Psychotic Misdiagnosis of Racially Minoritized Patients: A Case-Based Ethics, Equity, and Educational Exploration.

ABSTRACT: The overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of racially minoritized groups as having a primary psychotic disorder is one of psychiatry's longest-standing inequities born of real-time clinician racial bias. Evidence suggests that providers assign a diagnosis of schizophrenia and/or schizoaffective disorder according to race more than any other demographic variable, and this inequity persists even in the absence of differences in clinician symptom ratings. This case report describes the journey of one young Black woman through her racialized misdiagnosis of schizophrenia and the process by which interdisciplinary, health equity-minded providers across the spectrum of medical education and practice joined together to provide a culturally informed, systematic rediagnosis of major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Expert discussion is provided by three Black academic psychiatrists with expertise in social justice and health equity. We provide an evidence-based exploration of mechanisms of clinician racial bias and detail how the psychosis misdiagnosis of racially minoritized groups fails medical ethics and perpetuates iatrogenic harm to patients who truly need help with primary mood, trauma, and substance use disorders.

Health Equity Tourism: Reckoning with Medical Mistrust.

In this editorial, we further discuss the effects that health equity tourism has had on Black, Native, and Latinx marginalized communities. We identify the consequences of the resulting medical mistrust within these communities as well as implications for data collection in research. Throughout, solutions are proposed that may eventually empower these communities to become actively engaged with the research and initiatives that influence their health outcomes, as well as improve the quality and quantity of data extracted from these communities.

Building Bridges Between Evidence and Policy in Mental Health Services Research: Introducing the Policy Review Article Type.

Although it is widely accepted that patients do better when evidence-based health care practices are used, there is less acknowledgment of the positive outcomes associated with evidence-based policy making. To address the need for high-quality evidence to inform mental health policies, Psychiatric Services has recently launched a new article format: the Policy Review. This review type defines a specific policy-relevant issue affecting behavioral health systems, describes current knowledge and limitations, and discusses policy implications. Reviews can focus on mental health policies or examine how other health or social policies affect people with mental illness or substance use disorders. This brief overview of the need for a policy review article type describes differences between evidence-based policy making and practices and looks at research approaches focused on evidence-based policy making, as well as legislative and other efforts to support it. Broad guidelines for potential submissions are also provided.

Achieving Mental Health Equity: Addictions.

Despite available treatment options for addiction, there remains an abysmal uptake of treatment initiation and engagement among varying communities. The existing treatment gap is based on historical occurrences, including discriminatory drug policies that have targeted communities of color with addiction. The current opioid epidemic and differential treatment therein exemplifies the severity of the existing disparity in addiction treatment, highlighting barriers such as institutionalized racism and vulnerabilities in the social determinants of health. To mitigate the disparity, an array of solutions to address these inequities are discussed, thereby providing a pathway forward to eliminating this treatment gap.

Reconsidering Systems-Based Practice: Advancing Structural Competency, Health Equity, and Social Responsibility in Graduate Medical Education.

Health inequities stem from systematic, pervasive social and structural forces. These forces marginalize populations and create the circumstances that disadvantage these groups, as reflected in differences in outcomes like life expectancy and infant mortality and in inequitable access to and delivery of health care resources. To help eradicate these inequities, physicians must understand racism, sexism, oppression, historical marginalization, power, privilege, and other sociopolitical and economic forces that sustain and create inequities. A new educational paradigm emphasizing the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to achieve health equity is needed.Systems-based practice is the graduate medical education core competency that focuses on complex systems and physicians' roles within them; it includes topics like multidisciplinary team-based care, patient safety, cost containment, end-of-life goals, and quality improvement. This competency, however, is largely health care centric and does not train physicians to engage with the complexities of the social and structural determinants of health or to partner with systems and communities that are outside health care.The authors propose a new core competency centered on health equity, social responsibility, and structural competency to address this gap in graduate medical education. For the development of this new competency, the authors draw on existing, innovative undergraduate and graduate medical pedagogy and public health, health services research, and social medicine frameworks. They describe how this new competency would inform graduate medical education and clinical care and encourage future physicians to engage in the work of health equity.

Colorblind Algorithms: Racism in the Era of COVID-19.

This commentary offers a critique of the recent policy document issued by White et al. (2020) to guide critical care resource (e.g. ventilators) allocation during public health emergencies such as COVID-19. We argue that, if disseminated widely, this criteria would result in a racially inequitable resource distribution in the current COVID-19 crisis. We link the White et al. (2020) resource distribution protocol to other "colorblind" healthcare algorithms that have relied on seemingly objective but fundamentally biased data, thereby reinforcing and exacerbating pre-existing racial health disparities. We suggest a health equity framework to ensure unbiased distribution of critical care resources during COVID-19 and in general practice.