0
Get Alert
Please Wait... Processing your request... Please Wait.
You must sign in to sign-up for alerts.

Please confirm that your email address is correct, so you can successfully receive this alert.

1
CLINICAL SYNTHESIS   |    
Communication Commentary: Effective Communication Under Stress: Personality Disorder and Treatment Engagement
Dorothy E. Stubbe, M.D.
FOCUS 2013;11:210-212. doi:10.1176/appi.focus.11.2.210
View Author and Article Information

Author Information and CME Disclosure

Dorothy Stubbe, M.D., Associate Professor and Program Director, Yale University School of Medicine Child Study Center, New Haven, CT.

Dr. Stubbe reports no competing interests.

Address correspondence to Dorothy Stubbe, M.D., Associate Professor and Program Director, Yale University School of Medicine Child Study Center, New Haven, CT.

“A wonderful fact to reflect upon, that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other.”

Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

Personality disorders remain, perhaps, one of the most controversial diagnostic areas in psychiatric practice. Personality, an “enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior” (1), is disordered when patterns of thoughts, behaviors, and emotions are inflexible and maladaptive. Many individuals suffering from personality disorders demonstrate chronic high-risk behaviors, including self-injury, chronic suicidality, and episodes of poorly modulated anger outbursts. Substance abuse, eating disorders, poor functioning in school or employment, disrupted relationships, and legal involvement are not uncommon. For many patients, difficulties managing strong negative affect and the risk of acting impulsively, complicate their treatment and may elicit anxiety and a subsequent reluctance of health and mental health professionals of all disciplines to engage in the treatment of this population (2).

Psychiatrists working with individuals with maladaptive personality functioning have a seemingly daunting task: engaging an individual for whom trust and interpersonal closeness is a primary deficit. A working understanding of issues of transference, countertransference, and projective identification is essential, as some patients may stir up strong feelings and insecurities that have the potential to disrupt the therapeutic process. Clinicians that have a clear framework for treatment engagement and process—and are able to utilize their emotional reactions to understand, clarify, and guide treatment—are the most successful (35).

“I got a call from the ER last night,” I lamented to a colleague at the clinic. “My patient, Julia, had another suicide attempt—this time a serious overdose with her antidepressant medication. She had texted me at three in the morning, but of course I was sleeping and didn’t get it. I have told her many times to call my answering service if things are very bad!”

“I’m sorry,” my colleague empathized. He had dealt with Julia during my vacations, and knew how difficult she could be. I had also presented her case to colleagues in peer supervision. But Julia had never taken it this far before. There had been intermittent superficial cutting; she had taken an extra pill or two when upset–once she took 10 antihistamine capsules. But to take her entire new prescription of antidepressant…

“OK, I give up. I feel so inadequate. If she is going to try to kill herself on the medication I prescribe, maybe she should find another doctor!” I vented.

I felt so demoralized and, yes, even furious. Doctors weren’t supposed to let their patients get to them. Maybe I was out of my league.

“I feel like terminating her care while she is in the hospital, so they can contain her rage and help her find a better doctor at the clinic.”

“Really?” my colleague queried dumbfoundedly. “Think about what you’re saying. You just talked about her last week in peer supervision. You have started working with her to reach a shared agreement on treatment goals, and she is making slow but steady progress on that. She is starting to trust you, and wants to start trusting herself. But she has felt so dependent on others for so long; it is probably scaring her.”

“Well, now she is scaring me, and I think she needs to find another doctor,” I argued.

My colleague retorted quickly, “Of course. That’s how projective identification works. She believes that you will abandon her and projects those feelings onto you, until you absorb them and want to act on them. You know that no psychiatrist can be expected to work miracles. You and Julia both know that it is going to be a roller coaster. You just don’t like it.” Sometimes my colleague can be so reasonable, it is almost annoying.

“You’re right, of course,” I mused. “I’m not really going to ask her to find another doctor. Still, I think I could use some extra help. The crisis management team and DBT group in addition to our individual therapy work might help support us both.”

“That sounds like a plan,” my colleague said, reassuringly.

“I’ll talk to her inpatient team and see if I can go visit her this afternoon,” I resolved, taking several deep breaths.

Many health and mental health professionals of all disciplines are reluctant to treat patients for whom personality disorder is a primary diagnosis. Managing the high level of risk associated with chronic suicidality or self-defeating behaviors can be anxiety-provoking and emotionally exhausting. “An acceptance that there may be recurrent breakdowns in relationships, work and accommodation and that engagement may be difficult should be combined with a continuing commitment to the patient” (6). The public (and sometimes the patient and even the treating psychiatrist herself) often places too high an expectation that the psychiatrist will provide instant solutions or take responsibility for all adverse behaviors.

The establishment of a physician-patient relationship that is maintained over time is a particular challenge to therapeutic engagement and treatment for individuals with impairments in personality functioning. However, this engagement, and the concomitant ability to collaborate in setting treatment goals and expectations, is core to the treatment. Treatment includes ongoing attempts to reach and maintain a shared view of expectations, so that neither the patient nor the therapist is set up to fail.

Kingsley Norton has described some of the difficulties in achieving a shared realistic set of expectations and ways of tackling them. “Consistency, tolerance, patience and understanding (without necessarily condoning) are key features of any successful management plan. This can be challenging in light of some patients’ ambivalence and difficulty engaging. Another key ingredient is the instillation of hope. However, this should not be at the expense of raising false expectations” (7).

The issues of physician-patient communication and active engagement of the patient in her/his treatment remain primary. Engagement includes active listening; sensitivity to the individual’s culture, lifestyle, and perspective in assessment; and providing a therapeutic scaffold by which the patient and therapist may communicate openly (8).

Drs. Jerold Kreisman and Hal Straus have formulated a simple pneumonic for engagement of the difficult-to-engage patient: SET, which stands for support, empathy, and truth (9).

  • Support  includes the therapist’s commitment to the best interest of the patient. This includes the development of a shared view of the treatment process: instillation of hope, teaching of skills, and provision of a structure for supporting the patient during emotional crises.

  • Empathy  is a core component to all physician-patient interactions. As exemplified in the clinical vignette above, however, maintenance of the therapeutic distance by which to maintain an empathic understanding of the patient’s suffering is sometimes difficult. Empathic supports for therapist and patient are important for optimal engagement.

  • Truthfulness  includes honesty in communication as the basis for building a trusting relationship. It also includes the setting of realistic expectations, maintaining the boundaries of the therapeutic relationship, and a commitment to information-sharing and transparency.

 American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Ed., Text Rev.  Washington, DC,  American Psychiatric Press, 2000, pp 685
 
Oldham  JM;  Skodol  AE;  Bender  DS:  Essentials of Personality Disorders .  Arlington, VA,  American Psychiatric Publishing Inc., 2009
 
Links  P:  Clinical Assessment and Management of Severe Personality Disorder .  Washington, DC,  American Psychiatric Press, 1996
 
Linehan  MM;  Tutek  DA;  Heard  HL;  Armstrong  HE:  Interpersonal outcome of cognitive behavioral treatment of chronically suicidal borderline patients.  Am J Psychiatry 1994; 151:1771–1776
[PubMed]
 
Davison  SE:  Principles of managing patients with personality disorders.  Adv Psychiatr Treat 2002; 8:1–9
[CrossRef]
 
Dowson  JH;  Grounds  AT:  Personality Disorders: Recognition and Clinical Management .  Cambridge, England,  Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp 49
 
Norton  K:  Management of difficult personality disorder patients.  Adv Psychiatr Treat 1996; 2:202–210
[CrossRef]
 
Schmitt  DP;  Allik  J:  Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg Self–Esteem scale in 53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture–specific features of global self–esteem.  J Pers Soc Psychol 2005; 89:623–642
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Kreisman  JJ;  Straus  H:  I Hate You, Don’t Leave Me .  New York, NY,  Harper Collins Publisher, 2001
 
References Container
+

References

 American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Ed., Text Rev.  Washington, DC,  American Psychiatric Press, 2000, pp 685
 
Oldham  JM;  Skodol  AE;  Bender  DS:  Essentials of Personality Disorders .  Arlington, VA,  American Psychiatric Publishing Inc., 2009
 
Links  P:  Clinical Assessment and Management of Severe Personality Disorder .  Washington, DC,  American Psychiatric Press, 1996
 
Linehan  MM;  Tutek  DA;  Heard  HL;  Armstrong  HE:  Interpersonal outcome of cognitive behavioral treatment of chronically suicidal borderline patients.  Am J Psychiatry 1994; 151:1771–1776
[PubMed]
 
Davison  SE:  Principles of managing patients with personality disorders.  Adv Psychiatr Treat 2002; 8:1–9
[CrossRef]
 
Dowson  JH;  Grounds  AT:  Personality Disorders: Recognition and Clinical Management .  Cambridge, England,  Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp 49
 
Norton  K:  Management of difficult personality disorder patients.  Adv Psychiatr Treat 1996; 2:202–210
[CrossRef]
 
Schmitt  DP;  Allik  J:  Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg Self–Esteem scale in 53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture–specific features of global self–esteem.  J Pers Soc Psychol 2005; 89:623–642
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Kreisman  JJ;  Straus  H:  I Hate You, Don’t Leave Me .  New York, NY,  Harper Collins Publisher, 2001
 
References Container
+
+

CME Activity

There is currently no quiz available for this resource. Please click here to go to the CME page to find another.
Submit a Comments
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discertion of APA editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe



Related Content
Articles
Books
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry, 5th Edition > Chapter 3.  >
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry, 5th Edition > Chapter 20.  >
Gabbard's Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition > Chapter 32.  >
Gabbard's Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition > Chapter 34.  >
Gabbard's Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition > Chapter 50.  >
Topic Collections
Psychiatric News
Read more at Psychiatric News >>
PubMed Articles