Identifying the Most Important Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry Publications in 2020 Using a Novel Literature Assessment Instrument.

BACKGROUND: As the science of consultation-liaison psychiatry advances, the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry's Guidelines and Evidence-Based Medicine Subcommittee reviews articles of interest to help academy members remain familiar with the latest in evidence-based practice. OBJECTIVE: We identify the 10 most important articles for clinical practice in consultation-liaison psychiatry from 2020 using the new Importance and Quality instrument for assessing scientific literature. METHODS: The subcommittee published annotated abstracts for 97 articles on the academy website in 2020. Reviewers then rated all articles on clinical importance to practice and quality of scholarship using the Importance and Quality instrument. We describe the 10 articles with the highest aggregate scores and analyze the reliability of Importance and Quality instrument. RESULTS: Twenty-four raters identified the top 10 scoring articles of 2020. These articles provide practical guidance on key areas of consultation-liaison psychiatry including management of COVID-19, lithium treatment for complex patients, medical risks among patients with severe mental illness, and substance use disorders in medical settings. The assessment instrument demonstrated good to excellent interrater reliability. CONCLUSION: These articles offer valuable guidance for consultation-liaison psychiatrists regardless of their practice area. Collaborative literature reviews with standardized assessments help clinicians deliver evidence-based care and foster a high standard of practice across the specialty.

Updates in Psychosomatic Medicine: 2014.

BACKGROUND: The amount of literature published annually related to psychosomatic medicine is vast; this poses a challenge for practitioners to keep up-to-date in all but a small area of expertise. OBJECTIVES: To introduce how a group process using volunteer experts can be harnessed to provide clinicians with a manageable selection of important publications in psychosomatic medicine, organized by specialty area, for 2014. METHODS: We used quarterly annotated abstracts selected by experts from the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine and the European Association of Psychosomatic Medicine in 15 subspecialties to create a list of important articles. RESULTS: In 2014, subspecialty experts selected 88 articles of interest for practitioners of psychosomatic medicine. For this review, 14 articles were chosen. CONCLUSIONS: A group process can be used to whittle down the vast literature in psychosomatic medicine and compile a list of important articles for individual practitioners. Such an approach is consistent with the idea of physicians as lifelong learners and educators.

DNR versus DNT: clinical implications of a conceptual ambiguity: a case analysis.

Psychiatrists who practice psychosomatic medicine are routinely called upon to help resolve ethical dilemmas that arise in the care of patients near the end of their lives. Psychosomatic-medicine psychiatrists may be of unique value in these situations because of the clinical insights that we bring to the care of the dying patient. In particular, our subspecialty brings expertise related to the evaluation of decisional capacity of patients who are faced with accepting or declining end-of-life clinical interventions, such as resuscitation and intubation. In this first entry in a new bioethics case series in Psychosomatics, we will lay the groundwork for examining a complex patient case and provide an illustrative analysis of the end-of-life care issues that may be addressed by psychiatrists who practice psychosomatic medicine.

The role of psychosomatic-medicine psychiatrists in bioethics: a survey study of members of the academy of psychosomatic medicine.

The Bioethics Subcommittee of The Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine developed a survey to assess the involvement of psychosomatic-medicine psychiatrists in bioethics and the extent of their participation on bioethics committees and in the teaching of bioethics. Of 599 Academy members surveyed, 122 (20.4%) responded. The majority of respondents reported that the management of bioethical dilemmas had a significant impact on their work in psychosomatic medicine. Many respondents were involved in teaching bioethics and in serving on ethics committees. The majority of respondents reported psychiatry-resident involvement on ethics committees. Bioethics work is an integral part of the fabric of psychosomatic medicine.

Consultation-liaison psychiatrists on bioethics committees: opportunities for academic leadership.

OBJECTIVE: This article briefly reviews the history of the relationship between psychiatry and the leadership of ethics committees as a background for examining appropriate educational initiatives to adequately prepare residents and early career psychiatrists to serve as leaders of ethics committees. METHOD: A Medline review of literature on psychiatry and ethics committees and consultation as well as recent survey data from the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine indicate that psychosomatic medicine psychiatrists are particularly qualified and interested in serving as chairs of ethics committees. The authors compare knowledge and skills obtained in psychiatric training with the Society for Heath and Human Values and the Society for Bioethics Consultation Task Force on standards for ethics consultation proposed as core competencies for ethics committee leadership. RESULTS: Psychiatric residency and fellowship training in psychosomatic medicine can provide the knowledge and skill sets to meet the standards for ethics consultation. Further professional development through pursuit of formal ethics training, advance degrees in bioethics, mentoring, and residency and felloships focus on ethics and enhance competency, confidence, and the skills required for ethics committee leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Academic psychiatrists, particularly those in psychosomatic medicine, have historically made a significant contribution as chairs of ethics committees. Continuation and expansion of this leadership may require interested psychiatrists to obtain additional training in bioethics.