Heuss Sabina C, Schwartz Bruce J, Schneeberger Andres R
HEUSS: Department of Communication and Marketing, University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland FHNW, Olten, Switzerland SCHWARTZ: Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY SCHNEEBERGER: Psychiatric Services Grisons, Chur, Switzerland and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY.
J Psychiatr Pract. 2018 Nov;24(6):434-442. doi: 10.1097/PRA.0000000000000343.
Although second opinions are rather restricted to the surgical disciplines, they have become more and more important to the health system in the last 20 years. The demand has been triggered by rising health costs and the economization of the field. The Internet has also made a considerable contribution to the demand for patient-initiated second opinions. Given these developments, it is surprising that second opinions have not become more important in the field of psychiatry. This article highlights the special situation of second opinions in psychiatry, discusses possible barriers to the adoption of second opinions in psychiatry, and the potential for greater use of second opinions in this field.
In psychiatry, second opinions have been neglected by the typical drivers of innovations in health care, including insurers and other commercial drivers as well as psychiatrists and patients themselves. This review identifies current barriers to widespread adoption of second opinions in psychiatric practice, discusses the benefits of second opinions that have been demonstrated in other disciplines, and outlines the potential gains to be realized through use of second opinions in psychiatry.
Literature in the area was reviewed through a search of the main medical databases. This literature review was supported by in-depth interviews with health care personnel and insurers.
Second opinions are rarely obtained in psychiatry and there is little literature on this subject. The stigmatization of psychiatric disorders and patients and the uniqueness of the patient-doctor relationship in psychiatry, especially in psychotherapeutic care, may pose considerable obstacles to the use of second opinions in this field. In addition, more stakeholders, such as social workers, government agencies and regulators, health care and disability insurers, and social security agencies, are involved in the mental health compared with the somatic health sector, which may make it more difficult to achieve a coordinated approach in psychiatric care. However, we have found no convincingly good reason why second opinions have not been at least discussed in psychiatry. Psychiatry could benefit from ongoing discussions concerning the outcomes of second opinions in other medical disciplines.
尽管二次诊断意见在外科领域应用较为局限,但在过去20年里,它们对医疗系统变得越来越重要。健康成本的上升以及该领域的经济化引发了这种需求。互联网也对患者主动寻求二次诊断意见的需求做出了相当大的贡献。鉴于这些发展情况,令人惊讶的是二次诊断意见在精神病学领域并未变得更加重要。本文强调了精神病学中二次诊断意见的特殊情况,讨论了在精神病学中采用二次诊断意见可能存在的障碍,以及在该领域更广泛使用二次诊断意见的潜力。
在精神病学领域,二次诊断意见被医疗保健创新的典型推动因素忽视了,这些因素包括保险公司和其他商业驱动因素,以及精神科医生和患者自身。本综述确定了目前在精神病学实践中广泛采用二次诊断意见的障碍,讨论了在其他学科中已证明的二次诊断意见的益处,并概述了通过在精神病学中使用二次诊断意见可实现的潜在收益。
通过检索主要医学数据库对该领域的文献进行了综述。本次文献综述得到了对医疗保健人员和保险公司的深入访谈的支持。
在精神病学中很少获得二次诊断意见,关于这个主题的文献也很少。精神疾病和患者的污名化以及精神病学中患者与医生关系的独特性,尤其是在心理治疗护理中,可能对该领域使用二次诊断意见构成相当大的障碍。此外,与躯体健康领域相比,更多的利益相关者,如社会工作者、政府机构和监管机构、医疗保健和残疾保险公司以及社会保障机构,参与到心理健康领域,这可能使在精神科护理中实现协调一致的方法更加困难。然而,我们没有找到令人信服的充分理由来解释为什么二次诊断意见在精神病学中甚至都没有得到至少讨论。精神病学可以从关于其他医学学科二次诊断意见结果的持续讨论中受益。