Search

Collusions, interpersonal phenomena with an impact on patients, significant others, clinicians, and care, are mainly described in the psychotherapeutic literature but also occur in the medical setting. Comprehended as an unconscious bond between two or more persons from a psychotherapeutic perspective, definitions and collusive situations described in the medical setting vary. The question arises whether medical collusions, compared to collusions occurring in the psychiatric setting emerge in different clinical situations or are not identified as transference-countertransference experiences, since there is less sensitivity for the unconscious dimensions of care. We systematically reviewed the medical literature on collusions. Even though a read threat, avoidance of unpleasant feelings (mainly anxiety), runs through the described collusions, the unconscious dimensions and associated defensive maneuvers are rarely evoked. Given the expressed desire to act on collusions in medicine, involving third-party psychiatric liaison clinicians, who supervise clinicians, and hereby help to disentangle collusions, could be beneficial., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors have argued that complexity in general health care is increasingly prevalent because of the increase in patients who have multimorbid conditions, and the increased professional and technical possibilities of medicine. In the increasingly complex care systems, it is necessary-specifically when treating patients in need of integrated care by several providers-that an optimal match between case and care complexity be found in order to prevent poor outcomes in this vulnerable group. The authors discussed several approaches to case complexity that can be identified in the literature. Most of them seem unsuitable for adjusting case and care complexity, and inadequate for designing multidisciplinary care. Theoretic approaches to case complexity may be of interest, but did not result in clinically meaningful information. The INTERMED, which can be considered the first empirically based instrument to link case and care complexity, is an attempt to improve care delivery and outcomes for the complex medically ill.

Complex patients who have biopsychosocial comorbidities represent a major challenge for the current health care system. Unlike standard medical situations for which medical care can be based on an evidence-based approach, complex patients require a broader concept of care. As demonstrated throughout this issue, such an integrated approach that takes into account the concepts of case- and care complexity is not only possible, it is cost-effective. Integrated care, however, needs assessment tools and a communications-based approach that fosters exchange and collaboration between different medical disciplines and professions and patients.

During the last 10 years the INTERMED method has been developed as a generic method for the assessment of bio-psychosocial health risks and health needs and for planning of integrated treatment. The INTERMED has been conceptualized to counteract divisions and fragmentation of medical care. Designed to enhance the communication between patients and the health providers as well as between different professions and disciplines, the INTERMED is a visualized, action-oriented decision-support tool. This article presents various aspects of the INTERMED, such as its relevance, description, scoring, the related patient interview and treatment planning, scientific evaluation, implementation, and support for the method.

Because complex medical patients are a subgroup of the medical population and because complexity assessment involves extra effort, preselection of these patients through identifiers is necessary. There is no best identifier for complexity, and the one most suitable for the population served should be selected. This article provides a table with potential identifiers and discusses the difference between disease-oriented screening and treatment and a more generic approach such as complexity screening and complexity management.

Objective: Lack of operationalization of the biopsychosocial model hinders its effective application to the increasingly prevalent problems of comorbidities in clinical presentations. Here, we describe the INTERMED, an instrument to assess biopsychosocial case complexity in general health care, and provide an overview of its psychometric evaluation., Method: Review and summary of our publications to date, and re-analysis of findings., Results: The INTERMED has face-validity, is brief and easy to use, and several research reports support its reliability and validity. It has the capacity to detect patients at risk for poor clinical outcome and quality of life., Conclusions: The INTERMED project is relevant to various agents involved in the care process. It provides a basis for effective multidisciplinary treatment of patients with a high case complexity.

Using the INTERMED, a system for classifying case complexity, the authors evaluated patients admitted to a general internal medicine ward on length of stay (LOS), number of medicines prescribed during the hospital stay, and whether they had received specialist medical consults. Using the patients' INTERMED scores, the authors divided the patients into three clusters of patients: standard (n=41), chronic (n=26), and complex (n=18). A comparison of the three clusters indicated that patients who had scored within the complex cluster were at risk of requiring complex care and an increased LOS. The findings suggest that the INTERMED detects complex patients at admission and may, therefore, be used for early integral case management.

The authors examined the timing of patient referrals to a psychiatric consultation-liaison service in relation to the patient's social vulnerability and level of psychiatric dysfunction. One hundred consecutive patients were assessed with the INTERMED, a method to document biopsychosocial and health care-related aspects of disease. Although 30% of patients were referred within the first day of admission, 19% of requests for referrals were made after 2 weeks. Late referral was associated with high social vulnerability and early referral with severe psychiatric dysfunction. The authors illustrate the disadvantages of a psychiatric liaison model focusing on psychopathology alone and demonstrate the need for an integrated patient assessment in the general hospital, focusing on detecting frail elderly patients.

The aim of this study was to assess a population of patients with diabetes mellitus by means of the INTERMED, a classification system for case complexity integrating biological, psychosocial and health care related aspects of disease. The main hypothesis was that the INTERMED would identify distinct clusters of patients with different degrees of case complexity and different clinical outcomes. Patients (n=61) referred to a tertiary reference care centre were evaluated with the INTERMED and followed 9 months for HbA1c values and 6 months for health care utilisation. Cluster analysis revealed two clusters: cluster 1 (62%) consisting of complex patients with high INTERMED scores and cluster 2 (38%) consisting of less complex patients with lower INTERMED. Cluster 1 patients showed significantly higher HbA1c values and a tendency for increased health care utilisation. Total INTERMED scores were significantly related to HbA1c and explained 21% of its variance. In conclusion, different clusters of patients with different degrees of case complexity were identified by the INTERMED, allowing the detection of highly complex patients at risk for poor diabetes control. The INTERMED therefore provides an objective basis for clinical and scientific progress in diabetes mellitus. Ongoing intervention studies will have to confirm these preliminary data and to evaluate if management strategies based on the INTERMED profiles will improve outcomes.

Study Design: Cross-sectional investigation and follow-up of patients with low back pain., Objectives: To evaluate the capacity of the INTERMED--a biopsychosocial assessment and classification system for case complexity--to identify patients with a chronic, disabling course of low back pain and to predict treatment outcome., Summary of Background Data: An impressive number of biologic and nonbiologic factors influencing the course of low back pain have been identified. However, the lack of a concise, comprehensive, reliable and validated classification system of this heterogeneous patient population hampers preventive and therapeutic progress., Methods: The INTERMED was used to assess patients with low back pain, who participated in a functional rehabilitation program (n = 50) and patients with low back pain who applied for disability compensation (n = 50). Patients of the rehabilitation program were observed to assess the effects of treatments., Results: The INTERMED distinguished between patients in different phases of disability and provided meaningful information about the biopsychosocial aspects of low back pain. In hierarchical cluster analysis two distinct clusters emerged that differed in the degree of case complexity and treatment outcomes., Conclusions: This first application of the INTERMED indicates its potential utility as a classification system for patients with low back pain.

The validity and clinical use of a recently developed instrument to assess health care needs of patients with a physical illness, called INTERMED, is investigated. The INTERMED combines data reflecting patients' biological, psychological, and social characteristics with information on health care utilization characteristics. An example of a patient population in which such an integral assessment can contribute to the appropriateness of care, are patients with low back pain of degenerative or unknown origin. It supports the validity and the clinical usefulness of the INTERMED when clinically relevant subgroups in this heterogeneous population can be identified and described based on their INTERMED scores. The INTERMED was utilized in a group of patients (N = 108) having low back pain who vary on the chronicity of complaints, functional status, and associated disability. All patients underwent a medical examination and responded to a battery of validated questionnaires assessing biological, psychological, and social aspects of their life. In addition, the patients were assessed by the INTERMED. It was studied whether it proved to be possible to form clinically meaningful groups of patients based on their INTERMED scores; for this, a hierarchical cluster analysis was performed. In order to clinically describe them, the groups of patients were compared with the data from the questionnaires. The cluster analysis on the INTERMED scores revealed three distinguishable groups of patients. Comparison with the questionnaires assessing biological, psychological, and social aspects of disease showed that one group can be characterized as complex patients with chronic complaints and reduced capacity to work who apply for a disability compensation. The other groups differed explicitly with regard to chronicity, but also on other variables. By means of the INTERMED, clinically relevant groups of patients can be identified, which supports its use in clinical practice and its use as a method to describe case mix for scientific or health care policy purposes. In addition, the INTERMED is easy to implement in daily clinical practice and can be of help to ease the operationalization of the biopychosocial model of disease. More information on its validity in different patient populations is necessary.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the development and to test the reliability of a new method called INTERMED, for health service needs assessment. The INTERMED integrates the biopsychosocial aspects of disease and the relationship between patient and health care system in a comprehensive scheme and reflects an operationalized conceptual approach to case mix or case complexity. The method is developed to enhance interdisciplinary communication between (para-) medical specialists and to provide a method to describe case complexity for clinical, scientific, and educational purposes. First, a feasibility study (N = 21 patients) was conducted which included double scoring and discussion of the results. This led to a version of the instrument on which two interrater reliability studies were performed. In study 1, the INTERMED was double scored for 14 patients admitted to an internal ward by a psychiatrist and an internist on the basis of a joint interview conducted by both. In study 2, on the basis of medical charts, two clinicians separately double scored the INTERMED in 16 patients referred to the outpatient psychiatric consultation service. Averaged over both studies, in 94.2% of all ratings there was no important difference between the raters (more than 1 point difference). As a research interview, it takes about 20 minutes; as part of the whole process of history taking it takes about 15 minutes. In both studies, improvements were suggested by the results. Analyses of study 1 revealed that on most items there was considerable agreement; some items were improved. Also, the reference point for the prognoses was changed so that it reflected both short- and long-term prognoses. Analyses of study 2 showed that in this setting, less agreement between the raters was obtained due to the fact that the raters were less experienced and the scoring procedure was more susceptible to differences. Some improvements--mainly of the anchor points--were specified which may further enhance interrater reliability. The INTERMED proves to be a reliable method for classifying patients' care needs, especially when used by experienced raters scoring by patient interview. It can be a useful tool in assessing patients' care needs, as well as the level of needed adjustment between general and mental health service delivery. The INTERMED is easily applicable in the clinical setting at low time-costs.

The use of psychotropic drugs was studied in 200 cancer patients admitted to a medical oncology unit at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, in December 1987. When compared with a similar survey that studied prescription practices 10 years ago, there was a 30% increase in the use of psychotropic agents. Whereas prescription rates for different drug classes remained relatively stable, psychotropic drugs are now used for a greater range of reasons. The introduction of several new agents, especially short-acting benzodiazepines, has altered the physician's choices. Despite awareness of the different properties of psychotropic medications and their increased use, they are still underused, especially the antidepressants and antipsychotics when prescribed for psychologic distress.

The addition of corticosteroids in the early 1950s to the treatment armamentarium provided cure of some diseases and control of many. They have become an integral part of many cancer treatment regimens. Early reports of severe affective disorders appear less frequent today in patients receiving steroids, though controlled studies are rare. Minor mood changes are common, ranging from the euphoria of initial treatment to depressive symptoms on withdrawal. The most common severe disturbances seen clinically in cancer patients are the organic mood disorders and delirium. Studies are needed, especially in cancer, which control for prior psychiatric history, cancer site, cancer treatment, pain regimen, coexisting cancer complications, especially central nervous system complications, and physical performance status. DSM-III-R terminology must be used as the diagnostic classification for reliable investigation. A more careful clinical delineation of the mental changes with steroids is desirable not only for the clinical relevance, but for the potential understanding of the etiology of mood disorders and mental changes seen in delirium.