflect the experience or situation in question.

Case conceptualization, defined as “synthesizing the patient’s experience with relevant clinical theory and research,”³⁰ can be used to understand the context in which the guilt-inducing action or behavior occurred and the veteran’s own interpretation of his or her actions. Understanding the source of the patient’s guilt could be used to plan treatment and resolve any underlying sense of distress.

As with other negative emotions, the affective component of guilt is often the result of cognitive distortions made as the person tries to make sense of what has occurred or to reconcile beliefs of right and wrong with the guilt-inducing behavior.³¹ The common cognitive errors associated with guilt include:

• Hindsight bias (a belief that one should have known what was going to happen as a result of one’s actions)
• Responsibility distortion (a belief that one’s actions directly caused an adverse event)
• Justification distortion (a belief that one’s actions were not justified by the situation)
• Wrongdoing distortion (a belief that one violated one’s own standards of right and wrong).³¹

Cognitive therapy to counter cognitive distortions

A variety of clinical options exist to help veterans manage and resolve guilt.

Mood disorders significantly increase the risk of suicidal behavior

Cognitive therapy can counter the cognitive distortions that drive feelings of guilt. The goal is to guide patients to examine the evidence, process the event, and realize that their behavior was appropriate for the given situation. Cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure therapy have both been shown to decrease trauma-related guilt, though cognitive processing therapy was found to be better at decreasing guilt that arose from cognitive distortions.³²

Guilt and suicide ideation have also been associated with a belief that one’s actions constituted an unforgivable sin.³³ Responding to these inherently religious-spiritual cognitive distortions may be beyond the scope of expertise for many healthcare professionals. In such cases, it may be prudent to consider complementing clinical services with pastoral care. It follows that pastoral care services should only be provided if the veteran voices a desire and readiness for them. The clinician and chaplain can then work together to provide coordinated care to best meet the patient’s needs, to address the experience of guilt, and to alleviate the sense of distress.

A CHAPLAIN’S PERSPECTIVE ON GUILT

A prominent feature of pastoral practice is  helping people, including at-risk veterans, resolve feelings of guilt regardless of the context on which the emotion is founded (eg, religion, shame).¹⁰ For many people, guilt is an impenetrable barrier, preventing resolution of whatever experience led to a sense of inner turmoil.

Forgiveness

In the context of pastoral care, resolution of guilt is ordinarily tied to a need for forgiveness. There are multiple ways in which forgiveness can be grounded in religious and spiritual contexts.³⁴ Examples include forgiving others (ie, forswearing resentment, anger, or hatred directed toward another person), being forgiven by God or another benevolent deity, and forgiving oneself for violating perceived personal transgressions.³⁵ In some cases, divine forgiveness may be conditional on interpersonal forgiveness.³⁶ Forgiveness is also sometimes seen as a remedy for sin and a way to restore moral order.³⁷

Some people may initially think they can never be forgiven. With time and the weight of one’s experiences, the impossibility of forgiveness can become so ingrained that it becomes a core belief. These core beliefs set up a vicious circle of thoughts and feelings, in which people and places and events from the past are continuously brought forward into the present. Anger and resentment become the steady diet for the tormented self that feels forever powerless over experienced injustices. These relived experiences drive the person into a deep isolation where the self becomes less human—a thing, an object. This experience of losing oneself proves excruciating and often leads to contemplation of suicide as a way to resolve anguish.

Hope emerges

Pastoral care services provide a means to reframe one’s core beliefs, manage and resolve the burden of guilt, and uncover new motivation for living.

The practice of spiritual direction within the discipline of pastoral care listens for these inner movements and encourages the person to give voice to them in his or her own words. No longer limited by a diminished, tormented self, the real self begins to relate to another reality that changes his or her identity, relieves the burden of guilt, and gives reason, purpose, and meaning to life.

Even with this opportunity for a new life, however, cognitive distortions based on a disproportional “faith-based prism” may persist. In this case, clinicians and chaplains must work closely together to reframe old understandings of self and incorrect understandings of religion and spirituality into one that continues to reinforce this newfound sense of hope.³⁸

A VETERAN OF IRAQ WITH SUICIDE IDEATION

The following case illustrates how clinicians and chaplains may be able to work together to help facilitate the resolution of guilt.

A veteran who had served in Iraq had entered the Domiciliary Care Program at a US Department of Veterans Affairs medical center. He reported experiencing problems with guilt, forgiveness, and suicide ideation. A clinical therapeutic program was prescribed after a psychological evaluation uncovered that he was also struggling with depression and posttraumatic stress disorder.

Guilt is often irrational and excessive and does not appropriately reflect the experience or situation

His mental healthcare providers recognized the importance of incorporating a religious-spiritual component into the therapeutic plan, and so consulted with a chaplain to plan a suitable course of action. Specifically, this veteran reported feeling that he could not be forgiven for his military experiences, a feeling that was giving way to alienation and isolation from the God of his faith tradition.

The chaplain helped this veteran reflect on his military experiences, giving him the perspective he needed to view his God as one who truly loves him. He recognized instances in which he could have lost his life had it not been for others who intervened on his behalf at just the right time. This awareness caused him to think about his life differently, challenging him to reframe his relationship with God. Instead of simple coincidences, the veteran began to consider the mystery behind these times and places.

Over time and in keeping with the tenets of his faith tradition, the veteran stated that he was ultimately able to accept and receive God’s love and forgiveness. He now reports that these inner spiritual movements serve as a source of support during occasional relapses into emotional distress. These movements allow him to consider the mystery of his present life and its value based on his experience of his God’s love and forgiveness.

CARE FOR SUICIDE SURVIVORS

The experience of guilt is not limited to veterans. Those bereaved by suicide are also left to manage their own experiences of the loss and ensuing complex emotions. Friends and loved ones who survive a suicide decedent may experience guilt, feeling that they somehow contributed to or failed to prevent the suicide. Such feelings of guilt are hypothesized to lower the threshold for suicidal behavior in those bereaved.³⁹

Guilt and shame are also frequently encountered in survivors of nonfatal suicide attempts.⁴⁰ Chaplaincy services might also prove useful for these individuals.

TIME IS EVERYTHING

Patients who may have an active psychopathology should have their clinical therapeutic needs attended to first. If the clinician deems pastoral care services to be an appropriate complementary support option, care should be taken to select a pastoral care provider who is adequately prepared for this role. Different professional organizations (eg, Association of Professional Chaplains) have established board-certification procedures, minimum education requirements, and supervised practical experience required for chaplaincy certification.

Also, spiritual growth and development remain a core focus of pastoral practice. Clinicians should discontinue any collaboration with pastoral care providers who question an individual’s faith or commitment to his or her faith, or who promote thinking or actions that could be deleterious to the patient’s therapeutic trajectory.

SUMMING UP

We have here presented our perspectives on how chaplaincy services can be used to complement clinical services in support of at-risk veterans struggling with experiences of guilt. Unfortunately, the current level of collaboration between chaplains and clinicians in support of at-risk veteran populations is limited.²⁰ Our hope is that clinicians managing these at-risk patients will develop a greater awareness of how chaplaincy services might be able to help in alleviating experiences of guilt in at-risk veteran populations. A further hope is that such cases will serve as an opportunity for greater interdisciplinary collaboration, benefiting at-risk veterans most in need of support.
 

Acknowledgment: Dr. Rasmussen was supported by the Office of Academic Affiliations, Advanced Fellowship Program in Mental Illness Research and Treatment, US Department of Veterans Affairs, VISN 2 Center of Excellence for Suicide Prevention.

In their commentary, Kopacz et al¹ propose that collaboration with professionally trained and certified clinical chaplains provides an opportunity for interdisciplinary care with increased benefit to veterans at risk of suicide. They rightly identify the pivotal issue of guilt as one that falls squarely in the domain of spiritual (or pastoral) care.

See related commentary

As professionals involved in the training of board-certifiable chaplains (and one of us is a veteran), we find that guilt in patients with suicidal tendencies is a profoundly spiritual issue that can be addressed effectively through collaboration among chaplains, physicians, and mental health providers.

Guilt is a serious spiritual condition that can easily be undertreated, or treated under the rubric of depression, which is related but not identical. Undertreatment occurs when caregivers, eager to see the guilt-sufferer experience relief, inadvertently short-circuit the necessary process of working through, rather than around, the guilt. Allowing patients to talk about their feelings of guilt without minimizing those feelings can be helpful even if, as Kopacz et al point out, the feelings are often irrational. We believe that people have an innate need to be truly heard and understood before they can become open to a reinterpretation of their feelings. Only then can the seeds of self-forgiveness begin to take root.

Hearing the words “There is hope for you to feel forgiven” can be more helpful than hearing “You didn’t really do anything bad,” particularly if the patient is religious. Hearing these words from a chaplain is often more effective than hearing them from a lay person, just as many of us take basic health information more seriously when we hear it from a physician. Even if the veteran is not overtly religious, there may be a unique exchange between that person and a religious authority when it concerns the violation of a millennia­old, widely known teaching from the Bible, such as “Thou shalt not kill.”

Guilt in patients with suicidal tendencies is a profoundly spiritual issue

Kopacz et al also rightly suggest that unless religious prohibitions have been balanced with teachings on forgiveness and grace, the teachings can actually exacerbate feelings of guilt and elevate them to harmful proportions, especially in the potentially vulnerable psyche of a veteran who may have been traumatized. If there is no religious or spiritual guidance for balancing prohibitions with graces, the patient may be left to spiral in an unending loop of guilt with no way out.

We therefore propose the following categories for different types (or “shades”) of guilt that can be effectively addressed by chaplains in concert with other members of the healthcare team. For simplicity, we call these types real guilt, survivor guilt, mistaken guilt, and complex-compound guilt.

REAL GUILT

An important role professional chaplains can play is to allow patients (in this case, veterans) to express their remorse and regret for violations of their own moral codes. In many cases, they have in fact hurt or killed another person, and they need the chance to unburden their hearts and spirits, especially if they were taught that killing people is a sin. Veterans who have harmed or killed others, even if under orders, are often left with bona fide feelings of guilt that need to be aired and released in a safe and confidential environment. This is often most effective when done by someone who not only is trained in nonjudgmental and nondirective listening, but also is a religious authority who can assure the patient of his or her innate worthiness and of the ability to be forgiven.

As Kopacz et al note, guilt is linked to a specific action or behavior and usually entails regret or remorse. Many veterans belong to or have had exposure to faith groups with strong moral codes and prohibitions, and so may see the chaplain as having authority to act as confessor and granter of absolution.

SURVIVOR GUILT

Survivor guilt is commonly understood as the feeling of surviving a terrible event or situation while someone else did not. Those who suffer from survivor guilt judge themselves unworthy of survival and believe the deceased to have been more courageous, virtuous, or somehow a better person than they. They torture themselves with ideas of the deceased person’s virtues—imagined or real—and sometimes go on to believe that “It should have been me who was killed.”

The burden of feeling that the wrong person died can be overwhelming. If these people are not helped to see their own worth and helped to find outlets for their sense of having been spared (by God, by their own wits, or by sheer luck), they are likely to struggle more. This is related but not identical to what we  call mistaken guilt. The two types are similar because they share a sense of randomness and helplessness, but they are different for reasons we will explain below.

Chaplains can be particularly effective partners in the care of veterans with survivor guilt, helping them to make meaning out of a life-changing event, rather than find meaning inherently in that event. Meaning, purpose, and “God’s plan for my life” are common themes in the pastoral conversation that can provide a compass for the disoriented survivor.

MISTAKEN GUILT

Mistaken guilt describes when a person who is involved in the death of another but is absolutely blameless—and could not possibly have prevented that death—literally “mis-takes” the guilt upon himself or herself in spite of the facts. Because of the helplessness induced by this feeling, mistaken guilt can be more difficult to treat than other forms. These patients continue to suffer despite assurances that the death occurred through absolutely no fault of their own.²

‘There is hope to feel forgiven’ can be more helpful than ‘You didn’t do anything bad’

Hickling³ has written extensively about this phenomenon in innocent motor vehicle drivers who cause pedestrian deaths, and he considers this type of guilt one of the most difficult to recover from precisely because of the helplessness factor. He has explained that if patients can find a real reason by which they were culpable for what happened, they can change their ways. But if they were absolutely innocent (as in many incidents in training or combat), they often cannot make sense of what happened in a way that allows them to move on because there is nothing they could have done differently and therefore nothing they can change.⁴

These patients almost certainly need long-term intervention such as cognitive behavioral therapy in order to train their mind away from such destructive thoughts. However, they are also very likely to be helped by a chaplain if they find that the event triggers memories of other past infractions of which they may need to unburden themselves (ie, confess).

COMPOUND-COMPLEX GUILT

As the name implies, compound-complex guilt is a combination of the other types and may have additional layers.

Compound-complex guilt leaves sufferers literally feeling guilty for feeling guilty. Though this may border on a genuine clinical disorder, it is also to some degree normal (eg, due to cultural taboos and norms) for people to feel culpable for not being able to “move on” or “forgive themselves” as quickly as others may want them to. Buddhists call this tendency the “second arrow effect.” The first arrow is the feeling of guilt (or other painful feeling) that strikes the individual, but the second arrow is the one he or she drives in afterward by thinking it is wrong or weak to even have the feeling.

Patients who suffer from this type of guilt blame themselves for the conundrum they are in and feel even worse. This is not unlike the vortex of unresolved and complicated grief.

Those who suffer from compound-complex guilt may layer the primary guilt with additional guilt for feeling weak, for needing help, or for asking for help. Especially in the culture of the military, the fear of stigma when asking for help (especially with mental health) is still quite strong. Therefore, chaplains can serve as a less threatening entry point for the veteran needing multiple professionals involved in his or her care.

NONJUDGMENTAL LISTENING

Nonjudgmental listening is essential to get at the source or sources of guilt, regardless of the type, in order to allow the wounds to air out and begin healing. Many veterans suffering from guilt may need intensive pharmacologic and cognitive therapy to fully recover, and care from a chaplain is not a substitute for psychiatric evaluation and treatment, especially if there is a risk of suicide.

However, chaplains may be able to help with the “deep work” of spiritual healing that is part of veterans’ overall recovery. This is true not only because chaplains are especially trained to do this, but also because they are the team members most likely to have uniquely spiritual language to speak to the condition. The language of confession, absolution, repentance, redemption, atonement, and forgiveness is language of the spiritual realm.

In addition, chaplains’ freedom from hourly billing concerns and their often less formalized interactions with patients may help to build trust. Well-trained chaplains, who are often quite gifted at creating an atmosphere of reverence and safety (sanctuary) in the most unlikely situations, are well suited to help the interdisciplinary team treat this vulnerable patient population.

SUGGESTED READING

For more insights into the role of chaplains on the interdisciplinary healthcare team, we recommend the following book: Cadge W. Paging God: Religion in the Halls of Medicine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2012.

In their commentary, Kopacz et al¹ propose that collaboration with professionally trained and certified clinical chaplains provides an opportunity for interdisciplinary care with increased benefit to veterans at risk of suicide. They rightly identify the pivotal issue of guilt as one that falls squarely in the domain of spiritual (or pastoral) care.

See related commentary

As professionals involved in the training of board-certifiable chaplains (and one of us is a veteran), we find that guilt in patients with suicidal tendencies is a profoundly spiritual issue that can be addressed effectively through collaboration among chaplains, physicians, and mental health providers.

Guilt is a serious spiritual condition that can easily be undertreated, or treated under the rubric of depression, which is related but not identical. Undertreatment occurs when caregivers, eager to see the guilt-sufferer experience relief, inadvertently short-circuit the necessary process of working through, rather than around, the guilt. Allowing patients to talk about their feelings of guilt without minimizing those feelings can be helpful even if, as Kopacz et al point out, the feelings are often irrational. We believe that people have an innate need to be truly heard and understood before they can become open to a reinterpretation of their feelings. Only then can the seeds of self-forgiveness begin to take root.

Hearing the words “There is hope for you to feel forgiven” can be more helpful than hearing “You didn’t really do anything bad,” particularly if the patient is religious. Hearing these words from a chaplain is often more effective than hearing them from a lay person, just as many of us take basic health information more seriously when we hear it from a physician. Even if the veteran is not overtly religious, there may be a unique exchange between that person and a religious authority when it concerns the violation of a millennia­old, widely known teaching from the Bible, such as “Thou shalt not kill.”

Guilt in patients with suicidal tendencies is a profoundly spiritual issue

Kopacz et al also rightly suggest that unless religious prohibitions have been balanced with teachings on forgiveness and grace, the teachings can actually exacerbate feelings of guilt and elevate them to harmful proportions, especially in the potentially vulnerable psyche of a veteran who may have been traumatized. If there is no religious or spiritual guidance for balancing prohibitions with graces, the patient may be left to spiral in an unending loop of guilt with no way out.

We therefore propose the following categories for different types (or “shades”) of guilt that can be effectively addressed by chaplains in concert with other members of the healthcare team. For simplicity, we call these types real guilt, survivor guilt, mistaken guilt, and complex-compound guilt.

REAL GUILT

An important role professional chaplains can play is to allow patients (in this case, veterans) to express their remorse and regret for violations of their own moral codes. In many cases, they have in fact hurt or killed another person, and they need the chance to unburden their hearts and spirits, especially if they were taught that killing people is a sin. Veterans who have harmed or killed others, even if under orders, are often left with bona fide feelings of guilt that need to be aired and released in a safe and confidential environment. This is often most effective when done by someone who not only is trained in nonjudgmental and nondirective listening, but also is a religious authority who can assure the patient of his or her innate worthiness and of the ability to be forgiven.

As Kopacz et al note, guilt is linked to a specific action or behavior and usually entails regret or remorse. Many veterans belong to or have had exposure to faith groups with strong moral codes and prohibitions, and so may see the chaplain as having authority to act as confessor and granter of absolution.

SURVIVOR GUILT

Survivor guilt is commonly understood as the feeling of surviving a terrible event or situation while someone else did not. Those who suffer from survivor guilt judge themselves unworthy of survival and believe the deceased to have been more courageous, virtuous, or somehow a better person than they. They torture themselves with ideas of the deceased person’s virtues—imagined or real—and sometimes go on to believe that “It should have been me who was killed.”

The burden of feeling that the wrong person died can be overwhelming. If these people are not helped to see their own worth and helped to find outlets for their sense of having been spared (by God, by their own wits, or by sheer luck), they are likely to struggle more. This is related but not identical to what we  call mistaken guilt. The two types are similar because they share a sense of randomness and helplessness, but they are different for reasons we will explain below.

Chaplains can be particularly effective partners in the care of veterans with survivor guilt, helping them to make meaning out of a life-changing event, rather than find meaning inherently in that event. Meaning, purpose, and “God’s plan for my life” are common themes in the pastoral conversation that can provide a compass for the disoriented survivor.

MISTAKEN GUILT

Mistaken guilt describes when a person who is involved in the death of another but is absolutely blameless—and could not possibly have prevented that death—literally “mis-takes” the guilt upon himself or herself in spite of the facts. Because of the helplessness induced by this feeling, mistaken guilt can be more difficult to treat than other forms. These patients continue to suffer despite assurances that the death occurred through absolutely no fault of their own.²

‘There is hope to feel forgiven’ can be more helpful than ‘You didn’t do anything bad’

Hickling³ has written extensively about this phenomenon in innocent motor vehicle drivers who cause pedestrian deaths, and he considers this type of guilt one of the most difficult to recover from precisely because of the helplessness factor. He has explained that if patients can find a real reason by which they were culpable for what happened, they can change their ways. But if they were absolutely innocent (as in many incidents in training or combat), they often cannot make sense of what happened in a way that allows them to move on because there is nothing they could have done differently and therefore nothing they can change.⁴

These patients almost certainly need long-term intervention such as cognitive behavioral therapy in order to train their mind away from such destructive thoughts. However, they are also very likely to be helped by a chaplain if they find that the event triggers memories of other past infractions of which they may need to unburden themselves (ie, confess).

COMPOUND-COMPLEX GUILT

As the name implies, compound-complex guilt is a combination of the other types and may have additional layers.

Compound-complex guilt leaves sufferers literally feeling guilty for feeling guilty. Though this may border on a genuine clinical disorder, it is also to some degree normal (eg, due to cultural taboos and norms) for people to feel culpable for not being able to “move on” or “forgive themselves” as quickly as others may want them to. Buddhists call this tendency the “second arrow effect.” The first arrow is the feeling of guilt (or other painful feeling) that strikes the individual, but the second arrow is the one he or she drives in afterward by thinking it is wrong or weak to even have the feeling.

Patients who suffer from this type of guilt blame themselves for the conundrum they are in and feel even worse. This is not unlike the vortex of unresolved and complicated grief.

Those who suffer from compound-complex guilt may layer the primary guilt with additional guilt for feeling weak, for needing help, or for asking for help. Especially in the culture of the military, the fear of stigma when asking for help (especially with mental health) is still quite strong. Therefore, chaplains can serve as a less threatening entry point for the veteran needing multiple professionals involved in his or her care.

NONJUDGMENTAL LISTENING

Nonjudgmental listening is essential to get at the source or sources of guilt, regardless of the type, in order to allow the wounds to air out and begin healing. Many veterans suffering from guilt may need intensive pharmacologic and cognitive therapy to fully recover, and care from a chaplain is not a substitute for psychiatric evaluation and treatment, especially if there is a risk of suicide.

However, chaplains may be able to help with the “deep work” of spiritual healing that is part of veterans’ overall recovery. This is true not only because chaplains are especially trained to do this, but also because they are the team members most likely to have uniquely spiritual language to speak to the condition. The language of confession, absolution, repentance, redemption, atonement, and forgiveness is language of the spiritual realm.

In addition, chaplains’ freedom from hourly billing concerns and their often less formalized interactions with patients may help to build trust. Well-trained chaplains, who are often quite gifted at creating an atmosphere of reverence and safety (sanctuary) in the most unlikely situations, are well suited to help the interdisciplinary team treat this vulnerable patient population.

SUGGESTED READING

For more insights into the role of chaplains on the interdisciplinary healthcare team, we recommend the following book: Cadge W. Paging God: Religion in the Halls of Medicine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2012.

In their commentary, Kopacz et al¹ propose that collaboration with professionally trained and certified clinical chaplains provides an opportunity for interdisciplinary care with increased benefit to veterans at risk of suicide. They rightly identify the pivotal issue of guilt as one that falls squarely in the domain of spiritual (or pastoral) care.

See related commentary

As professionals involved in the training of board-certifiable chaplains (and one of us is a veteran), we find that guilt in patients with suicidal tendencies is a profoundly spiritual issue that can be addressed effectively through collaboration among chaplains, physicians, and mental health providers.

Guilt is a serious spiritual condition that can easily be undertreated, or treated under the rubric of depression, which is related but not identical. Undertreatment occurs when caregivers, eager to see the guilt-sufferer experience relief, inadvertently short-circuit the necessary process of working through, rather than around, the guilt. Allowing patients to talk about their feelings of guilt without minimizing those feelings can be helpful even if, as Kopacz et al point out, the feelings are often irrational. We believe that people have an innate need to be truly heard and understood before they can become open to a reinterpretation of their feelings. Only then can the seeds of self-forgiveness begin to take root.

Hearing the words “There is hope for you to feel forgiven” can be more helpful than hearing “You didn’t really do anything bad,” particularly if the patient is religious. Hearing these words from a chaplain is often more effective than hearing them from a lay person, just as many of us take basic health information more seriously when we hear it from a physician. Even if the veteran is not overtly religious, there may be a unique exchange between that person and a religious authority when it concerns the violation of a millennia­old, widely known teaching from the Bible, such as “Thou shalt not kill.”

Guilt in patients with suicidal tendencies is a profoundly spiritual issue

Kopacz et al also rightly suggest that unless religious prohibitions have been balanced with teachings on forgiveness and grace, the teachings can actually exacerbate feelings of guilt and elevate them to harmful proportions, especially in the potentially vulnerable psyche of a veteran who may have been traumatized. If there is no religious or spiritual guidance for balancing prohibitions with graces, the patient may be left to spiral in an unending loop of guilt with no way out.

We therefore propose the following categories for different types (or “shades”) of guilt that can be effectively addressed by chaplains in concert with other members of the healthcare team. For simplicity, we call these types real guilt, survivor guilt, mistaken guilt, and complex-compound guilt.

REAL GUILT

An important role professional chaplains can play is to allow patients (in this case, veterans) to express their remorse and regret for violations of their own moral codes. In many cases, they have in fact hurt or killed another person, and they need the chance to unburden their hearts and spirits, especially if they were taught that killing people is a sin. Veterans who have harmed or killed others, even if under orders, are often left with bona fide feelings of guilt that need to be aired and released in a safe and confidential environment. This is often most effective when done by someone who not only is trained in nonjudgmental and nondirective listening, but also is a religious authority who can assure the patient of his or her innate worthiness and of the ability to be forgiven.

As Kopacz et al note, guilt is linked to a specific action or behavior and usually entails regret or remorse. Many veterans belong to or have had exposure to faith groups with strong moral codes and prohibitions, and so may see the chaplain as having authority to act as confessor and granter of absolution.

SURVIVOR GUILT

Survivor guilt is commonly understood as the feeling of surviving a terrible event or situation while someone else did not. Those who suffer from survivor guilt judge themselves unworthy of survival and believe the deceased to have been more courageous, virtuous, or somehow a better person than they. They torture themselves with ideas of the deceased person’s virtues—imagined or real—and sometimes go on to believe that “It should have been me who was killed.”

The burden of feeling that the wrong person died can be overwhelming. If these people are not helped to see their own worth and helped to find outlets for their sense of having been spared (by God, by their own wits, or by sheer luck), they are likely to struggle more. This is related but not identical to what we  call mistaken guilt. The two types are similar because they share a sense of randomness and helplessness, but they are different for reasons we will explain below.

Chaplains can be particularly effective partners in the care of veterans with survivor guilt, helping them to make meaning out of a life-changing event, rather than find meaning inherently in that event. Meaning, purpose, and “God’s plan for my life” are common themes in the pastoral conversation that can provide a compass for the disoriented survivor.

MISTAKEN GUILT

Mistaken guilt describes when a person who is involved in the death of another but is absolutely blameless—and could not possibly have prevented that death—literally “mis-takes” the guilt upon himself or herself in spite of the facts. Because of the helplessness induced by this feeling, mistaken guilt can be more difficult to treat than other forms. These patients continue to suffer despite assurances that the death occurred through absolutely no fault of their own.²

‘There is hope to feel forgiven’ can be more helpful than ‘You didn’t do anything bad’

Hickling³ has written extensively about this phenomenon in innocent motor vehicle drivers who cause pedestrian deaths, and he considers this type of guilt one of the most difficult to recover from precisely because of the helplessness factor. He has explained that if patients can find a real reason by which they were culpable for what happened, they can change their ways. But if they were absolutely innocent (as in many incidents in training or combat), they often cannot make sense of what happened in a way that allows them to move on because there is nothing they could have done differently and therefore nothing they can change.⁴

These patients almost certainly need long-term intervention such as cognitive behavioral therapy in order to train their mind away from such destructive thoughts. However, they are also very likely to be helped by a chaplain if they find that the event triggers memories of other past infractions of which they may need to unburden themselves (ie, confess).

COMPOUND-COMPLEX GUILT

As the name implies, compound-complex guilt is a combination of the other types and may have additional layers.

Compound-complex guilt leaves sufferers literally feeling guilty for feeling guilty. Though this may border on a genuine clinical disorder, it is also to some degree normal (eg, due to cultural taboos and norms) for people to feel culpable for not being able to “move on” or “forgive themselves” as quickly as others may want them to. Buddhists call this tendency the “second arrow effect.” The first arrow is the feeling of guilt (or other painful feeling) that strikes the individual, but the second arrow is the one he or she drives in afterward by thinking it is wrong or weak to even have the feeling.

Patients who suffer from this type of guilt blame themselves for the conundrum they are in and feel even worse. This is not unlike the vortex of unresolved and complicated grief.

Those who suffer from compound-complex guilt may layer the primary guilt with additional guilt for feeling weak, for needing help, or for asking for help. Especially in the culture of the military, the fear of stigma when asking for help (especially with mental health) is still quite strong. Therefore, chaplains can serve as a less threatening entry point for the veteran needing multiple professionals involved in his or her care.

NONJUDGMENTAL LISTENING

Nonjudgmental listening is essential to get at the source or sources of guilt, regardless of the type, in order to allow the wounds to air out and begin healing. Many veterans suffering from guilt may need intensive pharmacologic and cognitive therapy to fully recover, and care from a chaplain is not a substitute for psychiatric evaluation and treatment, especially if there is a risk of suicide.

However, chaplains may be able to help with the “deep work” of spiritual healing that is part of veterans’ overall recovery. This is true not only because chaplains are especially trained to do this, but also because they are the team members most likely to have uniquely spiritual language to speak to the condition. The language of confession, absolution, repentance, redemption, atonement, and forgiveness is language of the spiritual realm.

In addition, chaplains’ freedom from hourly billing concerns and their often less formalized interactions with patients may help to build trust. Well-trained chaplains, who are often quite gifted at creating an atmosphere of reverence and safety (sanctuary) in the most unlikely situations, are well suited to help the interdisciplinary team treat this vulnerable patient population.

SUGGESTED READING

For more insights into the role of chaplains on the interdisciplinary healthcare team, we recommend the following book: Cadge W. Paging God: Religion in the Halls of Medicine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2012.

For some time, electronic health records (EHRs) have been the focus of many articles (“EHR use and patient satisfaction: What we learned.” J Fam Pract. 2015;64:687-696) and the source of great debate (and frustration) in the health care community. But there’s a logical solution to the dilemmas created by EHRs: A team-based care model.¹

A fundamental principle of team-based care is that all members of the team work at the top of their skill set. So, with that in mind, most of the duties of EHR management should be delegated to other team members, rather than to the physicians. In our system, every physician works with 2 other people—certified medical assistants or licensed practical nurses—who help with standing orders, protocols, templates, and many of the EHR duties, including a significant portion of team documentation. They do this while recognizing and respecting guidelines from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other payers. That leaves the physicians and advanced practice clinicians the time they need to focus on the patient during the visit.

Not surprisingly, patient satisfaction, staff satisfaction, and quality measures are all improving with this model of care. It is proving financially viable, as well. This model may well be the future of health care delivery for office-based practices.²

Jim Jerzak, MD
Green Bay, Wis

1. Sinsky CA, Willard-Grace R, Schutzbank AM, et al. In search of joy in practice: a report of 23 high-functioning primary care practices. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11:272-278.

2. Ghorob A, Bodenheimer T. Building teams in primary care: A practical guide. Fam Syst Health. 2015;33:182-192.

For some time, electronic health records (EHRs) have been the focus of many articles (“EHR use and patient satisfaction: What we learned.” J Fam Pract. 2015;64:687-696) and the source of great debate (and frustration) in the health care community. But there’s a logical solution to the dilemmas created by EHRs: A team-based care model.¹

A fundamental principle of team-based care is that all members of the team work at the top of their skill set. So, with that in mind, most of the duties of EHR management should be delegated to other team members, rather than to the physicians. In our system, every physician works with 2 other people—certified medical assistants or licensed practical nurses—who help with standing orders, protocols, templates, and many of the EHR duties, including a significant portion of team documentation. They do this while recognizing and respecting guidelines from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other payers. That leaves the physicians and advanced practice clinicians the time they need to focus on the patient during the visit.

Not surprisingly, patient satisfaction, staff satisfaction, and quality measures are all improving with this model of care. It is proving financially viable, as well. This model may well be the future of health care delivery for office-based practices.²

Jim Jerzak, MD
Green Bay, Wis

1. Sinsky CA, Willard-Grace R, Schutzbank AM, et al. In search of joy in practice: a report of 23 high-functioning primary care practices. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11:272-278.

2. Ghorob A, Bodenheimer T. Building teams in primary care: A practical guide. Fam Syst Health. 2015;33:182-192.

For some time, electronic health records (EHRs) have been the focus of many articles (“EHR use and patient satisfaction: What we learned.” J Fam Pract. 2015;64:687-696) and the source of great debate (and frustration) in the health care community. But there’s a logical solution to the dilemmas created by EHRs: A team-based care model.¹

A fundamental principle of team-based care is that all members of the team work at the top of their skill set. So, with that in mind, most of the duties of EHR management should be delegated to other team members, rather than to the physicians. In our system, every physician works with 2 other people—certified medical assistants or licensed practical nurses—who help with standing orders, protocols, templates, and many of the EHR duties, including a significant portion of team documentation. They do this while recognizing and respecting guidelines from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other payers. That leaves the physicians and advanced practice clinicians the time they need to focus on the patient during the visit.

Not surprisingly, patient satisfaction, staff satisfaction, and quality measures are all improving with this model of care. It is proving financially viable, as well. This model may well be the future of health care delivery for office-based practices.²

Jim Jerzak, MD
Green Bay, Wis

1. Sinsky CA, Willard-Grace R, Schutzbank AM, et al. In search of joy in practice: a report of 23 high-functioning primary care practices. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11:272-278.

2. Ghorob A, Bodenheimer T. Building teams in primary care: A practical guide. Fam Syst Health. 2015;33:182-192.

In the midst of the cold and flu season, we should reflect on the fact that our patients are laying down billions of dollars annually on preventions and cures for respiratory tract infections.

An aside: I am frequently turned down on my offer of the influenza vaccine, for which we probably have the best evidence. But $60 per month for a completely unproven preventive/curative agent made in some random factory in some random foreign land with no guarantee of good manufacturing practices (never mind the lack of active ingredients)? Stores can’t keep it in stock.

But I digress.

Our patients may lack the awareness of where to access evidence-based information when seeking answers about efficacy for cold remedies. So, it’s up to us to have at least some sense of where to get reliable information.

Truth be told, I am an enormous fan of safe and effective nonmedication therapies for the treatment and prevention of disease. So, when time permits, I will do a quick PubMed.gov search limiting my articles to randomized trials or systematic reviews on the latest and greatest home remedy.

Probiotics have been around for a while, and I think of them as a cure in search of a disease. The Cochrane Collaboration conducted a systematic review evaluating probiotics for the prevention of upper respiratory tract infection. In this review, 13 randomized, controlled trials were included (Explore [NY]. 2015 Sep-Oct;11[5]:418-20).

Probiotics were observed to be significantly better than placebo for reducing episodes of upper respiratory tract infection, the mean duration of episodes, antibiotic prescription rates, and cold-related absences. The evidence was of moderate to low quality.

Some may wonder how an ingested probiotic helps the respiratory tract stave off or fight infection. The prevailing theory appears to be that probiotics may function by mobilizing cells from the intestine to immunomodulate respiratory mucosa.

As for what probiotic/organism to prescribe? On this issue, there is a lot of smoke and not a lot of heat.

In general, the product should be encapsulated, and the label should include the genus and species of the strains (e.g., Lactobacillus acidophilus), the number of organisms (e.g., 5 billion), storage conditions (e.g., refrigerated or room temperature), and the shelf life. Pharmacy chain house brands may be cheaper. Gummy and chewable products tend to have 92% fewer beneficial bacteria than standard formulations.

How can we ensure purity?

That is tough, because supplements like probiotics are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration above and beyond the agency’s trying to ensure good manufacturing practices. However, companies such as LabDoor (which generates revenue through affiliate links) test and grade supplements for label accuracy and purity. Websites like this might be the best place to start.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Mayo Clinic. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician. Dr. Ebbert has no financial disclosures relevant to this article.

In the midst of the cold and flu season, we should reflect on the fact that our patients are laying down billions of dollars annually on preventions and cures for respiratory tract infections.

An aside: I am frequently turned down on my offer of the influenza vaccine, for which we probably have the best evidence. But $60 per month for a completely unproven preventive/curative agent made in some random factory in some random foreign land with no guarantee of good manufacturing practices (never mind the lack of active ingredients)? Stores can’t keep it in stock.

But I digress.

Our patients may lack the awareness of where to access evidence-based information when seeking answers about efficacy for cold remedies. So, it’s up to us to have at least some sense of where to get reliable information.

Truth be told, I am an enormous fan of safe and effective nonmedication therapies for the treatment and prevention of disease. So, when time permits, I will do a quick PubMed.gov search limiting my articles to randomized trials or systematic reviews on the latest and greatest home remedy.

Probiotics have been around for a while, and I think of them as a cure in search of a disease. The Cochrane Collaboration conducted a systematic review evaluating probiotics for the prevention of upper respiratory tract infection. In this review, 13 randomized, controlled trials were included (Explore [NY]. 2015 Sep-Oct;11[5]:418-20).

Probiotics were observed to be significantly better than placebo for reducing episodes of upper respiratory tract infection, the mean duration of episodes, antibiotic prescription rates, and cold-related absences. The evidence was of moderate to low quality.

Some may wonder how an ingested probiotic helps the respiratory tract stave off or fight infection. The prevailing theory appears to be that probiotics may function by mobilizing cells from the intestine to immunomodulate respiratory mucosa.

As for what probiotic/organism to prescribe? On this issue, there is a lot of smoke and not a lot of heat.

In general, the product should be encapsulated, and the label should include the genus and species of the strains (e.g., Lactobacillus acidophilus), the number of organisms (e.g., 5 billion), storage conditions (e.g., refrigerated or room temperature), and the shelf life. Pharmacy chain house brands may be cheaper. Gummy and chewable products tend to have 92% fewer beneficial bacteria than standard formulations.

How can we ensure purity?

That is tough, because supplements like probiotics are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration above and beyond the agency’s trying to ensure good manufacturing practices. However, companies such as LabDoor (which generates revenue through affiliate links) test and grade supplements for label accuracy and purity. Websites like this might be the best place to start.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Mayo Clinic. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician. Dr. Ebbert has no financial disclosures relevant to this article.

In the midst of the cold and flu season, we should reflect on the fact that our patients are laying down billions of dollars annually on preventions and cures for respiratory tract infections.

An aside: I am frequently turned down on my offer of the influenza vaccine, for which we probably have the best evidence. But $60 per month for a completely unproven preventive/curative agent made in some random factory in some random foreign land with no guarantee of good manufacturing practices (never mind the lack of active ingredients)? Stores can’t keep it in stock.

But I digress.

Our patients may lack the awareness of where to access evidence-based information when seeking answers about efficacy for cold remedies. So, it’s up to us to have at least some sense of where to get reliable information.

Truth be told, I am an enormous fan of safe and effective nonmedication therapies for the treatment and prevention of disease. So, when time permits, I will do a quick PubMed.gov search limiting my articles to randomized trials or systematic reviews on the latest and greatest home remedy.

Probiotics have been around for a while, and I think of them as a cure in search of a disease. The Cochrane Collaboration conducted a systematic review evaluating probiotics for the prevention of upper respiratory tract infection. In this review, 13 randomized, controlled trials were included (Explore [NY]. 2015 Sep-Oct;11[5]:418-20).

Probiotics were observed to be significantly better than placebo for reducing episodes of upper respiratory tract infection, the mean duration of episodes, antibiotic prescription rates, and cold-related absences. The evidence was of moderate to low quality.

Some may wonder how an ingested probiotic helps the respiratory tract stave off or fight infection. The prevailing theory appears to be that probiotics may function by mobilizing cells from the intestine to immunomodulate respiratory mucosa.

As for what probiotic/organism to prescribe? On this issue, there is a lot of smoke and not a lot of heat.

In general, the product should be encapsulated, and the label should include the genus and species of the strains (e.g., Lactobacillus acidophilus), the number of organisms (e.g., 5 billion), storage conditions (e.g., refrigerated or room temperature), and the shelf life. Pharmacy chain house brands may be cheaper. Gummy and chewable products tend to have 92% fewer beneficial bacteria than standard formulations.

How can we ensure purity?

That is tough, because supplements like probiotics are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration above and beyond the agency’s trying to ensure good manufacturing practices. However, companies such as LabDoor (which generates revenue through affiliate links) test and grade supplements for label accuracy and purity. Websites like this might be the best place to start.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Mayo Clinic. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician. Dr. Ebbert has no financial disclosures relevant to this article.