Schanzer Bella M, First Michael B, Dominguez Boanerges, Hasin Deborah S, Caton Carol L M
Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY 10043, USA.
Psychiatr Serv. 2006 Oct;57(10):1468-73. doi: 10.1176/ps.2006.57.10.1468.
For patients who are actively using a substance and experience psychotic symptoms, determining whether the psychotic symptoms are due to a primary psychotic disorder or are substance induced is challenging, especially in emergency departments, where historical information is limited. This study examined the accuracy and subsequent treatment implications of emergency department diagnoses among substance-using patients who were having their first psychotic episode.
Emergency department diagnoses for 302 patients were compared with best-estimate longitudinal diagnoses (BELDs) based on research assessments at three time points (baseline, six months, and 12 months).
Of the 223 patients whose symptoms were diagnosed in the emergency department as a primary psychotic disorder, one-quarter were determined by the BELD to have substance-induced psychosis or no psychosis. Overall, the diagnostic agreement was only fair (kappa=.32). Patients with an emergency department diagnosis of primary psychosis were significantly more likely than those with an emergency department diagnosis of substance-induced psychosis to be hospitalized, started on antipsychotic medication, and referred to mental health services instead of treatment for substance use (p<.001). Patients given an emergency department diagnosis of primary psychosis who were found by the BELD to have substance-induced psychosis or no psychosis were significantly more likely to be treated for a psychotic disorder rather than for substance-induced psychosis (p<.001)
Clinicians in psychiatric emergency departments appear to have a tendency to attribute psychotic symptoms to a primary psychotic disorder rather than to concurrent substance use. Given that the diagnosis has significant implications for future management, it is important to improve diagnostic approaches in the emergency department.
对于正在积极使用某种物质并出现精神病性症状的患者,确定这些精神病性症状是由原发性精神障碍引起还是由物质所致具有挑战性,尤其是在急诊科,那里的病史信息有限。本研究调查了首次出现精神病性发作的物质使用患者中急诊科诊断的准确性及其后续治疗意义。
将302例患者的急诊科诊断与基于三个时间点(基线、六个月和十二个月)研究评估得出的最佳估计纵向诊断(BELD)进行比较。
在急诊科被诊断为原发性精神障碍的223例患者中,四分之一被BELD确定为物质所致精神病或无精神病。总体而言,诊断一致性仅为一般(kappa = 0.32)。急诊科诊断为原发性精神病的患者比诊断为物质所致精神病的患者更有可能住院、开始使用抗精神病药物治疗并被转介至心理健康服务机构而非接受物质使用治疗(p < 0.001)。被急诊科诊断为原发性精神病但被BELD确定为物质所致精神病或无精神病的患者接受精神病性障碍治疗而非物质所致精神病治疗的可能性显著更高(p < 0.001)。
精神科急诊科的临床医生似乎倾向于将精神病性症状归因于原发性精神障碍而非同时存在的物质使用。鉴于诊断对未来管理有重大影响,改善急诊科的诊断方法很重要。