Category: Systems

Categories
Education Homelessness Medicine Nonfiction Policy Systems

People Get Better.

“What?!” he exclaimed. “Are you serious?”

“Yeah,” I replied, puzzled.

“That’s… amazing.”

“Yeah, it is.” I paused, finally realizing that he had never heard me talk about this before. “It actually happens a lot. People get better. People get better all the time.”

When I first met him, he screamed at me, his face red, spittle flying from his lips. He refused to believe I was a physician.

“Women can’t be doctors! They can’t!”

He did believe, though, that televisions could control his thoughts.

“They know what I think! When they start talking, they control what I think and what I say and what I do!”

He drew a swastika that covered the entire wall of his jail cell.

“Yes, I believe in white supremacy! But I’m not part of a group!”

He accepted medications on his own. First, the yelling stopped. Then, the swastika disappeared. Drawings of cute farm animals took its place. Within a few weeks, he greeted me with a smile.

“Hi, Dr. Yang. How are you doing today? I hope you’re well.”

He invited me to sit at the small table next to the kitchenette in his apartment.

“You want anything to drink?”

“No, thank you. How are you doing?”

“I’m okay. What do you know about the Mediterranean diet? I want to try that. I want to lose some of this weight.”

After discussing the merits of vegetables and lean proteins as they related to heart health, he leaned back in his chair. He then blurted, “It’s been six months since I smoked a cigarette.”

He never smiled when he shared his accomplishments. His condition prevented him from doing so. I smiled for him.

He resumed musing about dietary changes. I mused about how far he had come: Just 18 months ago he was living on the streets, often snarling at strangers and the voices that only he heard. He came to the attention of the police when he chased a young mother pushing her baby in a stroller. He threatened to beat them with the metal pipe in his hand. The police thankfully sent him to the hospital for care.

“Thanks for seeing me,” he said as he walked me to the door. The voices hadn’t completed disappeared, but he could ignore them now. “I like steak and potatoes, but I’ll try the leafy vegetables.”

He used both hands to smear his own feces on his arms, chest, and belly. He applied toothpaste to his elbows and his knees. I asked him why.

“because it’s protection it’s protection against all of you I shouldn’t be here I’m fine I’m not sick you don’t understand who I am they all know who I am you would be scared too if you knew who I am people know me from way back—”

He began howling at the door.

Within days of him receiving medications, all of that stopped. His jail cell was clean. He took showers. He never spoke of what happened. Neither did I.

I was taking a walk a few months later when I heard someone call, “Hey, Dr. Yang!”

I turned around and saw a group of men in uniform working. This man, suited up like his colleagues, waved at me and smiled.

I couldn’t help but smile—this is fanstastic!—but felt a twinge of embarrassment. Did he know that he had called me “doctor”? What would his coworkers think?

First do no harm. I waved back.

“Nice to see you, Doc,” he continued. “I’m doing good.”

“I’m glad to hear that. Take care of yourself.”

“I will, Doc. Thanks.”

People get better. The science hasn’t yet generated interventions that guarantee that everyone will get better. Furthermore, some people who could get better can’t access care due to barriers related to finances, policy, and other systemic factors.

Until then, we must share both stories and data (try this, this, and this) that people get better. It is amazing, but it shouldn’t be surprising.

Categories
Funding Homelessness Nonfiction NYC Policy Reflection Seattle Systems

God’s Work versus Meaningful Work versus Value.

Every now and then, when some people learn what kind of work I do, they say, “You’re doing God’s work. Thank you.”

They mean well, so I accept the compliment, though I also tack on, “I also like what I do. It’s meaningful work for me.”

So many of the people I see, whether in my current job or in my past jobs working in other underserved communities, have a lot going on that psychiatry and medicine cannot formally address. One example is housing. It is often an effective intervention for the distress of people who don’t have a place to live, though housing is not something physicians can prescribe. However, there are individuals who are eligible for housing, but do not want to move into housing for reasons that do not make sense to most people. For example, in New York I worked with a man who would spend his days sitting in front of the building where he once worked before he became ill. He talked to himself and burned through multiple packs of cigarettes. He did not recognize how soiled his clothes and skin became with time. At night he disappeared into the subway tunnels and rode the trains. He did not want to move into an apartment until he was able to get his job back, even though he hadn’t worked there in over ten years. With time (nearly two years!) and unrelenting attention, our team was able to persuade him to try living indoors. He eventually accepted the key and moved in.

There are other active conditions that I do not have the skills to treat: Sometimes it’s institutional racism; sometimes it’s multiple generations of poverty. Both prevent people from accessing education, housing, and other resources. Do some of these individuals end up taking psychotropic medications due to the consequences of these systemic conditions? Yes. Do I think they’re always indicated? No.

Most of my jobs have been unconventional: I worked on an Assertive Community Treatment team that often provided intensive psychiatric services in people’s homes. I worked with a homeless outreach team and did most of my clinical work in alleys, under bridges, and in public parks. I worked in a geriatric adult home and saw people either in my office, which was literally the storage room for the recreational therapist’s stuff, or in their apartments if they were uncomfortable seeing me in the storage room. I was recruited to create and lead the programming for a new crisis center whose goal was to divert people from jails and emergency departments.

And now I work in a jail.

As time progresses, it has become clear to me that I have not had the typical career for a psychiatrist. I like that. However, I often also feel out of touch with my colleagues. I believe that they are all trying their best, but they don’t have the time to see how systems end up failing the most vulnerable and ill in our communities. They work in the ivory towers of academia and don’t seem to realize the dearth of resources—financial, administrative, academic—in the community. They work in private practice and don’t seem to realize how ill some people are and how we need their expertise. They work in psychiatric hospitals and seem to believe that some of these individuals will never get better when, in fact, they do.

Because much of my work has been outside of the traditional system, I consider myself fortunate that I have been able to escape the box of simply prescribing medications. Many of the individuals under my care do not want to take medications. Their desire to not take medications, though, doesn’t stop us from working with them. We meet them where they are at and remember that they are, first, people. As we are in the profession of helping people shift their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, we believe that there will come a time—maybe soon, but maybe not for weeks, months, or years—that something will change. Just getting someone to talk to us becomes the essential task. This is true whether someone is in a jail cell, living in a cardboard box under a bridge, or residing in a studio apartment.

Should systems pay psychiatrists to do this work? Maybe it’s not “cost effective” because of its “low return on investment”. After all, this task of “building rapport” means psychiatrists aren’t working “at the top of their licenses”. If a psychiatrist is able to get people to talk to her and help them shift their behaviors, whether or not that involves medications, does that have value?

Does the psychiatrist’s efforts have value if it helps the “system” save money?

Is there value if it reduces the suffering of these individuals who have had to deal with police officers, jails, and living on the streets due to a psychiatric condition?

Perhaps my idealism blinds me. One of my early mentors in New York City often said, “I want the guy who lives under the Manhattan Bridge to have a psychiatrist who is as good as, if not better than, the psychiatrist who has a private practice on Fifth Avenue.” I couldn’t agree more.

Categories
Observations Policy Reflection Systems

Pondering the Purpose of Policies.

What’s your policy on wearing pants?

We all have a personal policy about pants. My policy is that I shall wear pants on all days unless (a) I am attending a special event where a dress or skirt is indicated or (b) it is a hot day and I must wear something professional, so a dress or skirt is the cooler option.

Hang in there with me. This isn’t actually about pants.

I’ve been chewing on the purpose of policies. Much of my work life is dedicated to the creation and amending of policies for a system.

It makes me feel disappointed to see that policies often cater to the lowest common denominator. They seem to solely focus on preventing undesired behaviors and outcomes. It’s almost as if policies are written for those people or organizations, whether they exist or not, with the worst intentions.

Policies aren’t inspiring. They don’t talk about what could be or what we should strive for. This might be why we find policies tedious to read.

A colleague pointed out that, yes, policies are for the lowest common denominator because people often have the worst intentions.

“Think about the Ten Commandments,” she said. “Like ‘Thou shalt not kill’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ and ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’. Those are really basic things, but we need them. Those are policies to help us get along.”

Indeed, those religious prohibitions are not inspiring. What if we rephrased them? What if we said “Thou shalt honor life” instead of “Thou shalt not kill”? Doesn’t the idea of honoring life inspire more creativity and joy than a fearful instruction to not kill?

I think my colleague would reply that people need explicit directions. A exhortation to honor life does not guarantee that people will stop killing.

In his book Practical Wisdom, Barry Schwartz laments how policies can affect our abilities to do the right thing the right way. If we rely on policies, we ignore the nuances of the situation and stop thinking. When we stop thinking, we lose our wisdom. We end up looking to policies to prevent the worst thing from happening. The prevention of the worst thing, however, does not equal the creation of something better.

Call me naive—you won’t be the first—but I believe that, for most people, they meet the expectations you have of them. If you have high expectations, people will often meet them. (To be clear, there is a balance: Most expectations must be realistic. If they aren’t, people become demoralized.) It’s meaningful to people when they realize that someone believes in them when they may not believe in themselves. High expectations are frequently a form of respect.

(Perhaps I am straying. A significant difference between individual expectations and policies is the relationship. Relationships between people rely on invisible things like trust, hope, and respect. Relationships between organizations rely on visible things like contracts, memoranda, and policies. We often don’t feel like we have total control over what we do as individuals. How can an organization, comprised of potentially hundreds of people, control its behaviors to meet the expectations of another organization without those invisible connections?)

Someone on Twitter recently commented that policies should reflect the morals of the organization. I like that. If policies focus on documentation requirements and payment arrangements, but say nothing about the quality of services, what does that say about the organization? Does a mission statement have any meaning if the policies and procedures do not align with the stated mission? If the policies only comment on how to prevent the worst thing from happening, why would anyone expect extraordinary quality from the organization?

Perhaps I need to reframe, for myself, the purpose of policies. Policies help prevent bad things from happening. That’s good. Prevention is underappreciated: It’s difficult to measure things that didn’t happen. The difficulty in showing that less bad things happened, however, doesn’t mean that the activity of prevention is worthless.

It’s not an “either/or” issue. Policies prevent bad things from happening, which is valuable. But, as I noted above, preventing bad things and creating better things are two different activities. We don’t want to focus our energy on just preventing bad things from occurring. We must also create new things, or we otherwise will not progress.

The primary reason for my personal pants policy is comfort, though there are professional implications, too. Much of my work in the past involved talking to people in atypical places: Sometimes I’d have to step over puddles of mud to talk to the man living in the park; sometimes I’d have to slip between towers of yellowed magazines to reach the elderly woman seated on her bed. These days, wearing pants makes it less likely that male inmates will make unwelcome comments about my legs. Pants prevent bad things from happening to me.

My other clothing policy is to wear bright colors or patterns to work. People—colleagues, patients, strangers—often comment on the shirts I wear, frequently while smiling. That helps build rapport and connections, even if they are initially based on something as superficial as polka dots on a shirt. These relationships, though, often help create better things and situations for us all.

Categories
Consult-Liaison Education Medicine Policy Systems

Online Screening for Depression?

Inquisitve reader Amy asked me if I had any opinions about online screening for depression. The British Medical Journal recently published a debate on this issue.

What an excellent question, Amy! I read the opposing arguments and these are my thoughts:

First, I see two different issues. The first is whether the 9-question Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) is an appropriate tool to use to screen for depression. The second is whether the public should trust Google to administer the PHQ-9.

Before I do delve into that, though, let’s take a step back and consider the purpose of screening tools. Screening tools help physicians figure out how much more we should learn about a person. For example, asking for a person’s biological sex is a screening tool. The moment I learn that the person before me is female, I will ask her questions about menstruation and pregnancy history. I’ll skip those questions if the person is male. Similarly, if a person tells me that he smokes cigarettes, then I will ask more questions about how much and how often he smokes, what he gets out of smoking cigarettes, and if he thinks smoking causes him any problems. This helps me assess potential risks to his psychological and physical health. It also helps me assess if he has any interest in changing his smoking behaviors. Screening tools help us sort and gather information to generate diagnoses and interventions.

The literature states that the PHQ-9 was developed both to diagnose and measure the severity major depression. The PHQ-9 was modeled after the criteria for major depression in DSM-IV. Thus, the problems with the PHQ-9 for diagnosis are the same as the problems with the DSM for diagnosis: Context is completely missing. The authors of DSM argue that the situation and underlying causes of major depression don’t matter; they state that the presence of certain symptoms determine whether the diagnosis applies.

Long-time readers know my refrain: Context does matter. Major depression is “comorbid” with many other psychiatric conditions, meaning that someone experiencing the symptoms of major depression often experience symptoms of other psychiatric conditions. For example, bipolar disorder, by definition, includes episodes of major depression. People with diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and schizophrenia often experience major depression. Some people who take drugs, whether prescribed or obtained from illict sources, experience symptoms of major depression. Sometimes the symptoms of major depression are actually due to a medical condition, such as certain cancers, infectious diseases, or thyroid conditions.

There are several papers that make the case that the PHQ-9 is a useful tool in the screening for and diagnosis of major depression. Given that major depression is comorbid with other conditions, a positive PHQ-9 result is useful to help get people into care. A professional can then help clarify symptoms, determine possible diagnoses, and suggest treatment and other interventions. Recall that the purpose of diagnosis is to guide treatment.

Here is where we get into the second issue as to whether the public should trust Google to administer the PHQ-9. Most task forces agree that there is no point in performing screening tests if you can’t do anything with the results. If you can’t refer someone with a positive PHQ-9 result to a professional who can clarify diagnosis and provide treatment, then why bother? You’re potentially causing more problems and distress for the person seeking help. Thus, the question is whether Google will direct people with positive PHQ-9 results to helpful resources.

There is a shortage of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals in the US. One wonders if an online depression screening tool will lead people to believe that they are “majorly” depressed, when they are not. They will then seek services that are hard to find. If these individuals are able to get into primary care services, those medical professionals may not be able to determine if someone has depression because of bipolar disorder, or depression due to the recent death of a loved one. Wrong diagnosis often results in wrong treatment or overtreatment. Recall that we should first do no harm.

However, it is clear that people seek information about depression and other psychological experiences on the internet. The questions on the PHQ-9 can educate the public about the differences between major depression and having a sucky day. The more information and education we can provide to the public, the more empowered the public can feel about not only what isn’t going well, but also what they can do to improve their health and wellness. I do not view my work as a psychiatrist as a guild secret. The more understanding and communication we have in our communities, the more we can address our psychological health on individual and societal levels.

The other reaction I had to that BMJ debate was related to a comment that Dr. Duckworth made under “attitudinal barriers”. He noted that a “key reason may be that people with mental health conditions perceive that they do not need treatment. Studies show that they report attitudinal barriers to seeking care much more often than structural or financial barriers.”

I don’t see how the PHQ-9 is related to “attitudinal barriers”. Screening tests don’t reduce stigma. Sure, people may avoid treatment for depression because they don’t know that they are depressed. However, I suspect that more people avoid treatment for depression because of the stigma associated with psychiatric conditions and treatment. If we want to reduce and remove “attitudinal barriers” related to depression, we must help share stories that remind everyone that people with depression are, first, people. The PHQ-9 is not a means to that end.

I don’t know the workings of Google well enough to comment more about whether we should trust Google to administer the PHQ-9. Others with more knowledge about online security, marketing, and data mining can say more about whether Google will use PHQ-9 results for good or evil… or both. There are likely other unintended consequences that I don’t know or understand.

Thanks for the question, Amy!

Categories
Education Informal-curriculum Lessons Medicine Observations Reflection Systems

Thoughts on the Movie “Get Out”.

Have you seen the movie Get Out? If you haven’t, what follows might spoil part of the movie for you. You might want to watch it before reading this.

If you have seen Get Out, this post ponders the role of psychiatry in the movie. (Full disclosure: I enjoyed and recommend the movie.)

We learn early on in the movie that Rose’s mother is a psychiatrist. Chris, Rose’s boyfriend, asks something like, “She’s a psychologist?”

The response Chris receives is something like, “No, she’s a psychiatrist.”

While I can’t know for sure, I believe that the writer of the film, Jordan Peele[1. If you are not familiar with Jordan Peele, please go watch some clips of Key and Peele.], wanted to highlight the difference between the two. Psychiatrists are physicians. And some physicians, under the guise of expertise, have promoted racist ideas.

Dr. Samuel Cartwright was a physician who practiced in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana in the years leading up to the American Civil War. He defended slavery and wrote pieces that argued that blacks were inferior to whites.

One of his articles, “Diseases and Peculiarities of the Negro Race“, describes “drapetomania, or the disease causing Negroes to run away”. Because he describes drapetomania “is as much a disease of the mind as any other species of mental alienation”, it is clear that this is a psychiatric condition, such as kleptomania (compulsive stealing), pyromania (compulsive fire-setting), and dipsomania (the old name for alcohol use disorders).

In this article Dr. Cartwright asserts that God has ordained blacks as “submissive knee-bender[s]” and are “intended to occupy… the position of submission”. To support that blacks were destined to be “submissive knee-benders”, he states that “in the anatomical conformation of his knees, we see [it] written in the physical structure of his knees, being more flexed or bent, than any other kind of a man.”

To prevent the development of drapetomania, he states:

if his master or overseer be kind and gracious in his hearing towards him, without condescension, and at the same time ministers to his physical wants, and protects him from abuses, the negro is spell-bound, and cannot run away.

In Get Out, Chris (plus Georgiana, Walter, and Andrew) becomes obviously “spell-bound” through the hypnotic powers of the porcelain cup and silver spoon. One could argue that Rose is demonstrating faith in this practice as she was initially “kind and gracious”, “without condescension”, “ministers to his physical wants”, and “protects him from abuses” (remember the police officer who pulled them over?).

Dr. Cartwright comments that, in the course of drapetomania, slaves become “sulky and dissatisfied” before they run away. He advises that “the cause of this sulkiness and dissatisfaction should be inquired into and removed, or they are apt to run away or fall into the negro consumption.” However, if slaves were “sulky and dissatisfied without cause,” he states that the treatment was “in favor of whipping them out of it, as a preventive measure against absconding, or other bad conduct. It was called whipping the devil out of them.”[2. Wikipedia also comments that another treatment for drapetomania included “removal of both big toes”, which makes running difficult.]

Chris becomes understandably “sulky and dissatisfied” with his time at the Armitage home and seeks to flee. Though he wasn’t whipped to treat his drapetomania, it’s not a hard stretch to argue that the plan to remove most of his brain (“coagula”) is essentially whipping the devil out of him so that only his body remains.

Dr. Cartwright apparently published these ideas in the New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal (as well as De Bow’s Review, a magazine of “agricultural, commercial, and industrial progress and resource” in the American South). This publication came from his work as the chairman Louisiana State Medical Convention committee. One of their tasks was to “examine the diseases peculiar to the Black slaves of the antebellum South”.[3. From a Lancet article called “Drapetomania“.] This was a professional medical opinion!

To be clear, not all physicians agreed with Dr. Cartwright’s opinion. Dr. Hunt, a physician who practiced in Buffalo, New York—that is, North of the Mason-Dixon line—lampooned Dr. Cartwright’s concept of drapetomania. He rightly wondered why drapetomania seemed to only exist in the South. He made wry remarks that drapetomania seems to affect the neurons of slaves so that they only flee in a northerly direction. He also pointed out that drapetomania resembled the condition of schoolchildren who ran away from school to play.

In essence, Dr. Hunt shouted, “Context matters!”

Dr. Cartwright sincerely believed that drapetomania was an inherent quality of black people.[4. Dr. Cartwright also described “dysaethesia aethiopica“, or “hebetude or mind and obtuse sensibility of body” that only occurred in blacks in the South.] As he was a fish in the sea of Southern slaveowning culture, he either could or would not believe that social and political context affects the definitions of psychiatric conditions. (He also could not believe that his ideas were wrong.) Maybe Jordan Peele was thinking about Dr. Cartwright and drapetomania when he created the characters in Get Out. Maybe he wasn’t; maybe he was pointing out the consequences and longevity of racism.

Psychiatry has been and can easily become an agent of social control. The moment we begin to think that we’re too good or too smart or too sophisticated to become agents of social control, we and the people under our care are doomed.

It is paramount that we remember this always in the current political climate. May we have the wisdom and courage of Dr. Hunt.