Classification of bipolar disorder in psychiatric hospital. a prospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study has explored the classification of bipolar disorder in psychiatric hospital. A review of the literature reveals that there is a need for studies using stringent methodological approaches.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>480 first-time admitted patients to psychiatric hospital were found eligible and 271 of these gave written informed consent. The study sample was comprised of 250 patients (52%) with hospital diagnoses. For the study, expert diagnoses were given on the basis of a structured diagnostic interview (M.I.N.I.PLUS) and retrospective review of patient records.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Agreement between the expert's and the clinicians' diagnoses was estimated using Cohen's kappa statistics. 76% of the primary diagnoses given by the expert were in the affective spectrum. Agreement concerning these disorders was moderate (kappa ranging from 0.41 to 0.47). Of 58 patients with bipolar disorder, only 17 received this diagnosis in the clinic. Almost all patients with a current manic episode were classified as currently manic by the clinicians. Forty percent diagnosed as bipolar by the expert, received a diagnosis of unipolar depression by the clinician. Fifteen patients (26%) were not given a diagnosis of affective disorder at all.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our results indicate a considerable misclassification of bipolar disorder in psychiatric hospital, mainly in patients currently depressed. The importance of correctly diagnosing bipolar disorder should be emphasized both for clinical, administrative and research purposes. The findings questions the validity of psychiatric case registers. There are potential benefits in structuring the diagnostic process better in the clinic.</p

Primary Care Consultations About Medically Unexplained Symptoms: How Do Patients Indicate What They Want?

BACKGROUND: Patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUS) are often thought to deny psychological needs when they consult general practitioners (GPs) and to request somatic intervention instead. We tested predictions from the contrasting theory that they are transparent in communicating their psychological and other needs. OBJECTIVE: To test predictions that what patients tell GPs when they consult about MUS is related transparently to their desire for (1) emotional support, (2) symptom explanation and (3) somatic intervention. DESIGN: Prospective naturalistic study. Before consultation, patients indicated what they wanted from it using a self-report questionnaire measuring patients' desire for: emotional support, explanation and reassurance, and physical investigation and treatment. Their speech during consultation was audio-recorded, transcribed and coded utterance-by-utterance. Multilevel regression analysis tested relationships between what patients sought and what they said. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N = 326) consulting 33 GPs about symptoms that the GPs designated as MUS. RESULTS: Patients who wanted emotional support spoke more about psychosocial problems, including psychosocial causes of symptoms and their need for psychosocial help. Patients who wanted explanation and reassurance suggested more physical explanations, including diseases, but did not overtly request explanation. Patients' wish for somatic intervention was associated only with their talk about details of such interventions and not with their requests for them. CONCLUSIONS: In general, patients with medically unexplained symptoms provide many cues to their desire for emotional support. They are more indirect or guarded in communicating their desire for explanation and somatic intervention