Consultation-Liaison Psychosomatics, Neurocenter, BG Trauma Center, Murnau, and Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich; Department of Arthroplasty, Consultation-Liaison Psychosomatics, Neurocenter, BG Trauma Center, Murnau, and Institute of Biomechanics, Paracelsus Medizinische Privatuniversität (PMU) Salzburg at BG Trauma Center, Murnau.
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2020 Jun 26;117(26):452-459. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2020.0452.
The pathological feigning of disease can be seen in all medical disciplines. It is associated with variegated symptom presentations, self-inflicted injuries, forced but unnecessary interventions, unusual and protracted recoveries, and frequent changes of treating physician. Factitious illness is often difficult to distinguish from functional or dissociative disorders on the one hand, and from malingering on the other. Many cases, even fatal ones, probably go unrecognized. The suspicion that a patient's problem may be, at least in part, factitious is subject to a strong taboo and generally rests on supportive rather than conclusive evidence. The danger of misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment is high.
On the basis of a selective review of current literature, we summarize the phenomenology of factitious disorders and present concrete strategies for dealing with suspected factitious disorders.
Through the early recognition and assessment of clues and warning signs, the clinician will be able to judge whether a factitious disorder should be considered as a differential diagnosis, as a comorbid disturbance, or as the suspected main diagnosis. A stepwise, supportive confrontation of the patient with the facts, in which continued therapeutic contact is offered and no proofs or confessions are demanded, can help the patient set aside the sick role in favor of more functional objectives, while still saving face. In contrast, a tough confrontation without empathy may provoke even more elaborate manipulations or precipitate the abrupt discontinuation of care-seeking.
Even in the absence of systematic studies, which will probably remain difficult to carry out, it is clearly the case that feigned, falsified, and induced disorders are underappreciated and potentially dangerous differential diagnoses. If the entire treating team successfully maintains an alert, transparent, empathic, and coping-oriented therapeutic approach, the patient will, in the best case, be able to shed the pretense of disease. Above all, the timely recognition of the nature of the problem by the treating team can prevent further iatrogenic harm.
在所有医学学科中都可以看到病理性的装病行为。它与各种症状表现、自伤、强制性但不必要的干预、不寻常和持久的康复以及频繁更换治疗医生有关。人为疾病一方面很难与功能性或分离性障碍区分,另一方面也很难与诈病区分。许多病例,甚至是致命病例,可能都没有被发现。怀疑患者的问题至少部分是人为的,这是受到强烈禁忌的,而且通常基于支持性而非结论性证据。误诊和不适当治疗的风险很高。
我们基于对当前文献的选择性回顾,总结了人为障碍的现象学,并提出了处理疑似人为障碍的具体策略。
通过早期识别和评估线索和警告信号,临床医生将能够判断是否应将人为障碍作为鉴别诊断、共病障碍或疑似主要诊断进行考虑。逐步、有支持地与患者对质事实,同时提供持续的治疗接触,不要求提供证据或认罪,可以帮助患者放弃病态角色,转而追求更具功能性的目标,同时仍能保留面子。相比之下,没有同理心的强硬对质可能会引发更精心的操纵或促使患者突然停止寻求治疗。
即使缺乏系统研究(可能仍然难以进行),人为、伪造和诱导的障碍显然是被低估且具有潜在危险的鉴别诊断。如果整个治疗团队成功地保持警觉、透明、同理心和以应对为导向的治疗方法,那么在最佳情况下,患者将能够放弃疾病的伪装。最重要的是,治疗团队及时认识到问题的性质可以防止进一步的医源性伤害。