42 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2021
  2. May 2021
  3. Mar 2021
  4. Feb 2021
  5. Jan 2021
    1. “Cognitive Reframing” is a technique used in therapy where patients are taught to look at things from another perspective. This technique helps patients look at the same event with different points of view, and has been proven to help improve their self-talk and behaviour. We are, after all, made up of the stories we tell ourselves.

      Cognitive Reframing - Technique to let patients look at situations from different perspectives.

      • Helps with self talk and behavior
      • Helps with narratives about ourselves
    1. I’m increasingly suspecting that many psychiatric illnesses will leave a semi-unique fingerprint on someone’s connectome harmonics.
  6. Dec 2020
    1. Instead of waiting for a magic fairy to appear and eliminate your problem so that you can enjoy life again, you might want to start adding those little positive events back onto your agenda despite the problem still being present

      This solution based therapy focuses on trying to get people active and engaged with life even when depressed.

      It is important to help patients experience those little positive events. These events can help people get back on track.

    2. If you need to imagine in concrete detail how you would notice that a problem disappeared, you are challenged to leave vague descriptions like “I’ll be happy”, “I’ll be less annoyed” behind.Vagueness in the end is a cognitive avoidance mechanism. It is easy to ruminate on general emotions and thoughts but very hard to imagine concrete outcomes and changes. We would rather not face precise thoughts, emotions or memories because they can be painful. Better to stay at a safe but vague distance.

      This is all about solution based therapy. We need concrete ways of fixing our problems.

      Vagueness is a cognitive avoidance strategy. It is a way to avoid digging deep.

      It is safer for our feelings to stay vague, but that is not where we need to improve.

  7. Oct 2020
    1. Some legislation allows for treatment to be given in certain circumstances without the patient's volition. For example, irresponsible people with communicable diseases may be treated against their objection, as in the case of patients with tuberculosis who are noncompliant with treatment. Also, all provinces allow for the involuntary admission of patients to psychiatric facilities, provided they present an immediate risk to themselves or others, or are unable to take care of themselves

      These highlight cases where you can treat patients without their consent.

      1. Irresponsible people with communicable diseases (e.g. Tuberculosis)

      2. Psychiatry patients that pose an immediate threat to themselves and/or those around them.

  8. Sep 2020
    1. numerous non-human species suffer from psychiatric symptoms. Birds obsess; horses on occasion get pathologically compulsive; dolphins and whales—especially those in captivity—self-mutilate. And that thing when your dog woefully watches you pull out of the driveway from the window—that might be DSM-certified separation anxiety. "Every animal with a mind has the capacity to lose hold of it from time to time" wrote science historian and author Dr. Laurel Braitman in "Animal Madness

      Animals can have psychiatric issues as well.

      Examples include:

      • Dolphins that self-mutilate when in captivity
      • Horses that can get pathologically compulsive
      • Brides that obsess
    2. schizophrenia. Though psychotic animals may exist, psychosis has never been observed outside of our own species; whereas depression, OCD, and anxiety traits have been reported in many non-human species

      Humans are the only ones that develop schizophrenia

  9. Aug 2020
    1. what might be learned from the case. The answer, in part, is that prudent psychiatrists and other therapists will want to be thoughtful about how they arrange follow-up care for patients whom they can no longer see.Sometimes a general suggestion that a patient seek follow-up care will be adequate. However, as the patient's condition warrants, clinicians might choose, in ascending order of time commitment, to provide the patient with the name of a particular practitioner or facility, to contact the facility to ascertain that a clinician is willing to see the patient, to help the patient make an appointment, or, with the patient's permission, to make an appointment on the patient's behalf. In some cases, it may be appropriate to ask for the patient's permission to contact his or her family to indicate a need for follow-up and to encourage the family to make sure that follow-up takes place. But of these approaches, no specific one will always be indicated, and the degree of assistance rendered the patient should be calibrated to his or her individual needs.

      What can be learned from this case?

      • Carefully plan follow up plans with patients (general suggestion about follow up can be enough)
      • Ask patient for family information to help them get involved in the follow up process and help increase compliance.

      Consider:

      • Giving the specific name of a provider to follow up with
      • How to contact the facility,
      • See if who you provided/recommended is avaliable to take the patient
      • Help patient make the appointment or make it on their behalf (with permission)
    2. One final questionable aspect of the jury's verdict relates to the legal requirement that before a judgment of malpractice can be reached, any departures from the standard of care must be shown to have been the proximate cause of the resulting harms. The most common test for whether an act or omission constitutes a proximate cause is whether it was reasonably foreseeable at the time that the negligent act occurred that would result in the consequent harms. Williamson had no history of violent behavior and had never revealed a violent impulse during treatment. It is impossible to conclude that he was foreseeably dangerous at the time he was seen by Dr. Liptzin.

      The test for proximate cause "is whether it was reasonably foreseeable at the time that the negligent act occurred that would result in the consequent harms"

      In this case, Dr. Liptzin, having seen Williamson having no history of violence or anything else, could not reasonably foresee that Williamson was going to do something illegal.

    3. When a former psychiatric patient killed two people on the streets of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and then sued the psychiatrist who had treated him for failing to prevent the murders, the mental health world dismissed the suit as frivolous. But when a jury agreed with the killer and awarded him $500,000 in damages, bewilderment was the order of the day (1). Can it be true, psychiatrists asked, that murder pays—as long as you can blame your psychiatrist for your deed?

      This is the case where it was initially ruled that the psychiatrist was the proximate cause for the patient, Williamson, to commit murder. Subsequent higher courts overturned this decision.

  10. Jul 2020
  11. Jun 2020
  12. May 2020
  13. Dec 2014
    1. This page could be more reassuring to the many people who have a degree of paranoia which does not interfere with their normal life. In a paranoia scoring scale some items were endorsed by 20-30% of the general population. British Journal of Psychiatry, 2013