Ethical Psychotherapeutic Management of Patients with Medically Unexplained Symptoms: The Risk of Misdiagnosis and Harm. O'Leary & Geraghty. 2020

John Mac

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Full title:
Ethical Psychotherapeutic Management of Patients with Medically Unexplained Symptoms: The Risk of Misdiagnosis and Harm
Diane O'Leary and Keith Geraghty

Abstract and Keywords

Management of medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) is undergoing a period of change. We see this in the recent breakdown of consensus on mental health management of quintessential medically unexplained conditions (like myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome), and in recent work in bioethics suggesting that the issue of biological versus mental health management of MUS is fundamentally an ethical matter. For these reasons, it is important to think carefully about ethical aspects of MUS management in psychotherapeutic settings.

In the first part of this chapter, the authors show how ambiguity in the term “MUS” leads to routine conflation of diagnostic uncertainty with psychological diagnosis for unexplained symptoms in medical settings.

The second part of the chapter explores evidence suggesting that substantial harm results from a failure to draw that distinction in medical settings, and clarifies the psychotherapist’s obligations to avoid those harms.

The authors then explore the risk for psychological harms when psychotherapists conflate diagnostic uncertainty with psychological diagnosis. Finally, they consider challenges to informed consent in psychotherapy for MUS.

The chapter concludes with principles for ethical psychotherapeutic management of MUS.

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/vie...98817338.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198817338-e-72


Edited to break into shorter paragraphs for easier reading.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder, is there such a thing as ethicial psychotherapeutic management of ME/CFS? Surely the answer to that is that ME/CFS should not be managed psychotherapeutically. It's possible comorbid psychological conditions could be managed psychotherapeutically, but not ME/CFS itself.

I'm not too happy with ME/CFS being given an MUS label.

Since I can't access and read the chapter, I can only hope it's good. Keith Geraghty does excellent work on ME/CFS, so I'll just have to trust he has done so here too.

Edited to remove speculation about the chapter content.
 
Last edited:
I'm not too happy with ME/CFS being given an MUS label either.
With friends like these...

To expand further, it's not the concept, of ME being medically unexplained, that I object to, as that is technically correct. But given that the term has been weaponised by the BPSers to mean psychological (whether they claim they have or not) means that I object to it being used with ME. By all means call it insufficiently researched, but not medically unexplained.
 
insufficiently researched

Insufficiently researched disease is a good name for "medically unexplained symptoms".

Athough it would be naive to think that one could avoid the associated problems just with a name change. What's needed is mechanisms to identify which illnesses are poorly understood and neglected and initiatives to stimulate good research into them.
 
I've had a very quick skim and so far am favourably impressed. I think this paragraph giving undiagnosed Lupus as the example on the dangers of CBT for undiagnosed physical conditions that are mistaken for psychological problems is good. I've broken a single paragraph into shorter sections for ease of reading:

When CBT “helps” the lupus patient to “manage” her symptoms by understanding their link to her feelings and behavior, it directs her to do something that is not humanly possible. In encouraging her to shift responsibility for improvement from her doctors to herself, CBT can lead the client down a track where she is doomed to psychological failure, both in her own eyes and in the eyes of her therapist.

More than that, when psychotherapists suggest to biomedical patients that their conditions can improve only through their own psychological change, they teach clients to cultivate patterns of doubt about basic forms of self-perception that have actually been entirely reliable—so clients are taught to question their mental resilience in a way that could actually damage resilience.

Though at this time there exists no research that explores psychological harms caused by CBT for MUS in patients who actually suffer from biomedical conditions—and that is an oversight that surely needs to be remedied—it is not difficult to see that it is harmful to place psychological responsibility for symptom improvement on clients who suffer from biological disease.

A pretty good description of gaslighting. ME/CFS is mentioned in this context.
 
Only skimmed the first bit so far.

As a matter of peculiar professional fact, there is no term that names diagnostic uncertainty without also naming psychological diagnosis.
That hits the nail on the head.

Once we become aware of ambiguity in usage of the term “MUS,” we see that medical guidance for management of MUS is often terribly unclear. When we read, for example, the common suggestion that roughly half of symptoms in outpatient settings are medically unexplained, it’s unclear whether we should conclude that in half of cases diagnosis is uncertain, or that in half of cases symptoms have psychological causes.
Ambiguity seems to be the hallmark of BPS psychiatry.
 
I also find the statement:

Because ME/CFS and chronic Lyme disease are quintessential examples of MUS..."


unhelpful.


In 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) chose to replace somatization with “bodily distress disorder” in the new general edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) (Gureje and Reed 2016), while a different construct, “bodily stress syndrome,” has been recommended to fill the parallel slot in the new ICD for primary care (Goldberg et al. 2016).


Note that the publication referred to above as "the new ICD for primary care" is the ICD-11 PHC*, which is still in development [1].

ICD-11 PHC is a clinical guideline written in simpler language intended to assist non-mental health specialists, especially primary care practitioners and non medically trained health workers with the diagnosis and management of common mental disorders. It is also intended for use in low resource settings and low- to middle-income countries where clinical facilities/access to trained diagnosticians are scarce or non existent.

The ICD-11 PHC is proposed to comprise 27 "common mental disorders" and contains no general medical diseases. Like the ICD-10 PHC (1996), this revised diagnostic and management guideline will not be mandatory for use by member states and the WHO intends to make the guideline available on its website as an unlicensed download.

If ICD-11 PHC goes forward with its proposed "Bodily Stress Syndrome" category, there will be all these diagnostic constructs and criteria sets in play:

Somatic symptom disorder (DSM-5; under BDD Synonyms list in the core ICD-11; potentially added to SNOMED CT)
Bodily distress disorder (core ICD-11; SNOMED CT)
Bodily Stress Syndrome (proposed for the ICD-11 PHC guideline for 27 common mental disorders)
Bodily distress syndrome (Fink et al 2010, operationalized in Denmark and beyond)

plus the existing ICD-10 and SNOMED CT Somatoform disorders categories and their equivalents in ICPC-2 (a primary care classification system that is available in over 30 countries and is mandatory for use in primary care in 6 EU countries, including the Netherlands).​


I hope this clarifies that the forthcoming ICD-11 PHC is a non mandatory guideline for 27 mental disorders only and not an abridged version of all the chapters in the core ICD-11.


*The ICD-11 PHC has not been developed on a publicly accessible platform and the draft texts for the 27 mental disorders proposed to be included are not available for public stakeholder review and comment. There is no indication when the WHO expects to finalise and release the ICD-11 PHC.

1 Slide presentation: MUS becomes Bodily Stress Syndrome in the ICD-11 for primary care, Marianne Rosendal (2017)



Note: The ICD-11 PHC should not be confused with the Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) for ICD-11 Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental Disorders that has been developed by the WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse and is the equivalent of the ICD-10 "Blue Book".

The brief descriptive texts in Chapter 06: Mental, behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders in the core version of ICD-11 are intended for use by coders and clerical workers as a basis for statistical reporting.

The Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) for ICD-11 Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental Disorders provides expanded clinical descriptions, essential (required) features, boundaries with other disorders and normality, differential diagnoses, additional features, culture-related features and codes for all mental and behavioural disorders commonly encountered in clinical psychiatry and is intended for use by mental health professionals and for general clinical, educational and service use.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom