The reviews are decidedly mixed.
On one hand, they applaud the ACP “for taking depression seriously,” but on the other, the guidelines just focus on several classes of second generation antidepressants, including SSRIs and selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. The bottom line was they all had equivalent efficacy.
The point of contention is that only one arm of treatment was addressed, ignoring psychotherapy and electroconvulsive therapy among others.
I think the guidelines show good practicality in today’s office environment. Most depression is treated in the primary care setting, and you won’t find many generalist physicians talking about ECT or psychotherapy. Furthermore, access is decidedly poor to psychiatrists to discuss the other options.
With patient visits lasting 15-minutes, to-the-point guidelines focusing on an effective medication approach is something that I can use.
topics: depression, psychiatry
Related posts:
- Why suffering patients find their way to psychiatrists
- Is depression over-diagnosed?
- Doctors treating themselves
- Sex, depression and abortions
- MGH psychiatrists in trouble
- Depression is bad for your heart
- Is depression more prevalent in medical students?
{ 2 comments }
I find that in my community people can get an appointment with a psychiatrist within a week or so–if they are willing to pay for it.
As layman, casual observer, the comment from this post that caught my attention was
“With patient visits lasting 15-minutes, to-the-point guidelines focusing on an effective medication approach is something that I can use.”
How do you create ‘to-the-point’ guidelines for anything more than a turnstile, get-em-in and get-em-out, approach to serving patients?
And with too many stories of doctors whose diagnoses are compromised by their relationship with drug manufacturers and their reps….to a patient’s perspective it would be easy to say that the guidelines are to maximize income, minimize risk and medicate the patient.
Comments on this entry are closed.