Psychodynamic diagnostic manual in clinical practice-case report

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (S2) ◽  
pp. 1027-1027
Author(s):  
S. Kecojevic Miljevic
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Collaborative Work ◽  
Diagnostic System ◽  
Diagnostic Systems ◽  
Therapeutic Approaches ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Mind Set ◽  
Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual

Psychodynamic diagnostic manual was created by collaborative work of organisatios in the field of mental health and an authorial group with the aim of supplementing currently valid diagnostic systems ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR. PDM is based on traditional psychoanalytical and psychodynamic concepts of genesis of mental disorders, currently valid diagnostic systems, new insights in the area of neurosciences, as well as on the evaluation of outcomes of different therapeutic approaches. The concept of mental disorders understanding adopted by PDM is bio-psycho-social and it follows a primary course of topical trends dictated by World Psychiatric Association towards personality orientated psychiatry. The purpose of this paper is the usage presentation of the useful guide in clinical practice with the aim of diagnosing mental disorder in the case of the described patient of a type of psychoanalytical approach applied in her treatment. The multi-axis diagnostic system of PDM has been used in the methodology of this paper. Based on this research we conclude that the described patient suffers from somatisation personality disorder, she also possesses the level of mental functioning with the moderate to higher degree of limitation, and symptomatically demonstrates somatiform disorder from the class of gastrointestinal system dysfunction and anxious disorder from a class of phobia.The mind-set of patient, and the limited level of her mental functions which suggests the inclination to a borderline level of type of personality organisations indicate plausible grounds for using supportive expressive psychoanalytical psychoterapeutic approach.

scholarly journals Coexisting Depression and Anxiety: Classification and Treatment

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 32-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Kulhan ◽  
I. Ondrejka ◽  
J. Ordaz ◽  
E. Snircova ◽  
G. Nosalova
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Depression And Anxiety ◽  
Therapeutic Approaches ◽  
Anxious Depression ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Recommended Guidelines ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Classification And Treatment

Coexisting Depression and Anxiety: Classification and TreatmentDespite of the fact, that comorbidity of depression and anxiety is a frequent condition in clinical practice, current psychiatric classification systems (according to WHO-ICD 10 and according to APA-DSM IV-TR) are not taking this reality into account sufficiently. The concept of anxious depression is very important for clinical practice. Recommended guidelines and algorithms of treatment based on evidence based medicine (EBM), established mainly on randomized controlled trials are designed separately for depression and separately for anxious disorders. This presents very often a significant complication in clinical practice. The aim of this article was to bring the concept of anxious depression to closer attention with highlighting of possible therapeutic approaches.

The biopsychosocial model, DSM, and neurobiology

2020 ◽  
pp. 320-324
Author(s):  
S. Nassir Ghaemi
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Diagnostic System ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
The Past ◽  
Psychiatric Conditions

This chapter explores the need for a new approach in psychiatry other than the biopsychosocial (BPS) model, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and neurobiology. Pierre Loebel and Julian Savulescu, in their introduction to this book, laid out an honourable purpose, seeking to make sense of psychiatric conditions holistically. They hoped the BPS model could serve this purpose. The model has done so in part, but also, after half a century of effort, it has failed to do so in the end. The goals are worthy and the seekers of those goals have integrity. But perhaps their intentions will be best served by something else, a successor to the past BPS model, built on a rejection of a false DSM diagnostic system as well as a purely neurobiological approach to research. In the end, what Loebel and his colleagues want to do is to preserve a place for humanism in psychiatry, and to link clinical practice to solid scientific research. These laudable principles can be achieved only by a radical departure from the DSM-based neurobiological conventional wisdom of the present and the past.

ICD-10/DSM-IV index

2013 ◽  
pp. 1023-1042
Keyword(s):  
Substance Abuse ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Affective Disorders ◽  
Somatoform Disorders ◽  
Physical Factors ◽  
Psychoactive Substance ◽  
Adult Personality ◽  
Behavioural Syndromes ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Dsm Iv

F00-F09 Organic, including symptomatic mental disorders F10–F19 Mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance abuse F20–F29 Schizophrenia, schizotypal, and delusional disorders F30–F39 Mood (affective) disorders F40–F49 Neurotic, stress-related, and somatoform disorders F50–F59 Behavioural syndromes associated with physiological disturbance and physical factors F60–F69 Disorders of adult personality and behaviour...

scholarly journals Classification in psychiatry: ICD–10 v. DSM–IV

1999 ◽  
Vol 175 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael B. First ◽  
Harold Alan Pincus
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
American Psychiatric Association ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Diagnostic Classification ◽  
Two Systems ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Harmful Use ◽  
Dsm Iv

The editorial by Andrews et al (1999) usefully calls attention to issues of compatibility between diagnostic classification systems but we believe that the editorial greatly overstates the compatibility problem as well as its implications. The article begins with the suggestion that the DSM–IV authors' position is to downplay the differences between DSM–IV and ICD–10. After stating that the American Psychiatric Association “felt sufficiently confident to publish a DSM–IV International Version in which the DSM–IV criteria are listed against the ICD–10 codes”, the authors go on to report concordances between the classifications for the main mental disorders as ranging from a low of 33% (for substance harmful use or abuse) to 87% (for dysthymia), with an overall concordance of only 68%. The authors conclude that if this “unnecessary dissonance between the classification systems continues, patients, researchers and clinicians will be all the poorer”. Although we acknowledge that there are a number of differences between the two systems, the authors fail to assess fully the sources, significance and solutions for this compatibility problem.

Neurocognitive disorders: Cluster 1 of the proposed meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11

2009 ◽  
Vol 39 (12) ◽  
pp. 2001-2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Sachdev ◽  
G. Andrews ◽  
M. J. Hobbs ◽  
M. Sunderland ◽  
T. M. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Cognitive Disorders ◽  
Neurocognitive Disorders ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Normal Brain ◽  
Dsm V ◽  
Co Morbidity ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Dsm Iv

BackgroundIn an effort to group mental disorders on the basis of aetiology, five clusters have been proposed. In this paper, we consider the validity of the first cluster, neurocognitive disorders, within this proposal. These disorders are categorized as ‘Dementia, Delirium, and Amnestic and Other Cognitive Disorders’ in DSM-IV and ‘Organic, including Symptomatic Mental Disorders’ in ICD-10.MethodWe reviewed the literature in relation to 11 validating criteria proposed by a Study Group of the DSM-V Task Force as applied to the cluster of neurocognitive disorders.Results‘Neurocognitive’ replaces the previous terms ‘cognitive’ and ‘organic’ used in DSM-IV and ICD-10 respectively as the descriptor for disorders in this cluster. Although cognitive/organic problems are present in other disorders, this cluster distinguishes itself by the demonstrable neural substrate abnormalities and the salience of cognitive symptoms and deficits. Shared biomarkers, co-morbidity and course offer less persuasive evidence for a valid cluster of neurocognitive disorders. The occurrence of these disorders subsequent to normal brain development sets this cluster apart from neurodevelopmental disorders. The aetiology of the disorders is varied, but the neurobiological underpinnings are better understood than for mental disorders in any other cluster.ConclusionsNeurocognitive disorders meet some of the salient criteria proposed by the Study Group of the DSM-V Task Force to suggest a classification cluster. Further developments in the aetiopathogenesis of these disorders will enhance the clinical utility of this cluster.

A Qualitative Analysis on What Brazilian Psychiatrists Want from Current Diagnostic Classifications

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (S1) ◽  
pp. 1-1 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Santos Júnior ◽  
L.F.A.L. Silva ◽  
C.E.M. Banzato ◽  
M.E.C. Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Daily Practice ◽  
Diagnostic Systems ◽  
Diagnostic Categories ◽  
Frequent Use ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Dsm V ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Axis I ◽  
Dsm Iv

Aims:To analyze the qualitative answers profile of an anonymous standardized survey, with qualitative and quantitative questions, about the Brazilian psychiatrists' perceptions on their use of the multiaxial diagnostic systems ICD 10 and DSM-IV and on their expectations about future revisions of these classifications (ICD-11 and DSM-V).Method:the questionnaire, elaborated by Graham Mellsop (New Zealand), was translated into Portuguese and sent through mail to 1050 psychiatrists affiliated to the Brazilian Psychiatry Association. The quantitative analysis is presented elsewhere.Results:One hundred and sixty questionaries returned (15,2%). From these, 71,1% of the open questions where answered. The most needed and/or desirable qualities in a psychiatric classification were found to be: simplicity, criteria clarity, objectivity, comprehensibility, reliability and ease to use. The axis I of the ICD-10 was reported to be the most used due to its instrumental character in addition to being the official classification, including for legal and bureaucratic purposes. The DSM-IV was also used in the everyday practice, mostly for education and research purposes, by psychiatrists with academic affiliations. The less frequent use of the multiaxial systems was justified by the lack of training and familiarity, the overload of information and by the fact they are not mandatory. It was evaluated that some diagnostic categories must be reviewed, like: mental retardation, eating disorders, personality disorders, sleeping disorders, child and adolescence disorders, affective and schizoaffective disorders.Conclusion:This material offers a systematic panorama about the psychiatrists' opinions and expectations concerning the diagnostic instruments used in the daily practice.

scholarly journals Differences between psychopathy and other personality disorders: evidence from neuroimaging

2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sagari Sarkar ◽  
Ben S. Clark ◽  
Quinton Deeley
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Structure And Function ◽  
Cluster B Personality Disorders ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
And Function ◽  
Limbic Regions

SummaryICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR diagnostic guidelines do not list psychopathy as a distinct psychiatric entity. However, there are significant overlaps between psychopathy and DSM-IV-TR Cluster B personality disorders. Neuroimaging studies implicate deficits in structure and function of frontal and limbic regions in this group of personality disorders, while highlighting both distinctions and overlaps between syndromes. Here, these data are reviewed and implications for diagnosis and clinical practice are discussed.

scholarly journals SILIK Syndrome: Should It Get a Special Concern in our Diagnostic Systems?

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dr. Hemanta Dutta ◽  
Dr. Soumik Sengupta
Keyword(s):  
Demographic Data ◽  
Diagnostic System ◽  
Somatic Symptoms ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Somatoform Disorder ◽  
Diagnostic Systems ◽  
Demographic Profiles ◽  
Negative Findings ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Regional Institute

Background: Somatoform disorder is characterized by repeated presentations of physical symptoms, together with persistent requests for medical investigations, in spite of repeated negative findings and reassurances by doctors that the symptoms have no physical basis. Concept of SILIK syndrome has been derived from various patients who presents with a specific set of unspecified somatic symptoms. Aims: To assess the prevalence and socio-demographic profiles of patients presenting with a set of unspecific somatic symptoms i.e SILIK sensation Settings and design: the study was conducted in LGB Regional Institute of Mental Health. Total number of files of patients was 9232, which were analyzed in the period of 1st April/2014 to 31st March/2015. Methods: Patients are generally diagnosed by using ICD 10 criteria. The medical records of total Out Patient Department (OPD) patients attending to our OPD from 1st April/2014 to 31st March/2015 were reviewed and the file records of the patients who were diagnosed to be a case of undifferentiated somatoform disorder are selected. From the selected file records of the patients, who complained of SILIK sensation are taken for the study. Socio demographic data are recorded from the files. Results: Among 9232 patients 21% (total number-1982) suffered from a specific set of unspecified somatic symptoms which was termed as SILIK syndrome. Conclusion: A significant fraction of the patients attend our OPD with SILIK syndrome, who were still placed in inappropriate category of diagnostic system due to lack of proper dignognostic labeling. This study throws its light on these sections of the patients so that this syndrome can make its own stand in our diagnostic system.

scholarly journals En innføring i depresjonsvurdering med PHQ-9

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomas Formo Langkaas ◽  
Even Rognan ◽  
Sverre Urnes Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Diagnostic Algorithm ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
National Guidelines ◽  
General Introduction ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Cutoff Scores

Assessment of depression is a routine task in clinical practice in Norway. National guidelines (Helsedirektoratet, 2009) recommend the use of measurement instruments in assessment of depression. PHQ-9 is widely used in research and practice. The official PHQ-9 manual provides practical guidance on interpreting test results with the use of clinical cutoff scores and a diagnostic algorithm for DSM-IV. With background from clinical practice and research, we summarize and provide guidance on the practical use of PHQ-9 beyond what the official PHQ-9 manual offers, applied to a Norwegian context. We provide a general introduction to diagnostic assessment of depression and the limited role of measurement instruments in such assessments. We describe how the original diagnostic algorithm can be adapted to ICD-10 criteria, we describe how to apply clinical significance to use PHQ-9 as a feedback instrument to monitor treatment progress, and we describe how to interpret results with missing answers. Finally, we discuss the shortcomings of relying on measurement instruments in assessment of depression and conclude that PHQ-9 is better suited in ordinary practice than other instruments recommended in the national guidelines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document