Author: Maria Yang, MD

Categories
Education Lessons NYC Policy PPOH

Assertive Community Treatment.

While at PPOH, I spent two days a week working with an Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) team.

ACT is somewhat like a psychiatric hospital outside of a hospital. It is an evidence-based practice[1. From the New York State Office of Mental Health: “When comparing recipients before and after receiving ACT services, studies have shown ACT recipients experience greater reductions in psychiatric hospitalization rates, emergency room visits and higher levels of housing stability after receiving ACT services. Research has also shown that ACT is more satisfactory to recipients and their families and is no more expensive than other types of community-based care.”] that features a multidisciplinary team (social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, case workers) that works with a small group of patients who often experience impairing psychiatric symptoms. It provides comprehensive and flexible psychiatric services. All of the care occurs in the community.

The ACT team I worked on was staffed with:

  • one program director (social worker)
  • one team leader (social worker)
  • one MICA (“mental illness and chemical addiction”) specialist (social worker)
  • one vocational specialist (social worker)
  • one entitlements specialist (almost-graduate from social work school)
  • two case workers (one who had recently earned a social work degree)
  • one registered nurse
  • one secretary (who did much more than clerical work)
  • two psychiatrists (our combined hours did not fill a full-time position)

During my time there, I provided care for about 35 patients. (The other psychiatrist provided care for the other 35 patients.) The staff to patient ratio is purposely kept low, as ACT is considered an intensive intervention.

Patients who are referred for ACT services must have been psychiatrically hospitalized (often involuntarily) at least four times in the past year. They often have multiple emergency room or mobile crisis visits. Other outpatient services have often failed or have been insufficient to prevent crises and hospitalizations.

Thus, a chief goal of ACT is to keep people out of the hospital.

The ACT model dictates that the team (as a whole) must make a total of at least six contacts with each client[2. There is a movement in mental health—and in other parts of medicine—to move away from the term “patient”. In this particular ACT setting, patients were called “clients”. Sometimes they are called “consumers”.] every month, preferably in the community. One of these visits should be a meeting with the psychiatrist. Some patients regularly came to the office for their visits. Others, however, could not or would not come in. We thus went out to them. (Hence the adjective “assertive”, which, in some cases, could be construed as “coercive”. More about coercion later.)

If I did not see patients in the office, I often saw them in their apartments. (Limits and boundaries do not blur, but they certainly shift. My experiences in these residential settings inspired this post. To be clear, there were a few individuals who I never met alone. I insisted they meet me outside or in the clinic. Some of this was due to their past behaviors; some of this was my gut instinct.) For those who did not feel comfortable meeting in their apartments, we met in lobbies, parks, or chatted during walks. (During my time on ACT, I came to value talking and walking as a therapeutic intervention.)

ACT was formerly deemed “long term care”; some patients have been on ACT teams for over a decade. (This is often due to repeated psychiatric hospitalizations despite ACT services.) Most of the patients had psychotic disorders (such as schizophrenia) and, surprisingly, many of them had actively involved family members. I suspect that this impacted who was referred to ACT; family members were often the ones bringing people to the hospital for care (versus calling the police, etc.) Most patients “graduate” from ACT within a few years: They stay out of the hospital, become more involved in the community, and no longer need that level of care.

I learned in this position that people with chronic psychotic disorders can get better. Their symptoms decrease. They learn how to temper their behavior so that they do not attract undue attention while out in the community. They set and reach personal goals, like earning high school and college degrees, securing employment, getting sober from alcohol and drugs, and taking care of their physical health. They stop smoking! Sometimes they need a lot of support and a number of years need to pass before things settle down, but people with diagnoses of schizophrenia are not doomed to a life of poverty and “low function”.[3. The public rarely hears about positive outcomes for people with schizophrenia. There is research that suggests that a significant number of people with diagnoses of schizophrenia either experience improvement or recovery of their condition. Anecdotally, I agree.]

I also learned the importance of seeing patients in their environments. So much of contemporary medicine now occurs outside of a person’s living situation. That is often appropriate and fair (e.g. patients shouldn’t undergo surgery in their own homes). Because of the intimate nature of medicine, meeting in a “third” location can help preserve privacy and security. However, we can learn so much about how people function (or do not function) when we see their living spaces. We also realize strengths that we would otherwise overlook. A neat home, a sack full of old prescription pills, vinyl records of classical music, papers all over the floor, photographs of friends and family, roaches climbing over dozens of empty cans of soda: All of that is information that doctors often never have.

It is amazing how people live their lives. It is remarkable how much people will tolerate. And it is humbling that people are willing to share their lives with you.

Categories
Education Homelessness Informal-curriculum Observations Policy

Medicators.

Two recent events inspired this post:

1. My husband and I had dinner at Farestart, which is

… a culinary job training and placement program for homeless and disadvantaged individuals…. As members of [this] community are placed in housing, the need for job-training will play a critical role in ensuring the self-sustainability of these individuals.

While eating the tasty food and learning about the mission of Farestart, I reflected on my experiences working with the homeless. I have encountered them outside of the health care system, in emergency rooms and psychiatric hospitals, and in medical hospitals as a psychiatric consultant.

I realized that, as a group, psychiatrists are skilled at prescribing medications for the homeless. Unlike Farestart, however, we offer little to help the homeless help themselves.

2. Since starting my new job in Seattle, several patients have come to me with the chief complaint[1. “Chief complaint” is a medical phrase that refers to the reason why a patient has come to see a physician. It is not a sardonic comment.] of wanting to stop their psychiatric medication(s).

One of the greatest pleasures of my job is helping people taper off of their medication(s).[2. To be clear, there are instances when I actively discourage people from tapering off of their medications, as some people end up in psychiatric hospitals when they stop taking medications. A personal goal of mine is to help keep patients out of hospitals.] My colleagues and I have all seen patients who are taking large numbers of psychiatric medications for unclear or invalid reasons. There is also data to suggest that certain classes of people are more likely to receive psychiatric diagnoses that may not be valid, which results in prescriptions for medication that they don’t actually need.[3. African Americans are more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia. Anecdotally, I’ve worked with several African American patients with diagnoses of schizophrenia who were taking antipsychotic medications, though neither the diagnosis nor the medications seemed indicated. We gradually tapered off the antipsychotic medication and nothing happened. They were fine. Which makes me wonder.]

Some people eventually come off of all of their medications without incident. Some people significantly reduce the number of medications they take. And, unfortunately, a few people end up in the hospital during the tapers.

That never feels good.

I realized, again, that psychiatrists are skilled at prescribing medications, but we know little about stopping medications. (In my brief review of Pubmed, I found only one article that offers suggestions about stopping medications.) Furthermore, as a group, we lack the knowledge about treatments other than medications and psychotherapy.[4. Psychiatrists in private practice are more likely to offer both psychotherapy and medication services. Psychiatrists who work in medical centers often only provide medication services due to the institutions’ financial systems.]

Perhaps this is due to the belief that patients who come to see psychiatrists have already tried everything else. They have gone through trials of exercise, counseling, deep breathing, meditation, naturopathic medications, etc. Because none of that has been helpful, they come to see a psychiatrist as a last resort.

That could be true.

This may be a function of our training. Contemporary psychiatry, for better or for worse, follows the medical model. The medical model focuses on biological causes of illness and disease. Current medical treatments (i.e. medications) aim to correct the presumed underlying biological causes.[5. The underlying biological causes of psychiatric conditions remain unclear. Discussions about “chemical imbalances” are still hypotheses, not theories. Psychotropic medications are primarily empirical treatments.] Thus, psychiatrists end up prescribing medicine because that is what we were trained to do. Furthermore, patients often expect us to prescribe medication. (Like other human beings, psychiatrists sometimes feel the pull to “do something”, even though “doing nothing” may be the most prudent choice.)

Psychiatrists, often rightly so, have reputations as “medicators”. A friend of mine works as a psychiatrist in Canada. She came to the US for fellowship training. An administrator told her that her role in the American clinic was that of “the medicator”. My friend was horrified. Because of the funding system, Canadian psychiatrists routinely provide both medication management and psychotherapy services. She could not believe that her role would be limited to the prescription of medication.

“What? You believe in the biopsychosocial model? You think context matters?” the American fellowship cohort dryly commented.

If the knowledge and practice of psychiatrists is limited solely to medications, of course the general public will believe we are simply “medicators”. This is problematic, as we have incomplete knowledge of how psychotropic medications work. (All psychiatrists should read Healy’s The Antidepressant Era. Healy does not outright dismiss antidepressant medication, but he provides data that strongly argues that antidepressants are not as effective as the public believes.)

I cannot speak for all psychiatrists, but I believe most of us did not choose to enter this field to become “medicators”. Thankfully, many psychologists were involved in my education. I’d like to think that, as a result, I am less inclined to pursue medications as the sole mode of treatment. I must admit, though, that I am unfamiliar with the literature for non-pharmacological treatments. (I am familiar with the literature for housing as treatment…. but what is the evidence—or lack thereof—for exercise? meditation? diet changes?)

Categories
Education Informal-curriculum Lessons

The Value of Interruptions.

That interview didn’t go well at all. The patient wouldn’t let me get a word in! That little old lady just kept talking and talking and talking. It’s like she thought we had all the time in the world to talk about her children.”

“It was hard to interrupt, huh.”

“Yeah! It seemed like she really wanted to tell me about her kids. I didn’t want to be rude.”

“Of course it feels rude to interrupt people. We’re taught to wait our turn and listen when other people talk.”

“Yeah.”

“When you’re interviewing patients, though, it’s not a usual social conversation. Social skills are still important, but the context is different.”

“What do you mean?”

“Do you routinely ask your friends if they’re in pain? Have you asked your medical school classmates if they’re passing gas? How about your parents? Do you know if they’re taking their medications as directed?

“Oh….”

“Even though we might use our usual words and gestures in conversations with patients, we’re not having routine social interactions with them. You need to get as much accurate history from patients as possible. Accurate histories[1. “Listen to your patient, he is telling you the diagnosis.”] lead to accurate diagnoses, which lead to proper treatment.”

“Right.”

“To be clear, you don’t want to be a jerk when interrupting patients. Practicing and learning the skill of interrupting, while you’re still a student, will serve you well in the future.”

Categories
NYC Observations Seattle

The Sound of Rain.

The rainy season had started and we were out for a run.

“I like the sound of rain in Seattle.”

The droplets falling from the pewter sky collected on the red, orange, and yellow leaves that still clung to the trees. Thin streams of water slid down the street. The falling water whispered through the air, a serene accompaniment to our footfalls on the wet sidewalk.

“The rain sounds gentle and quiet here. Remember what it sounded like in New York?”

“UMBRELLA! UMBRELLA! FIVE DOLLARS! FIVE DOLLARS! UMBRELLA! UMBRELLA!”

Categories
Education Homelessness NYC Policy PPOH

The Homeless Outreach Team.

During my time at PPOH, I spent one and a half days per week with a homeless outreach team.

In 2004, the mayor of New York wanted to reduce the number of people who experience homelessness in the city.[1. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg Announces Citywide Campaign to End Chronic Homelessness] National data suggests that the vast majority of people who become homeless are only homeless for a short period of time (less than one month) and never become homeless again.[2. From a National Alliance to End Homelessness fact sheet.] Thus, the mayor’s plan focused on people who experience chronic homelessness.[3. “In general, a chronically homeless person is an unaccompanied disabled individual who has been continuously homeless for over one year.”] Of that population, between half to two-thirds of them have significant psychiatric conditions.[3. Page 4-4 of The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research.]

Before describing further details of this plan, let me explain “housing first”:

Traditional housing models for the homeless are built on “merit”. The entry points for housing are generally homeless shelters (which excludes those who are homeless on the streets). Once these individuals connect with housing services, they must follow certain steps to “earn” housing. These steps include regular meetings with staff, taking medications (if indicated) as directed, abstaining from drug and alcohol use, and abiding by other (sometimes arbitrary) rules. Thus, people will only secure housing if they “follow the program”. Unfortunately, many people are unable to “follow the program” (due to psychiatric symptoms, drug and alcohol use, etc.).

“Housing first” is a model where chronically homeless individuals are given housing first. People only need to accept housing.[4. To be clear, people who are enrolled in “housing first” programs are not getting “free” housing. They sign leases, are expected to pay rent, etc. Their rent is generally one-third of their total income. If they receive entitlements, rent is usually taken directly from their monthly cheques.] There are no requirements to take psychiatric medication, to abstain from drugs and alcohol, etc. The underlying premise is people must have homes before they can address their other problems.[5. See Maslow’s hierarchy to learn a view about the importance of housing.] There is evidence that the “housing first” model saves significant health care dollars and improves health outcomes (decrease in number of homeless people; decrease in ER visits and hospitalizations; less time spent in jail).

Major social service agencies in New York City came together to form consortia (consortiums?) to house the chronically homeless according to the “housing first” model. Some agencies built or provided the physical housing; others supplied the staff to work in the residences. Still others provided the manpower to perform actual outreach to the homeless.

Each borough has its own consortium. I was assigned to work on a team in the consortium for Manhattan.

The borough of Manhattan was initially divided into seven sections, though these were ultimately condensed into five. Each section has its own outreach team. The outreach team I worked with was comprised of:

  • a program director (social worker)
  • a team leader (social worker)
  • five housing workers (high school graduates to social workers)
  • a receptionist (who also answered 311 calls about homeless individuals in Manhattan)
  • and a psychiatrist (me)

The section we worked in was bounded by the southern tip of Manhattan, the East River, the Hudson River, and Houston Street. Our job, as a group, was to identify chronically homeless individuals, build rapport and encourage them to accept housing, and shepherd them through the housing process until they moved in.

Two of the housing workers were on duty from 5:30am to 1:30pm. They would travel throughout our designated section, either by car or on foot, and seek out people who were “bedded down”—those individuals who were sleeping on the street (or in other public spaces). After rousing people and introducing themselves, the workers would ask for homeless histories to learn if people were eligible for the program. If the individuals could tolerate it, the workers would then start to build rapport with the ultimate goal of encouraging them to accept housing.

You can imagine the reception they often got. Few people want their sleep disturbed, let alone by strangers. Furthermore, homeless individuals are only too familiar with police officers and people with malicious intent waking them while they are sleeping.

Housing workers who worked the day shift from 9:30am to 5:30pm also engaged in outreach, though they generally worked with homeless individuals who had already established connections with the team. They often helped people secure birth certificates, identification, and entitlements. They accompanied individuals on housing interviews, provided transportation for appointments, and advocated for them in various contexts.

There were also evening and overnight teams, though I never worked with them directly.

The team leader and program director provided supervision and support for the rest of the team. They also compiled data about housing placements. The more people a team housed, the more funding that team would receive. Despite the productivity expectation, we reminded ourselves that these people were people, not merely numbers.

The psychiatrist’s official job was to administer psychiatric diagnostic interviews to determine if the person had any psychiatric or substance use disorders. The diagnosis (or lack of one) would determine what type of housing the person was eligible for. (There were always more people than available housing. Yes, this is where a psychiatrist can become an agent of social control. More about this later.) Though I could meet with people in the office for interviews, I often went out with different workers to talk with people wherever they were. (Some people had significant psychiatric symptoms that interfered with their ability to meet anyone at a specific time or place, so I would often find them in subway stations, in public parks, behind garbage bins, on stoops, etc.)

I also provided education to the outreach workers, did regular outreach myself with a few clients whose psychiatric symptoms (often delusions) interfered with their ability to even consider housing, and provided informal supervision to the staff members. These housing workers, particularly the ones who work early in the morning, have tiring and often thankless job.

Of all the positions I had at PPOH, this was by far the most challenging for psychological and ethical reasons. Some people had severe psychiatric conditions. Many individuals lived in squalor. A lot of people experienced terrible things at the hands of their fellow human beings. People suffered.

As a team, we interacted with a lot of people. These included not only homeless individuals, but also police officers, ambulance crews, emergency rooms, hospitals, private property owners, homeless shelters, medical clinics, government agencies, staff at supportive residences, and the general public. Working with and in all of these different systems was often taxing and frustrating. Everyone in all these different arenas wanted to do “the right thing”, except people often had contradictory ideas as to what “the right thing” was.

In this position, I witnessed human dignity, creativity, and resilience. No one wants to be homeless. Many homeless people, whether they have psychiatric conditions or not, feel shame about their circumstances. They want things to be different, but they don’t know what to do. They try their best with what they’ve got. Sometimes their strategies work, sometimes they don’t. We can all recognize that in ourselves. And that’s how the line between “us” and “them” dissolves.