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.

Parameters of consultee satisfaction with inpatient academic psychiatric consultation services: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Consultation-liaison psychiatrists commonly perceive consultee satisfaction as a useful global measure of consultation-liaison service performance. No tool exists to measure consultee satisfaction. A single-site study at Columbia University Medical Center elicited ratings of parameters importantly contributing to consultee satisfaction within consultation-liaison services. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the generalizability of the rating of importance of these parameters in a larger, multicenter sample. METHODS: From October 2013 to January 2014, a confidential and voluntary Web-based survey was distributed to 133 physicians at 7 academic centers in the United States asking them to rate the importance of 16 performance parameters (identified in the previous single-site study) in determining consultee satisfaction. RESULTS: Overall, 87 recipients (65%) responded to the survey. Among all the 16 items, there was no significant difference between sites in ratings of item importance. Of the 16 parameters, 9 received a mean rating in the "important" to "very important" range. Three items, "completion of consultation within 24 hours of request," "understanding the core questions being asked," and "practical and helpful management suggestions for medical staff" were rated as the most important. Quickly managing behavioral problems, management suggestions for nursing staff, verbal communication of recommendations, providing diagnostic clarification, facilitating transfer to inpatient psychiatry, and providing follow-up consultation were other parameters that were highly valued by consultees. CONCLUSIONS: We found good generalizability across academic medical centers for ratings of parameters important for consultee satisfaction with consultation-liaison services, which can provide the basis for a consultee satisfaction measurement tool.