|
The modern physician does not treat disease, but
rather a living, feeling, thinking, doing individual with a complaint problem
expressed in physical and psychic terms.
When a patient comes for medical help, the first
objective of the physician is to acquire an understanding of the basic nature
of the illness. He seeks first to elucidate the character and mechanisms of the
symptoms, and then to detect the various etiologic forces behind them.
... But how is the physician to go about this?
Obviously he must inquire into the workings of the patient's mind and the
nature of his emotions. To do this well requires skill no less than does a
competent physical examination. Some are born with a gift for understanding
people as persons but others who are not endowed with this gift may easily
acquire this talent.
... A more rounded and more useful picture of the
patient is obtained if we try to see him as a whole at different periods of his
life rather than in different activities of his life. It may be helpful to have
in mind the whole span of a person's school life or his work record; but it is
even more helpful to have a picture of the whole person as an infant, a boy, a
young married adult and so on. For each of these and for other periods of life
we want to have some information about what can be called the emotional climate
in which the patient lived. What were the dominant forces in the moulding of
his personality? What were the values, the goals, the attitudes of the people
who surrounded him? To what stresses were they exposed? How much of these
stresses were obviously of their own making? How did they and the patient react
to such stresses? To what extent has the patient resisted or thrown away the
attitudes which he learned as a child?
... The first clue to topics of emotional significance
lies in the material which the patient himself wishes to talk about. Everyone
talks about what is important to him. Material which is emotionally charged is
under pressure within the patient and seeks outlets. The patient should be
allowed to let it out. The relevance of the material produced by the patient
spontaneously may not always be immediately apparent but this is usually a
reflection of our slowness in understanding. As long as the patient is talking
he should rarely be interrupted. ... hesitation, and blocking betray emotional
tension; so may their opposite--a quickening of the speed of speech as if from
internal pressure. We must watch also for a change in the tone of the voice,
irrelevant laughter, dryness of the mouth, restless movements of the hands or
body, slight flushing of the face, a turning away of the eyes or the glistening
of early tears... .
Within the limits of his own mood, the doctor should
show some flexibility in his emotional response to the patient. If the patient
is anxious, the doctor should be firmly reassuring; if he is depressed, the
doctor should be optimistic but not exuberantly cheerful; if he is angry or
suspicious, the doctor should be friendly but not ingratiating or defensive ...
Short cuts in psychiatric history-taking belong to the
experienced, who do not often use them. Almost always a number of hours in the
aggregate will be required. Too often the physician feels the need to propose a
diagnosis following the first examination. Rarely does a patient really demand
this. As mentioned previously, it is difficult for the average patient with
psychoneurotic or psychosomatic illness to discuss his emotional disturbances
even if he suspects they exist until he has first described his clinical
symptoms at some length ...
If it is objected that the busy practitioner cannot
possibly afford this extra time, it may be pointed out that delaying
psychiatric therapy in patients needing it may in the long run take up much
more of the physician's time by forcing him to deal with complaints arising
from psychiatric disorders. A review was once made of the records of a series
of patients whose hospital and outpatient clinic charts each weighed in excess
of 5 pounds. All should have had psychiatric evaluations in years gone by. It
was too late for them ... .
When questions need to be asked, they should be
phrased as generally as possible in order to minimize the effect of suggestion.
It is better to say, "How did you feel when you had to sell your house?" than,
"Did you feel badly when you sold your house?" or, "You must have felt badly
when you had to sell your house." Leading questions invite the patient to offer
a routine or cultural attitude which may not be truly his. The patient might
have been partly or wholly pleased at having to sell his house but be unable to
admit it after a question suggesting disappointment. If, however, it is
apparent that the patient is unaware or unexpressive of all his feelings about
an event, a suggestive interpretation may be made cautiously in an effort to
draw him out further. For example, one might say, "Perhaps you weren't
altogether sorry to see your house go," or, "I imagine your father's remark
might have made you a bit angry as well as embarrassed."
Little information is obtained by such questions as:
"How do you get along with your father?"--"Do you worry much?"--"Do you like
your older brother?" The patient will almost certainly answer with sterile
replies, replies designed to satisfy cultural attitudes ... When the
opportunity provides, the patient should be drawn out into anecdotal relation
of events in which he was associated with relevant persons. Much more can be
learned from a study of such anecdotes than from standardized statements such
as, "Mother favored my younger sister" or "Dad was always fair to us." When a
patient makes such statements he should be asked, "Can you give me an example
of this?"--IAN STEVENSON, M.D. and ROBERT A. MATTHEWS, M.D.
Commentary
Some things never change, and human nature is one of
them. Although our understanding of science and technology has advanced greatly
in the past 50 years, suffering and somatization remain remarkably constant.
Nothing, in my view, can replace the basic techniques of open-ended questioning
and empathic listening that are outlined in the excerpts above. As we read
these selections, many of the authors' suggestions--behaving in a supportive
manner to our patients, encouraging them to express themselves, avoiding
leading questions--seem almost too obvious. We have, after all, become
increasingly sophisticated about the mind-body connection, and we have come a
long way toward incorporating the psychologic aspects of illness into our
teaching programs.
However, with our increasing refinement has come a
decrease in opportunity to use this knowledge. The authors address the
importance of taking time with patients, asserting that the "short cuts in
history-taking belong to the experienced, who do not often use them." In our
day, the short cut has become the standard in dealing with emotional problems
in medical practice. Such a short cut can come in the form of criteria from the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders--for example,
those for depression--for which we can prescribe an antidepressant. Or it might
come in the form of an abbreviated psychotherapeutic method, such as the BATHE
technique, which is designed to fit smoothly into a 15-minute appointment.
Although pharmacotherapy and brief interventions have an important place in the
treatment of patients, they are likely to miss a large percentage of those
whose troubles influence their health without constituting a psychiatric
diagnosis. The benefits of a long-term relationship with a physician who knows
the "whole patient" are not fully known and in practical terms are probably
greatly underestimated.
Something in the authors' language shows how
different, after all, our approach has become over the past 50 years. They
write: "We must watch also for a change in the tone of voice, dryness of the
mouth, restless movements of the hands or body, slight flushing of the face, a
turning away of the eyes, or the glistening of early tears." If the language we
use is any indication, we no longer live in an era that allows us to give all
our patients such careful attention and empathy.--CAROLINE WELLBERY,
M.D. |