
- Vol 37, Issue 10
- Volume 37
- Issue 10
What to Do When Being There Means Being Vulnerable
In the early days of the pandemic, there was debate about whether clinical services for patients with psychiatric illness were “essential.” The evolution of psychiatric consultation-liaison services to medically hospitalized patients was no less complex.
FROM THE ACADEMY OF CONSULTATION-LIAISON PSYCHIATRY
In the early days of the shelter-in-place edict that was established in the San Francisco Bay Area in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was some debate about whether clinical services for patients with psychiatric illness were “
The deliberation was more complicated and the decisions more controversial (and less universally adopted) in the hospital setting, for patients, both children and adults, who were psychiatrically hospitalized, or who were receiving care in general medical (non-psychiatric) hospitals and had psychiatric symptoms and/or comorbid psychiatric illness that required consultation-liaison psychiatric care. Directives from departmental leadership were rapidly evolving in the first few weeks of shelter-in-place, and included such decisions as not psychiatrically hospitalizing any patient aged 60 years or older or not having psychiatry residents interact directly with patients in emergency rooms. Fortunately, directives such as these were quickly revised, presumably through an iterative process between clinicians and leadership.
What took longer to establish were the policies for providing psychiatric
Most medical specialists who were still providing care and meeting the expectation of social distancing and infection control protocols in these hospitals embraced this technologic solution. Arguments in favor of this version of consultation were made to suggest that the quality of remote consultation would be adequate for the care provided. That may be true for straightforward cases. However, more often than not, there are cases that are far from straightforward, which flummox clinician efforts to use communication-enabling technology.
The university hospital where I am an attending on the adult
We are dependent on: the hardware and software functioning adequately; the hospital staff designated as “resource nurses,” who serve as our bridge to the patient by wheeling in the computer cart on which the technology runs and being present with the patient while our team engages with them; and our clinical acumen to detect subtle changes in facial expression, affect, and engagement on a small screen. These technologic factors are moot when patients refuse to interact with their consultant over the computer or to even consent to such an intervention. Even when patients consent to a virtual visit, there may be circumstances when their level of disorganization, paranoia, distractibility, agitation, or distress prevents them from interacting in a meaningful way with their consultant.
The experiences of the adult psychiatry C/L service described above informed the child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAPs) providing consultation to our different pediatrics units, but in different ways. At one site, the patients in the children’s hospital were evaluated through remote consultation unless strict clinical criteria (altered mental status or
The justification for remote consultation was the effort to minimize the number of staff exposed to COVID-19 and thus the likelihood of further contagion (presuming staff acted as vectors). However, the technology still needed human agents to manipulate it. Those humans were the same front-line staff who were expected to do the other tasks of patient care. Not only did this expectation suggest that their workload could be increased for the sake of supporting the CAP C/L team, but also that the safety of front-line staff could be forfeited for the safety of the consultants.
Another benefit that was touted was improved communication and/or
Resources have been scarce, but hospitalized psychiatric patients are just as entitled to medical care as any other hospitalized patient, and those psychiatrists providing care need to be protected in the same way as other medical specialists. Physicians have always recognized that there are
The protocol that we developed recognized the importance of being present for the inpatient teams and the challenges that telepsychiatry can pose for our patients who are acutely (psychiatrically) symptomatic. The first patient I evaluated using this protocol was an adolescent manifesting symptoms of excited catatonia; she paced throughout her room during the entirety of the interview and could barely attend to me while in the room with her. It is highly unlikely that I could have engaged her and redirected her over a video monitor.
It came as no surprise that in response to the
It is becoming all the more clear that additional support for the increasing mental health needs of patients, especially those with pre-existing psychiatric illness, will be
More data seem to be collected about the clinicians’ experiences of transitioning their services to telehealth platforms than the patients’ experiences of not being seen in person. Professional service organization listservs have become repositories for institutional strategies for converting (in-person) inpatient C/L services to
Attention is slowly beginning to shift from the process of providing telehealth to its consequences, especially in the area of
Technology is a fickle ally. It promises support but it falls short of authentic connection. In our effort to open new vistas for consulting on medically hospitalized patients with psychiatric symptoms, we should not lose sight of what our duty to them was meant to be.
Dedicating ourselves to the principles of social distancing may have resulted in the perceived abandonment of our patients. As our subspecialty comes to terms with the new normal of life in the post-COVID-19 era, it will be important to ensure that the emotional well-being of our patients is given at least as much attention as the mental health needs of our colleagues. Access to genuine care should not be relegated to virtual visits.
Dr Ihle is Health Sciences Clinical Professor in the Departments of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences and Pediatrics, Langley Porter Psychiatric Hospital and Clinics, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California San Francisco, and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA. Dr Ihle has no disclosures regarding the subject of this article.
Acknowledgements—Thank you to
References
1. Ihle EC. Psychiatry is an essential medical service during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Psychiatry Reform. 2020;8:1-4.
2. Wan W. The coronavirus pandemic is pushing America into a mental health crisis. The Washington Post. May 4, 2020. Accessed September 15, 2020.
3. Siwicki B. Survey: Americans’ perceptions of telehealth in the COVID-19 era. Heathcare IT News. April 3, 2020. Accessed September 15, 2020.
4. Ojha R and Syed S.
Articles in this issue
almost 5 years ago
Psychopathy: Insights for General Practicealmost 5 years ago
Assessing Competency To Stand Trialalmost 5 years ago
Behind Closed Doorsalmost 5 years ago
The Case for Medication-Assisted Treatment: An Ethical Priorityalmost 5 years ago
Oxcarbazepine: Does It Have a Role in Bipolar Disorder?almost 5 years ago
I Don’t Want to Die Here in Timbuktualmost 5 years ago
Between Stoned and a Hard Place? Navigating Cannabis Medicolegal Issuesalmost 5 years ago
Easy To Miss, Hard to Treat: Notes on Frontotemporal Dementiaalmost 5 years ago
Documenting Recovery in Delusional Disorder With the MMPI-2Newsletter
Receive trusted psychiatric news, expert analysis, and clinical insights — subscribe today to support your practice and your patients.