Transcranial magnetic stimulation and sedation as treatment for functional neurologic disorders.

Functional neurologic disorder (FND), also known as conversion disorder, is common and often associated with a poor prognosis. It has been relatively neglected by research and as such there is a conspicuous lack of evidence-based treatments. Physical and psychologic therapies are the main treatment modalities, over and above reassurance and sensitive explanation of the diagnosis. However there are two other historic treatments that have seen a recent resurgence of interest and use. The first is electric stimulation, which was initially pioneered with direct stimulation of nerves but now used indirectly (and therefore noninvasively) in the form of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). The second is (therapeutic) sedation, previously known as "abreaction," where it was mostly used in the context of psychologic investigation and treatment, but now increasingly advocated during rehabilitation as a way to therapeutically demonstrate reversibility of symptoms. This chapter introduces the background of these treatment modalities, their evolution into their current applications before critically evaluating their current evidence base and exploring possible mechanisms of action. It also tentatively suggests when they should be considered in current practice and briefly considers their future potential. In summary there is encouraging preliminary evidence to suggest that both TMS and sedation may be effective treatments for FNDs.

National guidelines for psychological care in diabetes: how mindful have we been?

AIMS: To assess the availability and types of psychological services for people with diabetes in the UK, compliance with national guidelines and skills of the diabetes team in, and attitudes towards, psychological aspects of diabetes management. METHODS: Postal questionnaires to team leads (doctor and nurse) of all UK diabetes centres (n = 464) followed by semi-structured telephone interviews of expert providers of psychological services identified by team leads. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-seven centres (58%) returned postal questionnaires; 66 (25%) identified a named expert provider of psychological services, of whom 53 (80%) were interviewed by telephone. Less than one-third (n = 84) of responding centres had access to specialist psychological services and availability varied across the four UK nations (P = 0.02). Over two-thirds (n = 182) of centres had not implemented the majority of national guidelines and only 2.6% met all guidelines. Psychological input into teams was associated with improved training in psychological issues for team members (P < 0.001), perception of better skills in managing more complex psychological issues (P < or = 0.01) and increased likelihood of having psychological care pathways (P < or = 0.05). Most (81%) expert providers interviewed by telephone were under-resourced to meet the psychological needs of their population. CONCLUSIONS: Expert psychological support is not available to the majority of diabetes centres and significant geographical variation indicates inequity of service provision. Only a minority of centres meet national guidelines. Skills and services within diabetes teams vary widely and are positively influenced by the presence of expert providers of psychological care. Lack of resources are a barrier to service provision.