Striking the Balance: Bipolar Disorder in the Perinatal Period.

The authors reviewed the literature, published between 2018 and 2023, on treating bipolar disorder in the perinatal period in order to summarize current treatment perspectives. Mood episodes occur during pregnancy and there are high rates of both initial onset and recurrence in the postpartum period. Bipolar disorder itself is associated with higher risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including gestational hypertension, hemorrhage, cesarean delivery, and small for gestational age infants. A general principle of perinatal treatment includes maintaining psychiatric stability of the pregnant person while reducing medication exposure risk to the fetus. A variety of factors can compromise psychiatric stability, including rapid discontinuation of stabilizing medications, decreased efficacy due to physiologic changes of pregnancy, and exacerbation of underlying psychiatric illness. Psychosocial interventions include optimizing sleep, increasing support, and reducing stress. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends against discontinuing or withholding medications solely due to pregnancy or lactation status. Individualized treatment involves a discussion of the risks of undertreated bipolar disorder weighed against the risks of individual medication choice based on available evidence regarding congenital malformations, adverse neonatal and obstetrical events, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Valproate is not a first-line treatment due to higher risks. Data are lacking on safety for many newer medications. The authors review current safety data regarding lithium, lamotrigine, and antipsychotics, which are the most commonly used treatments for managing bipolar disorder in the perinatal period. Due to physiologic changes during pregnancy, frequent therapeutic drug monitoring and dose adjustments are required.

Longitudinality Matters: Qualitative Perspectives on a Longitudinal Clinical Experience in a Psychiatry Residency Training Program.

OBJECTIVE: Longitudinal models of clinical care and education can positively impact the patient and provider experience in terms of health outcomes, satisfaction, and motivation. While residency programs have seen an increase in primary care longitudinal clinical experiences (LCEs), defined as outpatient clinics in which patients are seen by residents over the course of their entire training, less is known about such opportunities in psychiatry residency programs. This qualitative study explores the impact of a longitudinal training model on psychiatric resident skill development, relationships in the clinical learning environment, and professional identity formation. METHODS: The authors conducted 24 semi-structured interviews of residents, graduates, and faculty in three well-established LCE clinics in a single, multi-site, academic psychiatry residency program. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis techniques. RESULTS: Themes were categorized into benefits and challenges. For benefits, themes included longitudinal relationships, improved feedback, near-peer teaching, early outpatient exposure, graduated independence, skill development, patient population expertise, and solidification of professional identity. For challenges, themes included system logistics, offsite panel management, and intermittent presence of junior trainees. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that overall, residents and faculty find the LCE a positive learning opportunity that has contributed to their professional development. LCEs do appear to have distinct challenges, largely logistical in nature, which can interfere with the favorability of residents' experiences. Developing strategies up front to minimize these logistical challenges will support the success of a longitudinal program.

Developing End-of-Training Entrustable Professional Activities for Psychiatry: Results and Methodological Lessons.

PURPOSE: To develop entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for psychiatry and to demonstrate an innovative, validity-enhancing methodology that may be relevant to other specialties. METHOD: A national task force employed a three-stage process from May 2014 to February 2017 to develop EPAs for psychiatry. In stage 1, the task force used an iterative consensus-driven process to construct proposed EPAs. Each included a title, full description, and relevant competencies. In stage 2, the task force interviewed four nonpsychiatric experts in EPAs and further revised the EPAs. In stage 3, the task force performed a Delphi study of national experts in psychiatric education and assessment. All survey participants completed a brief training program on EPAs. Quantitative and qualitative analysis led to further modifications. Essentialness was measured on a five-point scale. EPAs were included if the content validity index was at least 0.8 and the lower end of the asymmetric confidence interval was not lower than 4.0. RESULTS: Stages 1 and 2 yielded 24 and 14 EPAs, respectively. In stage 3, 31 of the 39 invited experts participated in both rounds of the Delphi study. Round 1 reduced the proposed EPAs to 13. Ten EPAs met the inclusion criteria in Round 2. CONCLUSIONS: The final EPAs provide a strong foundation for competency-based assessment in psychiatry. Methodological features such as critique by nonpsychiatry experts, a national Delphi study with frame-of-reference training, and stringent inclusion criteria strengthen the content validity of the findings and may serve as a model for future efforts in other specialties.