medical causes of psych conditions

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

nancysinatra

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
1,499
Reaction score
351
So today I briefly thought I might have a case of NPH with one of my patients. He had mild dementia, and a funny gait when he walked to my office. He was too confused to give a reliable answer about urinary incontinence. So I really thought I might have an interesting case!

I got him to walk a bit more though, and the gait became more normal. I'm glad the guy doesn't have NPH but I'm disappointed that I don't see more cases where there's a medical cause to a psychiatric condition.

Anyway, how often do you all get to see medical stuff? I order all these RPRs and B12s but they always are normal.

Members don't see this ad.
 
consults are really good way to keep your medical knowledge sharp...
hiv psychosis things like that..
i think youd like it
 
everyone has a positive syphilis serology here! and it's never the cause of their psychiatric presentation more the psychiatric disorder is the cause of their syphilis!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I see medical problems affecting psychiatric problems and vice versa pretty frequently.

I see depression with anemia, cardiac disease, interferon therapy, cancer, stroke, hypothyroidism, etc. I have seen people become manic or even psychotic on steroids, with HIV, or with MS or Wilson's disease. Chronic pain can lead to anxiety and eventually move from an axis III problem to an axis I problem. Somatization disorders cannot be diagnosed unless real medical illnesses have been ruled out. I see depression, mild psychosis, and personality disorders in anorexic patients (whether through anorexia nervosa or anorexia due to another medical condition). This is not even close to exhaustive list, but more what I have seen in the past month or so in my part-time job at a community hospital.
Then, of course, the reverse is true as well. Think of the mood disordered or personality disordered patients who are insulin dependent diabetics, or psychotic patients with heart disease being treated with medications that cause weight gain, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia. Drug addiction, personality disorders, mood disorders, and psychotic disorders tend to make the diagnosis and treatment of everything more complicated.

I will say that I very rarely see something as satisfying as what you are talking about, where an illness that was thought to be chronic is actually due to a reversible disease process. However, I feel like I use general doctor knowledge on a pretty regular basis.
 
Last edited:
I saw acute psychosis in a lady with SLE. No prior psych hx. Pt was talking and interacting with hallucinations in the room. Pt eventually got better once her medical condition improved then took her off of the antipsychotic.
 
Just saw a 21 yr old male soldier with auditory, visual, olfactory, and tactile hallucinations starting about 2 yrs ago and only occuring at night. He says his grandmother had the same only that "she was physically moved around at night." Sent him to primary clinic. Depending on results there may consult neurology and sleep guys.
 
I see medical problems affecting psychiatric problems and vice versa pretty frequently.

I see depression with anemia, cardiac disease, interferon therapy, cancer, stroke, hypothyroidism, etc. I have seen people become manic or even psychotic on steroids, with HIV, or with MS or Wilson's disease.

You've seen a case of Wilson's disease? Lucky you!

Now when a medical disease becomes suspected in the course of evaluating a psych patient, why is it that psych doesn't work the patient up and treat them? Hypo/hyperthyroid would be a good example.

Or let's say you run labs on a dementia patient and the B12 comes back low. What do you do next? If you're from psychiatry, you will replete with PO B12, or maybe IM. If you're from medicine, aren't you supposed to do a schilling test?

Why is the workup different, and why, if the schilling test is the correct next step, couldn't I do one the next time I have someone like this?

Now, if the patient just has incidental low B12 and no dementia, then I think medicine should be responsible.
 
I get quite a lot of patients with low B12, usually without any neuropsychiatric complication and would treat. I don't think there is any value in doing a Schilling test these days given that I always give B12 IM so its irrelevant. I will usually check anti-IF and anti-parietal cell antibodies if i'm thinking pernicious anemia.

B12 deficiency isn't usually rocket science, and I don't think medicine need to be involved unless you think the cause is Yersinia or Diphylobothrium latum infection etc.

The one thing I see here is alot of psychiatrists only order B12 and not folate. Folate deficiency can cause dementia too, and if you are getting a low B12 you need to know the folate, as treating low B12 but not low folate can precipitate subacute combined degeneration of the spinal cord.

The other thing is to check the K+ with the repeat B12 injections as you get massive red cell production which causes hypokalemia, sometimes significant which needs to be corrected.

The other thing to mention is B12 deficiency is rarely a 'reversible cause' of dementia. I have never seen giving B12 improve someone's cognitive function significantly and am told by the geriatricians the aim is more to prevent further cognitive decline and you rarely get improvement
 
I get quite a lot of patients with low B12, usually without any neuropsychiatric complication and would treat. I don't think there is any value in doing a Schilling test these days given that I always give B12 IM so its irrelevant. I will usually check anti-IF and anti-parietal cell antibodies if i'm thinking pernicious anemia.

B12 deficiency isn't usually rocket science, and I don't think medicine need to be involved unless you think the cause is Yersinia or Diphylobothrium latum infection etc.

The one thing I see here is alot of psychiatrists only order B12 and not folate. Folate deficiency can cause dementia too, and if you are getting a low B12 you need to know the folate, as treating low B12 but not low folate can precipitate subacute combined degeneration of the spinal cord.

The other thing is to check the K+ with the repeat B12 injections as you get massive red cell production which causes hypokalemia, sometimes significant which needs to be corrected.

The other thing to mention is B12 deficiency is rarely a 'reversible cause' of dementia. I have never seen giving B12 improve someone's cognitive function significantly and am told by the geriatricians the aim is more to prevent further cognitive decline and you rarely get improvement

Ok, first, let's say we are working in an impoverished African country with very limited health care resources and we can't waste anything. Also we have one internist and one psychiatrist and they keep a strict eye on expenses, and stay within their realms of expertise.

Second, I thought it was the reverse of what you're saying--that if you give only folate to a person who's deficient in both folate and B12, that the anemia corrects but the B12-related neurological damage continues. That's how folate repletion alone can mask B12 deficiency--is that correct?

IF that's correct, and if the patient has dementia, you can just check B12. If it's normal, then stop there and look for a different cause of dementia. If it's low, then check an MCV. If that's normal, stop, assume it's low B12 with normal folate, and just treat the B12. If the MCV is high, then check folate. If that's low, then replete both folate and B12. Because if you are going to treat the dementia you should do the patient a favor and also treat the anemia, and just giving B12 won't correct the anemia if both are low. Although the only reason I can think of why someone would be low in both would be malnutrition, and you should be treating that anyway regardless of dementia.

The problem with B12 deficiency in psychiatry is that we start by seeing the dementia, rather than the macrocytic anemia. Once you've determined that low B12 is causing dementia, you're kind of obligated to look for and treat the anemia. But technically, that is not psychiatry.

In fact, if the problem is only anemia and no dementia, then we shouldn't even know about the problem.

Now, in our patient with dementia who turns out to have low B12, knowing the reason seems important to me--so back to the Schilling test. If the cause is pernicious anemia, then the treatment would be different than if it's just poor diet. You might need a higher dose or an IM formulation. Since supplies are limited, we want to correctly identify these people.

I know B12 deficiency is not very complicated and we in psychiatry could certainly handle it assuming there's no schilling test. But just as a matter of principal I was saying I'd send a patient with low B12 and no neuropsych sx to medicine because it falls in their realm in that case.

In real life I would not do any of this of course.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
There should be no "incidental" B12 levels- B12 should only be order if there is some suspicion of b12 deficiency being the cause of something (anemia, dementia, neuropathy, etc).

Sure, makes sense. But what if you check thyroid, B12 and RPR and they are all abnormal/positive? How would you know unless you treat them one at a time which, if any, is causing the dementia? Isn't it possible you could be left with a low B12 in a patient who had or has dementia caused by something else?

If we should only order B12 if we have highsuspicion that low B12 is causing dementia, then I should probably never order a B12 because I have never truly suspected that as the reason for dementia. Older people tend to have lower B12s, and older people also tend to have alzheimer's or other dementias. Yet at least where I'm at we always order the reversible causes of dementia labs even if we don't suspect the dementia is caused by one of them. That's also how the neurology service I rotated on did things. Are you saying we should be more selective with those tests?

By the way, Schilling tests are hardly ever done anymore.

Do you know why that is? Why did they do them in the past? Presumably they could replete B12 back then just like today...
 
Sure, makes sense. But what if you check thyroid, B12 and RPR and they are all abnormal/positive? How would you know unless you treat them one at a time which, if any, is causing the dementia? Isn't it possible you could be left with a low B12 in a patient who had or has dementia caused by something else?
...

that is certainly quite possible. I still wouldn't call it "incidental"-

In real life you would treat them all at once - I would call it dementia of multiple possible etiologies.

I guess it's a matter of semantics.
 
that is certainly quite possible. I still wouldn't call it "incidental"-

In real life you would treat them all at once - I would call it dementia of multiple possible etiologies.

I guess it's a matter of semantics.

I see what you mean. Maybe the word incidental makes more sense with imaging than with labs? With labs you can choose some and leave out others, but with imaging, you get a whole area, and something unexpected might come up.
 
I see what you mean. Maybe the word incidental makes more sense with imaging than with labs? With labs you can choose some and leave out others, but with imaging, you get a whole area, and something unexpected might come up.

exactly. There is a large literature base on incidental radiological findings (especially adrenal masses)
 
You've seen a case of Wilson's disease? Lucky you!

Now when a medical disease becomes suspected in the course of evaluating a psych patient, why is it that psych doesn't work the patient up and treat them? Hypo/hyperthyroid would be a good example.

1) it gets confusing for me, the patient, and the PCP...who is supposed to perscribe the synthroid again? Were those labs ordered?

2) The PCP may have a different way of dealing with things than I do. I know that I get annoyed if someone in another specialty messes with my patient's psych meds. I can only imagine that other docs feel the same way.

3) I am not that good at it, and in 10 years, I will be really bad at it. I have enough to do treating my patients and keeping up with psychiatric literature. I am not keeping up with minutiae of every specialty. I don't know the best and latest ways to treat diabetes or even high cholesterol. I don't know what's cheap, what's expensive, or even really remember side effect profiles. I can start something if it's going to be a while, but I send people to their PCP's for chronic management.
 
1) it gets confusing for me, the patient, and the PCP...who is supposed to perscribe the synthroid again? Were those labs ordered?

2) The PCP may have a different way of dealing with things than I do. I know that I get annoyed if someone in another specialty messes with my patient's psych meds. I can only imagine that other docs feel the same way.

3) I am not that good at it, and in 10 years, I will be really bad at it. I have enough to do treating my patients and keeping up with psychiatric literature. I am not keeping up with minutiae of every specialty. I don't know the best and latest ways to treat diabetes or even high cholesterol. I don't know what's cheap, what's expensive, or even really remember side effect profiles. I can start something if it's going to be a while, but I send people to their PCP's for chronic management.

That all makes sense. I think what I meant was more along the lines of "why doesn't our specialty include more of this?" By comparison, neuro treats a lot of basic and even complicated medical stuff, at least when the patient is admitted to neuro.
 
That all makes sense. I think what I meant was more along the lines of "why doesn't our specialty include more of this?" By comparison, neuro treats a lot of basic and even complicated medical stuff, at least when the patient is admitted to neuro.

Neurologists do a year of internal medicine(or a year of a true prelim year) during internship. More importantly, an inpatient neuro ward involves a lot more 'medicine' than an inpatient psych ward. It's not even really close. The average neurologist treats a lot more basic and even complicated medical stuff than the average psychiatrist because the average neurologist has a lot more training and capacities in such an area.
 
Neurologists do a year of internal medicine(or a year of a true prelim year) during internship. More importantly, an inpatient neuro ward involves a lot more 'medicine' than an inpatient psych ward. It's not even really close. The average neurologist treats a lot more basic and even complicated medical stuff than the average psychiatrist because the average neurologist has a lot more training and capacities in such an area.

Sure, but is there a good reason why? Aside from the fact that a lot of people choose psychiatry simply to avoid doing physical exams or procedures? If a different subset of medical students had been choosing psychiatry for the last, say, 50 years, might the training be different?

I have this feeling that when lab tests finally get invented that will screen for or confirm mental health conditions, that IF one of the tests requires an LP, psychiatry will gladly hand whatever the disorder is off to neurology, for all time, for the simple reason is that a lot of psychiatrists probably either have poor manual dexterity or dislike needles.
 
Not gonna lie: I enjoy the fact that it is pretty much almost never appropriate for a psychiatrist to do a rectal exam or pelvic exam. I do agree that psychiatrists should be able to handle minor medical issues without calling consults though.
If you decide that you want to do research in an area that requires looking at serotonin metabolites in spinal fluid or something, I suppose you could justify doing LPs...or maybe you could do a pain fellowship and get some procedures that way. Is there any real reason a psychiatrist can't do an LP? I don't really think so. It's just that most of the time procedures aren't really indicated for the majority of the people we see, and so it's usually more efficient to let people who do that procedure every day do it than for us to do it occasionally.
 
Last edited:
I have this feeling that when lab tests finally get invented that will screen for or confirm mental health conditions, that IF one of the tests requires an LP, psychiatry will gladly hand whatever the disorder is off to neurology, for all time, for the simple reason is that a lot of psychiatrists probably either have poor manual dexterity or dislike needles.

I think it's because psychiatrists have an unfortunate history of getting sued for sticking things into their patients, especially from behind.
 
I think it's because psychiatrists have an unfortunate history of getting sued for sticking things into their patients, especially from behind.

:laugh:

Psych is psych. I don't get why anyone cares that we don't manage much of the medicine stuff. We're psych. That's what we do. It's a specialty. Specialties focus on a narrow but deep perspective.
 
I have this feeling that when lab tests finally get invented that will screen for or confirm mental health conditions, that IF one of the tests requires an LP, psychiatry will gladly hand whatever the disorder is off to neurology, for all time, for the simple reason is that a lot of psychiatrists probably either have poor manual dexterity or dislike needles.

disagree. Psychiatrists will just get someone else (probably rads) to do the LP for them
 
Sure, but is there a good reason why? Aside from the fact that a lot of people choose psychiatry simply to avoid doing physical exams or procedures? If a different subset of medical students had been choosing psychiatry for the last, say, 50 years, might the training be different?

I have this feeling that when lab tests finally get invented that will screen for or confirm mental health conditions, that IF one of the tests requires an LP, psychiatry will gladly hand whatever the disorder is off to neurology, for all time, for the simple reason is that a lot of psychiatrists probably either have poor manual dexterity or dislike needles.

sure there is a good reason why- most of our patients and clinical work doesn't require much in the way of physical exams and nothing in the way of procedures, so we're obviously not going to be trained in it or really know how to do it. It's the same reason I also don't know how to replace a transmission.

As for the subset of medical students that choose psychiatry, that's obviously influenced by the nature of psychiatry. It's ridiculous to speculate on such a thing. Just like it's ridiculous to speculate on whether drugs would be as rampant in the strip club industry if nuns and priests went into it in high numbers.....I mean perhaps, but the very nature of the adult entertainment dictates that isn't going to happen.

As for psychiatrists having to hand off procedures to neurology that require LPs....I don't see this happening. We already have decent CSF data on different groups of known axis1 patients. There isn't anything in them to suggest that there is something magic in the csf that would make doing LPs on known psych patients useful.
 
sure there is a good reason why- most of our patients and clinical work doesn't require much in the way of physical exams and nothing in the way of procedures, so we're obviously not going to be trained in it or really know how to do it. It's the same reason I also don't know how to replace a transmission.

As for the subset of medical students that choose psychiatry, that's obviously influenced by the nature of psychiatry. It's ridiculous to speculate on such a thing. Just like it's ridiculous to speculate on whether drugs would be as rampant in the strip club industry if nuns and priests went into it in high numbers.....I mean perhaps, but the very nature of the adult entertainment dictates that isn't going to happen.

As for psychiatrists having to hand off procedures to neurology that require LPs....I don't see this happening. We already have decent CSF data on different groups of known axis1 patients. There isn't anything in them to suggest that there is something magic in the csf that would make doing LPs on known psych patients useful.

Well back in the day, neurosyphillis was considered a psychiatric condition. Then it got usurped by neurology. That's why I used the example of finding a lab test that requires an LP. If they did invent that test, would psychiatry then hand the condition over to neuro?

What I'm trying to say is that our field has defined itself and selectively chosen the conditions we will treat, perhaps intentionally so as not to require physical exams or procedures. Most medical specialties are probably similarly arbitrary in how they're defined. But there's no obvious reason I see why we would do no medical management. We have lots of conditions that require medical management--detox, delirium, eating disorders, to name a few. So why aren't we doing the NG tubes for anorexic patients? We order them so you can't argue that it would "harm the therapeutic alliance."

Fields like path and rads are becoming more clinical--with interventional radiology and pathologists doing some procedures on patients. Meanwhile psychiatry seems to have no such ambitions, and I'm just curious why.
 
Well back in the day, neurosyphillis was considered a psychiatric condition. Then it got usurped by neurology. That's why I used the example of finding a lab test that requires an LP. If they did invent that test, would psychiatry then hand the condition over to neuro?
I'm not sure that logic stands. I order lots of lab tests for my patients and when I discover a disease is non-psychiatric (like vitamin deficiencies or hypothyroidism), I refer them to a primary care doc or appropriate specialist.

Fields like path and rads are becoming more clinical--with interventional radiology and pathologists doing some procedures on patients. Meanwhile psychiatry seems to have no such ambitions, and I'm just curious why.
Interventional radiology is a logical extension of radiology: using fancy toys and technology combined with rock solid anatomy. It's a good fit. You don't see psychiatry pushing for procedures for the same reason you don't see radiology pushing for doing therapy. Way outside the skillset.

Psychiatry might be more inclined to expand its scope into procedures (scary thought) if there was a shortage of work to go around, but that's not the case. As long as there is more psychopathology than psychiatrists, you'll see psychiatrists push to do better at what they do best. And LPs ain't it.
 
Well back in the day, neurosyphillis was considered a psychiatric condition. Then it got usurped by neurology. That's why I used the example of finding a lab test that requires an LP. If they did invent that test, would psychiatry then hand the condition over to neuro?

What I'm trying to say is that our field has defined itself and selectively chosen the conditions we will treat, perhaps intentionally so as not to require physical exams or procedures. Most medical specialties are probably similarly arbitrary in how they're defined. But there's no obvious reason I see why we would do no medical management. We have lots of conditions that require medical management--detox, delirium, eating disorders, to name a few. So why aren't we doing the NG tubes for anorexic patients? We order them so you can't argue that it would "harm the therapeutic alliance."

Fields like path and rads are becoming more clinical--with interventional radiology and pathologists doing some procedures on patients. Meanwhile psychiatry seems to have no such ambitions, and I'm just curious why.

1) regarding syphyllis one example doesn't prove a trend. But yes, if it is later found out that bipolar d/o is caused by some bacteria then and is treated in much the same way other infectious processes are, yes, at least parts of that will go off to medicine or neuro or whatever.

2) regarding your second paragraph, I don't think internists on medicine service place the NG tubes for anorexic patients either. Not sure exactly what your point on delirium is. What the cause of their delirium is generally guides the service they are placed on, and when the cause is not psychiatric in origin why would we 'medically manage' their delirium?

3) Also, what procedures are pathologists doing a patients? A long time ago pathologists used to do some bone marrow biopsies. Now at most academic hospitals, when they arent done by hemonc service midlevels or residents/fellows, they are done by a bone marrow tech. The pathologists actually like the same tech doing them at many places because the consistency of the sampling/margins(or whatever) is consistent from sample to sample so it is easier to know what to interpret of it. Pathologists are always doing different stains on tissues, but I dont know that I would call that clinical. What were you thinking of here?

I just don't see the interest in wanting to do things like place NG tubes. No medicine resident I know does this regularly...maybe they will if they are there and it is sorta acute and nobody else is around to do it. And things medicine and neuro residents do do, like LPs, simply arent needed enough in psychiatry to make it worthwhile to learn. How many LP's have you actually felt were neccessary on your psych inpatients throughout your whole residency? The reason psychiatrists don't do many procedures is that procedures are usually associated with infectious processes, consequences of physical illness, etc....since psychiatrists don't treat such things, there arent procedures. That is most definately not an arbitrary construct.

There are people who go in psychiatry because doesnt involve procedures, physical exams, etc....that is obviously a very different than psychiatry not having procedures and physical exams because the people that go into it just happened to not like those things.
 
POTS, mistaken for panic disorder
Or any number of psychiatric conditions, mistaken for POTS.

Patient: "This isn't psychiatric! It's real!"
Good psychiatrist: "Umm, well, I think psychiatric conditions are real!"
Patient: "I'm going to the Cleveland Clinic!"

drives...

CC: "Welcome to the Cleveland Clinic POTS center, where we give anybody whose heart beat has ever reached over 80 a diagnosis of POTS, as long as you pay us money and go tell everybody else to come here and pay us too!"
Patient: "You're so awesome, Cleveland Clinic. You gave me what I wanted! Not like that psychiatrist, who insisted on a real assessment and plan based on sound clinical judgment!"

the other scenario

Patient: "Yes, we saw your top 10 cardiology program specialists, and they said I didn't have POTS. But we knew they were wrong, so we drove to the Cleveland Clinic POTS center, and they gave me the diagnosis! So obviously Cleveland Clinic is right, because they told me my problem is entirely physical and I don't need to go to psychotherapy! So you're wrong, Mister Psychiatrist!"
Good psychiatrist: "What did they base the diagnosis on? What testing did they do?"
Patient: "I took in the Wikipedia article on POTS and told them how it sounded just like me! And they said if the wikipedia article sounds just like you, it must mean that you have POTS! There's no other explanation!"


I'm not saying POTS, RND, fibro, etc aren't real. They are. I just think the vast majority of the patients who receive these diagnoses need psychotherapy they refuse to go to because that means that their symptoms mean they are "crazy". And so they never get better.

Not to pick on Cleveland Clinic, but by selection bias, the patients I've had who have gone there thinking it's somehow a more respected medical institution than many others which are simply better academic and training programs have come back with crazy diagnoses and treatment plans, sometimes including opiate scripts big enough to kill small elephants. A neighbor with a bizarre scleroderma variant that was destroying her trachea had her life saved there, so I'm not saying it's a bad place.
 
So why aren't we doing the NG tubes for anorexic patients? We order them so you can't argue that it would "harm the therapeutic alliance."

We did when I was in residency :) Now I feel old.
I have a question, when you order an NG, who puts them in?
If someone were to say, pull out a toenail on the psych service, who would deal with it? What if they needed an I&D on an abcess or pulled out all of the sutures in their arm? Would surgery really come up and deal with that stuff? Would you send them to the ED? I am surprised that residents don't routinely deal with at least some very minor procedures.
 
We did when I was in residency :) Now I feel old.
I have a question, when you order an NG, who puts them in?
If someone were to say, pull out a toenail on the psych service, who would deal with it? What if they needed an I&D on an abcess or pulled out all of the sutures in their arm? Would surgery really come up and deal with that stuff? Would you send them to the ED? I am surprised that residents don't routinely deal with at least some very minor procedures.

When I was a resident, nurses usually did the NG's and residents did Dobhoffs (which I believe went into the duodenum)
 
We did when I was in residency :) Now I feel old.
I have a question, when you order an NG, who puts them in?
If someone were to say, pull out a toenail on the psych service, who would deal with it? What if they needed an I&D on an abcess or pulled out all of the sutures in their arm? Would surgery really come up and deal with that stuff? Would you send them to the ED? I am surprised that residents don't routinely deal with at least some very minor procedures.

1) The number of NG tubes ordered on a psych unit in any given year is very very low. Regardless, that is a nursing issue. A nurse would put it in just like they would on an IM floor. Now there is a chance the nurse wouldnt get it(since they dont do this stuff either), and then they would either call a nurse over on a medicine floor, let another nurse on a psych floor try, or ask one of the residents or attendings to try. I suspect I could work inpatient psych the next few years and this would not once be an issue. Maybe on a geri unit I guess.

2) If someone were to pull out a toenail on a medicine service, who would deal with it then? Is there some 'treatment' for such a thing? I'd probably examine the skin and give them an ibuprofen or whatever depending on pain level.

3) If they needed an I&D abcessed, I'd do a medicine consult and they would do it. Then again, this would not be all that common. They likely wouldnt go to psych with an abcess that needed I&D'd initially, and if such an abcess developed that required drainage(which wouldnt be common), medicine consult service would need to come by because they would need to see first if it even needed to be drained and second abx therapy and such. And they would be willing to do it because the alternative may be having to admit the pt by transfer which they wouldnt want to do.

4) If someone pulled their sutures out(and they needed suturing) I would treat it the same way as if someone lacerated their face by banging it against their bed or something- call whoever is covering that sort of stuff(whether it be face or plastics or gsurg). There is always an intern around for that sort of thing. They don't like it no, but I'd done bs mindless consults for them as well. In the real world/nonteaching hospitals, there is usually some PA who handles medical things covering all the teams. Or worst case just take them to the ER. Suturing is not something psychiatrists need to know how to do.
 
3) If they needed an I&D abcessed, I'd do a medicine consult and they would do it. Then again, this would not be all that common. They likely wouldnt go to psych with an abcess that needed I&D'd initially, and if such an abcess developed that required drainage(which wouldnt be common), medicine consult service would need to come by because they would need to see first if it even needed to be drained and second abx therapy and such. And they would be willing to do it because the alternative may be having to admit the pt by transfer which they wouldnt want to do.

.

When I was a resident covering the psych wards, this was more of a gen surg issue rather than IM.
 
I'm not sure that logic stands. I order lots of lab tests for my patients and when I discover a disease is non-psychiatric (like vitamin deficiencies or hypothyroidism), I refer them to a primary care doc or appropriate specialist.

Ok then please offer a definition of what is "psychiatric" vs what is not and justify this definition with a rationale that does not involve circular reasoning (i.e. it's non-psychiatric because it's 'outside the skill set' of psychiatrists.) Explain our "skill set" and tell us why it is what it is, with a justification that is as convincing as the following: "Pediatricians treat children, who are human beings under some arbitrarily defined cutoff age, while internists treat people over such age cutoff. Occasionally, in the following conditions (cystic fibrosis, certain cancers, etc.), their specialties overlap." Otherwise, I don't find the explanation that "a disease is non-psychiatric" to be a very convincing reason why a disease is "non psychiatric."

Within our field there I would say there is a general tendency to deal with conditions that have emotional components to it, but with some of these conditions, you could make the case they they really shouldn't belong to us.

I think all the word "psychiatric" means is that, at some point in history, the condition was thought to be "in people's heads." And no biological cause has yet been found, so we can continue to treat it. When a biological cause is found, someone else will deal with it. Is that a fair description?


Interventional radiology is a logical extension of radiology: using fancy toys and technology combined with rock solid anatomy. It's a good fit. You don't see psychiatry pushing for procedures for the same reason you don't see radiology pushing for doing therapy. Way outside the skillset.

Lots of fields use "fancy toys," not just radiology. How is using fancy toys combined with anatomy a "logical extension" of radiology? It seems more like a logical extension of surgery.

My point is, most of the specialty divisions are arbitrary. Most probably have financial incentives behind them.

Psychiatry might be more inclined to expand its scope into procedures (scary thought) if there was a shortage of work to go around, but that's not the case. As long as there is more psychopathology than psychiatrists, you'll see psychiatrists push to do better at what they do best. And LPs ain't it.

Why is that scary? Is that just your opinion? Why should I agree? I'm serious--I want to know why I should agree with that statement.

There will be a shortage of work when nurse practitioners do all the work we currently do. At that point, maybe some of us will find ways to justify why we went to medical school and ought to get paid more, perhaps by having more medical knowledge than nurses. But then, we'd have to use it. No one is going to pay us for knowledge we don't use. Currently, the amount of actual medical knowledge I use is rather small. Drug-drug interactions (which the pharmacists are way better at anyway) and the minimal amount of pharmacology and physiology needed to understand the effects of our drugs in various medical situations is about all I use from medical school. Oh, and thinking about whether something might be medical. Which, 99% of the time, it's not. So then, why did we all go to med school? I could have skipped about 75% of the med school curriculum and still be fine as a psych resident.
 
Last edited:
1) The number of NG tubes ordered on a psych unit in any given year is very very low. Regardless, that is a nursing issue. A nurse would put it in just like they would on an IM floor. Now there is a chance the nurse wouldnt get it(since they dont do this stuff either), and then they would either call a nurse over on a medicine floor, let another nurse on a psych floor try, or ask one of the residents or attendings to try. I suspect I could work inpatient psych the next few years and this would not once be an issue. Maybe on a geri unit I guess.

2) If someone were to pull out a toenail on a medicine service, who would deal with it then? Is there some 'treatment' for such a thing? I'd probably examine the skin and give them an ibuprofen or whatever depending on pain level.

3) If they needed an I&D abcessed, I'd do a medicine consult and they would do it. Then again, this would not be all that common. They likely wouldnt go to psych with an abcess that needed I&D'd initially, and if such an abcess developed that required drainage(which wouldnt be common), medicine consult service would need to come by because they would need to see first if it even needed to be drained and second abx therapy and such. And they would be willing to do it because the alternative may be having to admit the pt by transfer which they wouldnt want to do.

4) If someone pulled their sutures out(and they needed suturing) I would treat it the same way as if someone lacerated their face by banging it against their bed or something- call whoever is covering that sort of stuff(whether it be face or plastics or gsurg). There is always an intern around for that sort of thing. They don't like it no, but I'd done bs mindless consults for them as well. In the real world/nonteaching hospitals, there is usually some PA who handles medical things covering all the teams. Or worst case just take them to the ER. Suturing is not something psychiatrists need to know how to do.

Every single bit of this is institutional-dependent. I guess you didn't rotate on an eating disorder unit where 1/2 the patients get NG tubes. Or work in a hospital where nurses refuse to do certain things. (And I have never heard of a nurse consulting a nurse from another floor. They usually just "refuse" or give up in my experience.) Or where the medical screenings for inpatient psych aren't very thorough. I guess you never had to call surgery for a consult on an inpatient psych patient with a vigorous lower GI bleed and listen to the surgery resident yell at you when you tell them you actually cannot put in an NG tube or order H/H's every 4 hours, or follow any other recs they've given regarding your patient who was "screened" before coming to psych. And there's no hope for transfer, either.

You cannot take a patient from inpatient psych to the ER. It's an EMTALA violation, at least in my hospital.
 
1) regarding syphyllis one example doesn't prove a trend. But yes, if it is later found out that bipolar d/o is caused by some bacteria then and is treated in much the same way other infectious processes are, yes, at least parts of that will go off to medicine or neuro or whatever.

Well I wasn't saying there is a trend so much as a tendency. As of yet no one has explained to me (convincingly) why psychiatrists treat the conditions they do. Don't tell me it's because of Freud. Although I bet that's the answer. Nothing against Freud but I find it kinda sad that our field is so new and already has given up some illnesses. When they discover the biological causes of our disorders we will be without a job. We'll just be standing there saying "oh hey we do psychotherapy." Nothing against therapy either but it's not like you can't get an LCSW to do that for way cheaper.

Oh no wait, we won't. The political powers that write the DSM will just write up a new DSM and give us new disorders...

2) regarding your second paragraph, I don't think internists on medicine service place the NG tubes for anorexic patients either. Not sure exactly what your point on delirium is. What the cause of their delirium is generally guides the service they are placed on, and when the cause is not psychiatric in origin why would we 'medically manage' their delirium?

You're probably right about delirium. It's just that I had some attendings who would scour the medical charts like there was no tomorrow. Ok they never came up with groundbreaking interventions, but they hammered into us how crucial it was to read every page of the chart (although interestingly one of them really focused on the sitter notes, way moreso than the medical notes). Actually I bet we could treat delirium (its symptoms, not its cause) without even knowing what the patient's medical problem is. Without even knowing which service they're on... You do need to know the general age of the patient though.

3) Also, what procedures are pathologists doing a patients? A long time ago pathologists used to do some bone marrow biopsies. Now at most academic hospitals, when they arent done by hemonc service midlevels or residents/fellows, they are done by a bone marrow tech. The pathologists actually like the same tech doing them at many places because the consistency of the sampling/margins(or whatever) is consistent from sample to sample so it is easier to know what to interpret of it. Pathologists are always doing different stains on tissues, but I dont know that I would call that clinical. What were you thinking of here?

Again you have a point. I was thinking about a hematopathologist I met who was overseeing a transfusion in a patient's room once. However that's no more a "procedure" than a psychiatrist doing ECT and there's no way I'll concede that ECT is a procedure. Pathologists do perform procedures like frozen sections and autopsies, but they've always done those--it's nothing new.

I just don't see the interest in wanting to do things like place NG tubes. No medicine resident I know does this regularly...maybe they will if they are there and it is sorta acute and nobody else is around to do it. And things medicine and neuro residents do do, like LPs, simply arent needed enough in psychiatry to make it worthwhile to learn. How many LP's have you actually felt were neccessary on your psych inpatients throughout your whole residency?

I would say that was true of most of the LPs I did in neuro as well--that they weren't really crucial and a good H&P would have avoided the need.

I was just using the NG tube as a pathetic example of how exciting our work lives could be if we expanded into this heretofore unfamiliar territory. It would give us one procedure. A lame one, yes, but a procedure. Then I wouldn't have to sit in a chair all day and listen to people. I'd get some variety, with a break from empathizing now and then. I feel that we have no variety in psych. We just "listen" and order SSRIs, neurontin, and atypicals. We only have about 40 meds if you actually count them. Virtually all are PO. I wish I could live on the edge and order some digoxin once and awhile, or, gasp, a head CT with contrast.

Thanks for some good points!
 
Last edited:
Well I wasn't saying there is a trend so much as a tendency. As of yet no one has explained to me (convincingly) why psychiatrists treat the conditions they do. Don't tell me it's because of Freud. it

!

part it is Freud- there is no rational answer to your questions. A lot of the boundary between specialties is 1) historical accident and 2) the result of turf battles fought years ago.

The APA (especially through publishing guidelines/dsm) plays a large role in defining the profession, as well as the ABPN (by testing areas that psychiatrists are supposed to know).

INsurance companies play a role (by defining certain illnesses/treatments as psychiatric)

The government plays a role (through committment laws- defining which disorders are considered psychiatric and make a person eligible for committment).

Residency programs play a role

Practicing psychiatrists play a role (ultimately the standard of care is determined by what a majority of psychiatrists do)

I don't think there is a single biological cause for most psych disorders; we don't have to worry about a turf battle with neuro/IM anytime soon.
 
Top