Faculty Bibliography

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an efficacious surgical treatment for many conditions, including obsessive-compulsive disorder and treatment-resistant depression. DBS provides a unique opportunity to not only ameliorate disease but also to study mood, cognition, and behavioral effects in the brain. However, there are many ethical questions that must be fully addressed in designing clinical research trials. It is crucial to maintain sound ethical boundaries in this new era so as to permit the proper testing of the potential therapeutic role DBS may play in ameliorating these devastating and frequently treatment-refractory psychiatric disorders. In this review, we focus on the selection of patients for study, informed consent, clinical trial design, DBS in the pediatric population, concerns about intentionally or inadvertently altering an individual's personal identity, potential use of DBS for brain enhancement, direct modification of behavior through neuromodulation, and resource allocation.

BACKGROUND:Quality reporting is increasingly used as a tool to encourage health systems, hospitals, and their practitioners to deliver the greatest health benefit. However, quality reporting systems may have unintended negative consequences, such as inadvertently encouraging "cherry-picking" by inadequately adjusting for patients who are challenging to take care of, or underpowering to reliably detect meaningful differences in care. There have been no reports seeking to identify a minimum level of accuracy that ought to be viewed as a prerequisite for quality reporting. METHOD/METHODS:Using a decision analytic model, we seek to delineate minimal standards for quality measures to meet, using the simplest assumptions to illustrate what those standards may be. RESULTS:We find that even under assumptions regarding optimal performance of the quality reporting system (sensitivity and specificity of 1), we can identify a minimal level of accuracy required for the quality reporting system to "do no harm": the increase in health-related quality of life from a higher rather than lower quality practitioner must be greater than the number of practitioners per patient divided by the proportion of patients willing to switch from a lower to a higher quality provider. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Quality measurement systems that have not been demonstrated to improve health outcomes should be held to a specific standard of measurement accuracy.

BACKGROUND: The creation of each edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of psychiatry has proven enormously controversial. The current effort to revise the 'bible' of disorder definitions for the field of mental health is no exception. The controversy around DSM-5 reached a crescendo with the announcement from National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) that the institute would focus efforts on the development of their own psychiatric nosology, the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) (NIMH, 2013). DISCUSSION: The RDoC seem to be structured around the concern that the only way to find objectivity in the classification of diseases or disorders in psychiatry is to begin with biology and work back to symptoms. Values infuse medical categories in various ways and drive practical considerations about where and how to divide up constellations of already agreed upon symptoms. SUMMARY: We briefly argue that all nosologies are infused with values and, while we should continue to sharpen the psychiatric nosology, normativity will permeate even the strictest biologically based taxonomy; this need not be a bad thing.