Case report: delayed response after electroconvulsive therapy in a patient with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder and associated mood syndromes are amongst the most common psychiatric disorders. To date, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is considered the most effective short-term treatment for patients with severe or treatment-resistant depression. In clinical practice, there is considerable variation in the ECT dosing schedule, with the number of sessions typically ranging from 6 to 12, with early antidepressant effects being predictive of increased positive outcomes. We describe here an unusual case of a female patient with severe depression who did not respond to ECT until the 11th session, after which she had shown a drastic improvement in her mental state. CASE PRESENTATION: A 75-year-old female presented to the old age psychiatry inpatient unit with new onset dysphoric mood, anhedonia, and severe negativity. She scored 23 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), and was rated 6 on Clinical Global Impression severity (CGIS) by the responsible clinician. She suffered from post-natal depression fifty years ago and was successfully treated with ECT. She was therefore initiated on a course of ECT treatment. Her condition initially deteriorated, displaying features of catatonia and psychosis, unresponsive to ECT treatment or concurrent psychotropic medications. After 11th ECT session, she started to show signs of clinical improvement and returned close to her baseline mental state after a total of 17 ECT sessions. She remained well 3 months post-treatment, scoring 4 on HAM-D, Clinical Global Improvement or change (CGI-C) rated as 1 (very much improved). The diagnosis was ICD-10 F32.3 severe depressive episode with psychotic symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: we describe here an unusual case of delayed response to electroconvulsive therapy in the treatment of severe depressive disorder. Studies have shown the number of acute ECT treatments to be highly variable, affected by a number of factors including treatment frequency, condition treated and its severity, the ECT technical parameters, as well as concurrent use of pharmacological treatment. This may call for re-consideration of the current ECT treatment guidelines, requiring more research to help stratify and standardize the treatment regime.

Managing the overlap between mental and physical health.

The interface between the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Mental Health Act 1983 can be complex, particularly in patients with co-existing mental and physical illnesses. The management of these patients requires the involvement of patients, relatives and multidisciplinary teams. This article presents four illustrative patient cases, all of whom suffered from co-existing mental and physical illnesses. In managing these cases, dilemmas had arisen in the provision of treatment encompassing both legal frameworks. These cases helped to emphasise the decision-specific and time-specific nature of assessment of mental capacity, requiring clinicians to assess on a case-by-case basis over a suitable period. Often, principles from both legal frameworks may be applied by the treatment team. These cases help to highlight the significant overlap between mental and physical health, which often cannot be managed independently. This may call for the need to better integrate the current legal frameworks, and the optimal involvement of specialists across both settings.

Management of patients' physical health in an acute psychiatric unit.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to help clarify the range of acute medical problems experienced by patients on an acute psychiatric unit during a period of 28 days and nights, as encountered by psychiatric trainees, and to document any difficulties experienced by the trainee during these patient contacts. METHOD: This survey was carried out prospectively over 28 days and nights in an acute psychiatric ward attached to a teaching University Hospital. Following contact with an individual patient, the trainee recorded diagnosis, intervention and any difficulties encountered. RESULTS: Thirty-three patient contacts were recorded (n = 33). Trainees faced a range of primary care problems 22/33 (67%), but moreover, three patients demonstrated more serious and potentially life threatening problems, leading to 11/33 (33%) patient contacts requiring urgent interventions. CONCLUSIONS: While the debate continues as to who is best placed to provide medical healthcare for psychiatric patients, this study provides evidence that psychiatry trainees are required to draw on their previous medical and surgical experience on an almost daily basis. As psychiatrists we should consider our options on how best to manage medical problems on the acute psychiatric unit and consequently ensure confident liaison with our medical and surgical colleagues.