1 / 58

How to Formulate a Diagnosis in Complicated Youth

How to Formulate a Diagnosis in Complicated Youth. MICHAEL J. LABELLARTE, SR., M.D. Annapolis, Millersville, Towson, and Columbia, MD dr.labellarte@cpeclinic.com cell:443-956-2463 www.cpeclinic.com. Transparency. No current conflicts of interest Assistant Professor, Part Time

adia
Download Presentation

How to Formulate a Diagnosis in Complicated Youth

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How to Formulatea Diagnosis in Complicated Youth • MICHAEL J. LABELLARTE, SR., M.D. • Annapolis, Millersville, Towson, and Columbia, MD • dr.labellarte@cpeclinic.com • cell:443-956-2463 • www.cpeclinic.com

  2. Transparency • No current conflicts of interest • Assistant Professor, Part Time • Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions • University of Maryland SOM • University of Florida COM

  3. Interventions Pharmacology Psycho-Social School-Based

  4. Outline • Traditions- highlight The Perspectives • The Role of Bias • Guild/setting approaches • DSM-5 approach • NIMH approach

  5. Traditions of Formulation • Psychodynamic: Freud (1907) • Psychobiology: Meyer (1948) • DSM 1-5 (1952-- ) • Community Psychiatry • Bio-psycho-social: Engel (1977); Grinker (1954?) • The Perspectives: McHugh and Slavney, 1983.

  6. The Perspectives • “... seeks to systematically apply the best work of behaviorists, psychotherapists, social scientists and other specialists long viewed as at odds with each other.”

  7. The Perspectives • Disease perspective • Dimensional perspective • Behavioral perspective • Life Story perspective

  8. The Disease Perspective • A disease is a mechanistic syndrome • What a person has • A disease requires cure or amelioration

  9. The Disease Perspective • Parkinson’s • Schizophrenia • Autism spectrum disorder (ASD)? • Bipolar Disorder • Depression • Obsessive compulsive disorder • Tourette’s • ADHD • Etc.

  10. The Dimensional Perspective • Intelligence • Learning Disorders • Communication issues • Personality • ASD?

  11. The Dimensional Perspective • A dimension has relative value • Who a person is • Dimensional extremes require guidance

  12. Temperament Example: ADHD • “Difficult”? • “Defiant”? • Unstable? • Extroverted? • Too open? • Disagreeable? • Not concientious?

  13. The Dimension of Intelligence Hulk Dr. Bruce Banner * * 100 130 70 Intelligence Quotient (IQ)

  14. The Eysenck Circle (1958) Unstable Moody Anxious Rigid Sober Pessimistic Reserved Unsociable Quiet • Touchy • Restless • Aggressive • Excitable • Changeable • Impulsive Optimistic • Active Introverted Extroverted Passive Careful Thoughtful Peaceful Controlled Reliable Even Calm Sociable Outgoing Talkative Responsive Easygoing Lively Carefree Leadership Stable

  15. The 5 Factor Model (FFM) • Stable ---------- Unstable • Extroverted ---------- Introverted • Open to new ---------- Closed to new • Agreeable ---------- Disagreeable • Conscientious ---------- Not conscientious

  16. The Behavioral Perspective • Motivated vs. Maladaptive behaviors • What a person does • Stop “bad” behavior

  17. Motivated Behaviors • Disorders of eating • Disorders of sleep • Disorders of sexual expression • Substance misuse

  18. Maladaptive Behaviors • Oppositional • Self-centered • Contextual • Often learned

  19. Life Story Perspective • The narrative of a person’s life • What a person (or others) understands about a person’s experiences • Reframe negative life story concepts

  20. Preferences and Bias • Disease • Dimension • Behavior • Lif Story 20

  21. Contrasting Dx Approaches • Clinical diagnosis • Standardized testing • Setting specific 21

  22. Framing Bias:Everyone is an Expert

  23. Diagnosis Stakeholders • Children and parents • Teachers, administrators, school personnel • Social workers and other therapists • Psychologists and other evaluators • Psychiatrists, pediatricians, neurologists • Academia • Pharmaceutica • Insurance companies • Pundits and politics

  24. Pharmaceutical Controversy:Stakeholders • Federal Government • Academic Community • Treatment Community

  25. Assessment Errors • Cliché errors • Desperation • Insufficient data • Lack of comprehension • Misattribution errors • Misinformation • Oversimplification • Relationship errors • Reformulation to avoid labels/medications

  26. “Expert” Errors • Relationship errors • Primary attribution error • Misattribution errors • Cliché errors • Reformulated symptoms to avoid stimulants

  27. Primary Attribution Error • Your behavior is suspect, based on your flaws • My behavior is a rational response to a situation (including your flaws)

  28. ADHD: Cliché Errors • “S/He can concentrate when it’s something that s/he wants to do..” • “S/He can sit still if s/he wants to…” • “Too much ____ (e.g. TV, video, computer, cell phone, facebook, etc.) is all… ” • “S/He started faking it this year, when school got hard…”

  29. More Cliché Errors • “In our day we didn’t have ADHD…” • “If ADHD exists, it’s not so bad…” • “I had ADHD and I turned out fine…” • “ADHD is over-diagnosed…” • “ADHD is over-treated…”

  30. Still More Cliché Errors • “The real problem is the drug companies… • … the doctors… • … the teachers… • … the times we live in… • … those darn kids/parents... short cuts”

  31. ADHD: Misattribution Errors • Bad seed • Boys will be boys • Poor parenting • Normal response to stress

  32. What is ADHD, Really? • Attention deficit: cannot ignore competing stimuli • Hyperactive/Impulsive: equivalent • Disorder of executive function (EF) • EF frames the ADHD symptoms

  33. What is Executive Fx, Really? • “Whatever the frontal lobes do”- Denkla • “Conscious direction … efficient processing of info.” -Stuss and Benson • “Maintenance of behavior on a goal ... calibration... to context” - Pennington • “Self regulation across time for the attainment of one’s goal... - Barkley

  34. Self-Regulatory Mini-Modules (Barkley 2012) • Inhibition • Self-directed sensory-motor actions • Self-directed attention • Working memory • Planning and problem solving • Self-motivation • Emotional self-regulation

  35. Impairment of Executive Function • Activation • Attention • Effort • Emotion/Affect • Memory • Action • Brown TE, 2000, 2008

  36. DSM Evolution • I (1952) : Atheoretical, standardized definitions • II (1968): “Legitimacy”, patient education • III (1980): More ICD, more reliability; Axis I-V • III-R (1987): Same trends • IV (1994)/IV-TR (2000): Same trends, behind quickly

  37. DSM-5 • “Transcend limitations... beyond current ways of thinking”- but field not ready for a paradigm shift • Empirical evidence grounds • Continuity • “Living, evolving document” • Aspirations: etiological, objective, dimensional

  38. DSM-5 Field Trial Design • 11 centers,Test-retest reliability or agreement: • Cohen’s Kappa: inter-rater reliability • DSM-5: 0.6-1 “very good”, cutoff-- 0.4-0.6 “good” • 0.2-0.4 “questionable”-- <0.2 “unacceptable” • DSM-III: cutoff-- 0.7-1 “good-very good”

  39. DSM-5 Controversy • NIMH distancing from DSM-5 • Strength in reliability, weakness in validity • Will no longer fund research projects that rely exclusively on DSM criteria • Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): NIMH

  40. Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): Assumptions • Dx approach based on biology and symptoms (not constrained by DSM-5) • Biological disorders/brain circuits implicate specific domains of cognition, emotion, or behavior • Each level of analysis... across a dimension of function • Mapping cognitive, circuitry, and genetic aspects will yield new/better targets for treatment

  41. RDoC • Negative Valence Systems • Positive Valence Systems • Cognitive Systems • Social Processing Systems • Arousal/Modulatory Systems

  42. Overview of Changes • Categorical to dimensional; early detect/prevent • Dimensional measures included, e.g. “cross-cutting symptom measure”, “WHODAS”, and “severity scale for schizophrenia” • Axis I-V dismantled • NOS replaced: Other specified disorder, Unspecified disorder • New disorders, “renamed” disorders

  43. DSM-5: Axis I-V Replaced • Non-axial documentation • Important psychosocial /contextual factors (V and Z codes) • Disability (may be replaced with the “WHODAS”) • GAF is eliminated (see above)

  44. DSM-5 Metastructure Changes • Regrouping of disorders • Putative underlying factors • Underlying vulnerabilities • Groups juxtaposed by relationship • Within groups, ordered by age of onset

  45. Pediatric Modifications • Shortened duration: cyclothymia- 1 year vs. 2 year • Alternative symptom expression: MDD- irritable mood... • Lowered symptom threshold: GAD- 1 from “C” in children • Suspended criterion: OCD- behavior not aimed at alleviating anxiety • Special criteria: PTSD age <6- only 1 symptom required- avoidance plus negative cognition/mood

  46. Life Cycle: ADHD Symptoms • Preschool: more hyperkinesis • School age: inattention appears • Adolescence: inner restlessness • Adulthood: inattentive complaints, but impulsivity reigns

  47. Elements of a DSM-5 Diagnosis • Dx criteria • Dx subtypes and specifiers • Severity qualifiers are gone • Principal Dx • Provisional Dx - “strong presumption full criteria will be met”

  48. Co-morbid vs. Diff. Dx? • Common disorders co-exist w ADHD • Common disorders also masquerade as ADHD • Co-morbidity amplifies symptoms

  49. SA BPAD MDD Personality Anxiety Tics Behavior LD ADHD S/L ASD School Referral, “ADHD”, age 7 20

More Related