Dataset Information

Oral corticosteroid dosage and clinical presentation of psychiatric conditions after steroid use: A consultation-liaison psychiatry service's experience.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

Psychiatric disturbances are the major adverse effects of corticosteroids. There are no consistent conclusions regarding changes in steroid dosage and the incidence of psychiatric conditions, due in part to the lack of consistent evaluation criteria. The purpose of this research was to determine the incidence and dose-dependency of psychiatric conditions as assessed by trained psychiatrists.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted at a university hospital in Japan. We identified inpatients receiving oral prednisolone treatment, who were referred to the consultation-liaison psychiatry team from April 2015 to March 2018. Patients were divided into high-dose (≥0.5 mg/kg/day) and low-dose (<0.5 mg/kg/day) groups. We investigated the associations between steroid dosage and incidence of psychiatric conditions.

Results

A total of 93 patients (35 in the high-dose group, 58 in the low-dose group) were included. Various psychiatric conditions, such as insomnia, delirium, depression, and psychosis, occurred during steroid therapy. The most common condition was insomnia (72%). We observed no significant differences in the patient background characteristics and the incidence of most psychiatric conditions between the high-dose and low-dose groups. However, there were more patients with delirium in the low-dose group than in the high-dose group.

Conclusions

Based on the accurate assessment of psychiatric conditions by psychiatrists, our analysis suggests that, among inpatients referred to a consultation-liaison psychiatry team, the incidence of psychiatric conditions, with the exception of delirium, is independent of the dose of oral prednisolone.

SUBMITTER: Yagi Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8698699 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundReports of psychiatric morbidity associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection tend to be limited by geography and patients' clinical status. Representative samples are needed to inform service planning and research.AimsTo describe the psychiatric morbidity associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction) in referrals to a consultation-liaison psychiatry service in Qatar.MethodRetrospective review of 50 consecutive referrals.ResultsMost patients were male. Median age was 39.5 years. Thirty-one patients were symptomatic (upper respiratory tract symptoms or pneumonia) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 19 were asymptomatic (no characteristic physical symptoms of COVID-19 infection). Seventeen patients (34%) had a past psychiatric history including eight with bipolar I disorder or psychosis, all of whom relapsed. Thirty patients (60%) had physical comorbidity. The principal psychiatric diagnoses made by the consultation-liaison team were delirium (n = 13), psychosis (n = 9), acute stress reaction (n = 8), anxiety disorder (n = 8), depression (n = 8) and mania (n = 8). Delirium was confined to the COVID-19 symptomatic group (the exception being one asymptomatic patient with concurrent physical illness). The other psychiatric diagnoses spanned the symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with COVID. One patient with COVID-19 pneumonia experienced an ischaemic stroke. Approximately half the patients with mania and psychosis had no past psychiatric history. Three patients self-harmed. The commonest psychiatric symptoms were sleep disturbance (70%), anxiety (64%), agitation (50%), depressed mood (42%) and irritability (36%).ConclusionsA wide range of psychiatric morbidity is associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection and is seen in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Cases of psychosis and mania represented relapses in people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and also new onset cases.

Project description:BackgroundConsultation-liaison psychiatry (CLP)-professional psychiatric care provided to coordinate with surgical or medical treatment of inpatients with psychiatric disorders-was included in universal health coverage in Japan in 2012. Despite evidence of benefits of CLP, basic data and geographic distribution information regarding CLP at the national level remain unclear. This study aimed to 1) identify the geographic disparity of CLP in Japan and 2) investigate the association between number of consultations per CLP patient and region.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed anonymized data retrieved from the Japanese administrative inpatient database regarding inpatients who were provided CLP between April 2012 and March 2017. Demographic characteristics were summarized and geographic disparity by prefecture was visualized for fiscal years 2012 and 2016; we also summarized the data according to region. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to investigate association between the number of consultations per CLP patient and region after adjusting for covariates.ResultsData from a total of 46,171 patients who received 138,866 CLP services were included. Results revealed more patients aged 75-84 years received CLPs than any other age group (29.7%) and the overall male/female ratio was 53:47 in 2016. In 2012 and 2016, 24.2 and 30.7% of CLP patients, respectively, were transferred to other hospitals; 9.7 and 8.8%, respectively, discharged due to the death. CLP services were provided in 14 prefectures in 2012 and 33 by 2016; 14 prefectures had no available CLP services. After adjusting for covariates, Tohoku (β = - 0.220, p < 0.034), Chugoku (β = - 0.160, p < 0.026), and Shikoku (β = - 0.555, p < 0.001) had a significant negative correlation with the number of consultations per CLP patient compared with Hokkaido region (an adjusted R square (R2) = 0.274).ConclusionsOur study clarified the characteristics of patients in Japan who received CLPs and the geographic disparity in CLP services. Although 5 years had passed since CLP was introduced, the results imply wide availability of CLP nationally. The analysis data provided may inform future policies to improve CLP services.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic created pressure to implement telepsychiatry across practice models.ObjectiveWe sought to evaluate the overall success of this change and to identify what types of practice settings, provider groups, and patient groups were best served by telepsychiatry and telepsychotherapy utilization. We were particularly interested in how providers of consultation-liaison psychiatry adapted to remote care.MethodsAn anonymous provider survey querying demographics, education, training, technological experience, practice setting, treatment modalities, patient groups, transition process, and outcomes was made openly available via social media and professional listservs. We used multivariable regression modeling to evaluate for predictors of the positive outcomes of overall satisfaction, subjective ability to diagnose and treat patients adequately using exclusively telepsychiatric platforms, and patient satisfaction by proxy.ResultsThree hundred thirty-three respondents, mostly young (59.4% younger than 50 years), female (69.7%), and physicians (67.9%), completed the survey. One hundred ninety-seven (59.1%) worked in consultation-liaison psychiatry. Of the total, 85.9% gave affirmative answers to overall satisfaction. Multivariable linear regression models found that satisfaction was predicted by general comfort with technology (P < 0.001), but negatively correlated with having technical issues (P < 0.001), a priori skepticism (P < 0.001), clinician being male (P = 0.004), and treating LGBTQ+ patients (P = 0.022). Completeness was associated with having training in telehealth (P = 0.039) and general comfort with technology (P < 0.001) but negatively associated with treating LGBTQ+ patients (P = 0.024) or inpatients (P = 0.002). Patient satisfaction by proxy was positively associated with general comfort with technology (P < 0.001) and the respondent being a nonphysician (P = 0.004) and negatively associated with encountering a technical issue (P = 0.013) or treating inpatients (P = 0.045). Consultation-liaison psychiatrists had similar results overall and were more likely to have other staff assist in making televisits effective (mean [standard deviation]: -1.25 [3.57] versus -2.76 [3.27], P < 0.001) especially if consultative (mean [standard deviation]: -0.87 [3.67] versus -2.39 [3.01], P = 0.010).ConclusionsThis study suggests high rates of overall satisfaction in telepsychiatry adoption, even in consultation-liaison psychiatry. There is distinct benefit in bolstering training, providing technical support, and addressing skepticism. Future research should include patient surveys and control groups and should focus on vulnerable populations such as sexual and gender minorities.

Project description:BackgroundLittle information exists on the perceptions of psychiatrists regarding the implementation and various impacts of the consultation-liaison model. This model has been used in Quebec (Canada) through the function of specialist respondent-psychiatrists (SRP) since 2009. This study assessed the main activities, barriers or facilitators, and impact of SRP in adult and child-adolescent psychiatry on the capacity of service providers in primary care and youth centers to treat patients with mental health disorders (MHD).MethodsData included 126 self-administered questionnaires from SRP and semi-structured interviews from 48 SRP managers. Mixed methods were used, with qualitative findings from managers complementing the SRP survey. Comparative analyses of SRP responses in adult versus child-adolescent psychiatry were also conducted.ResultsPsychiatrists dedicated a median 24.12 h/month to the SRP function, mainly involving case discussions with primary care teams or youth centers. They were confident about the level of support they provided and satisfied with their influence in clinical decision-making, but less satisfied with the support provided by their organizations. SRP evaluated their impacts on clinical practice as moderate, particularly among general practitioners (GP). SRP working in child-adolescent psychiatry were more comfortable, motivated, and positive about their overall performance and impact than in adult psychiatry. Organizational barriers (e.g. team instability) were most prevalent, followed by system-level factors (e.g. network size and complexity, lack of resources, model inflexibility) and individual factors (e.g. GP reluctance to treat patients with MHD). Organizational facilitators included support from family medicine group directors, collaboration with university family medicine groups and coordination by liaison nurses; at the system level, pre-existing relationships and working in the same institution; while individual-level facilitators included SRP personality and strong organizational support.ConclusionQuebec SRP were implemented sparingly in family medicine groups and youth centers, while SRP viewed their overall impact as moderate. Results were more positive in child-adolescent psychiatry than in adult psychiatry. Increased support for the SRP function, adapting the model to GP in need of more direct support, and resolving key system issues may improve SRP effectiveness in terms of team stability, coordination among providers, access to MH services and readiness to implement innovations.