Academic Psychiatry

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 176–179 | Cite as

The Limited Role of Expert Guidelines in Teaching Psychopharmacology

Perspective

Abstract

Objective

To consider the limited usefulness of expert guidelines for teaching psychopharmacology.

Method

Potential problems using expert guidelines for teaching psychopharmacology are reviewed.

Results

Expert guidelines are an important contribution to the growth of evidence-based psychiatry. As such, they may also be used to teach fundamentals of psychopharmacology. Their use as teaching materials may be limited by their reliance on Diagnostic and Statistical manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) diagnoses, especially for patients with unclear or complicated diagnosing pictures. Biases may also exist in their construction and the data from which they are derived. Other problems include overemphasis on newly released medications and the potential for teaching a “cookbook” approach to psychopharmacology treatment, limiting the development of the “art” of psychopharmacology practice.

Conclusion

Although expert guidelines may be a useful tool for teaching psychopharmacology, they also may limit the teaching of psychopharmacology. Comprehensive psychopharmacology training programs that use expert guidelines as teaching tools should emphasize critical reading of clinical trials literature and teaching the use of all psychotropic drugs. Training in the art of psychopharmacology including, nonpharmacological aspects of drug treatment, should also be included.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    American Psychological Association: Criteria for evaluating treatment guidelines. American Psychol 2002; 57: 1052–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mellman TA, Miller AL, Weissman EM, et al: Evidence-based pharmacologic treatment for people with severe mental illness: a focus on guidelines and algorithms. Psychiatr Serv 2001; 52: 619–625PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, et al: Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 1999; 318: 527–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chassin MR, McCue SM: A randomized trial of medical quality assurance. improving physician’s use of pelvimetry. JAMA 1986; 256: 1012–1016PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kane JM, Leucht S, Carpenter D, Docherty JP: The Expert Consensus Guideline Series. optimizing pharmacologic treatment of psychotic disorders. J Clin Psychiatry 2003; (Suppl 12) 64: 5–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Treatment of Schizophrenia. The Expert Consensu Panel for Schizophrenia. J Clin Psychiatry 1996; (Suppl 12B) 57: 3–58Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kahn D, Carpenter D, Docherty J, et al (eds): The Expert Consensus Guideline Series: treatment of bipolar disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 1996; (Suppl 12A) 57: 1–88Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    March JS, Frances A, Carpenter D, et al (eds): The Expert Consensus Guideline Series: treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 1997; (Suppl 4) 57:1-72Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alexopoulos GS, Silver JM, Kahn DA, et al (eds). The Expert Consensus Guideline Series: treatment of agitation in older persons with dementia. Postgrad Med, 1988Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Expert Consensus Guideline Series: Treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. The Expert Consensus Panels for PTSD. J Clin Psychiatry 1999; (Suppl 16) 60: 3–76Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller AL, Chiles JA, Chiles JK, et al: The Texas Algorithm Project (TMAP) Schizophrenai Algorithms, J Clin Psychiatry 1995; 60: 649–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jobson KO, Potter WZ: International Psychopharmacology Algorithm Project Report. Psychopharm Bull 1995; 31: 457–459Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Slayton JM: Treatment algorithms: bane or boon to mental health. Harvard Rev Psychiatry 1998; 6: 225–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huddleston DA: Practice guidelines for Medicare: needed or a nuisance? Geriatrics 1989; 44: 75–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glenmullen J: Prozac Backlash. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad, Meijer G, et al: Evidence b(i)ased medicine—selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications BMJ 2003; 326: 1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gelenberg AJ: Honoring our evidence base. Biol Ther Psychiatry 2004; 27: 25Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salzman C: Why don’t clinical trial results always correspond to clinical experience? Neuropsychopharm 1991; 4: 265–267Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academic Psychiatry 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations