‘Somatic Symptom Disorder’ in Current Biology, 22 April, 2013

‘Somatic Symptom Disorder’ in Current Biology

Post #238 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2NG

The April 22 edition of Current Biology publishes a feature article on DSM-5 by science writer, Michael Gross, Ph.D.

The article includes quotes from Suzy Chapman and Allen Frances on the implications for diverse patient groups for the introduction of the new Somatic Symptom Disorder into the next edition of the DSM, scheduled for release in May.

The article also mentions the influence of Somatic Symptom Disorder on proposals for a new ICD category – Bodily Distress Disorder – being field tested for ICD-11 and ICD-11-PHC [1].

…Chapman and Frances are concerned that the new definition of SSD will also be reflected in ICD-11. ICD-11 is field testing a new category Bodily Distress Disorder proposed to replace six or seven existing ICD-10 somatoform disorders, which, according to working group reports on emerging proposals, mirrors the DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder definition, says Chapman.

The article can be read in full at:

Current Biology 22 April, 2013 Volume 23, Issue 8

Copyright 2013 All rights reserved. Current Biology, Volume  23, Issue  8, R295-R298, 22 April 2013
doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.04.009

Feature

Has the manual gone mental?

Michael Gross

Full text: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(13)00417-X

PDF: http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS096098221300417X.pdf

1 ICD-11 Beta drafting platform: Chapter 5: Bodily Distress Disorder: Mild; Moderate; Severe

Three BMJ letters published in response to Somatic Symptom Disorder commentary

Three letters are published this week in response to Allen Frances’ BMJ commentary on ‘Somatic Symptom Disorder’

Post #237 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2No

On March 19, BMJ published a commentary by Allen Frances, MD, with contribution from Suzy Chapman, in both the print and online editions, strongly opposing the inclusion of ‘Somatic Symptom Disorder’ in the forthcoming DSM-5:

PERSONAL VIEW
The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill
This new condition suggested in the bible of mental health diagnoses lacks specificity, says Allen Frances

The opinion piece was also featured as US Editor’s Choice:

DSM-5 and the rough ride from approval to publication
Edward Davies, US news and features editor, BMJ

BMJ press released the commentary which was picked up by a number of international media sites including UK Times and Deborah Brauser for Medscape Medical News. To date, 31 Rapid Responses have been received.

Three letters (all US respondents) are printed in this week’s BMJ print edition (20 April 2013 Vol 346, Issue 7904). The letters are behind a paywall so I am giving links to the original BMJ Rapid Responses, with the caveat that responses may have been edited for the print edition:

+++
LETTERS
New somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5

Helping to find the most accurate diagnosis

BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2228 (Published 16 April 2013) BMJ 2013;346:f2228
Joel E Dimsdale, professor of psychiatry emeritus, Michael Sharpe, professor of psychiatry, Francis Creed, professor of psychiatry, DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorders work group  BMJ Rapid Response 20 March 2013

+++
Guilty of diagnostic expansion

BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2254 (Published 16 April 2013) BMJ 2013;346:f2254
James Phillips, psychiatrist, USA  BMJ Rapid Response 25 March 2013

+++
A step in the wrong direction

BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2233 (Published 16 April 2013) BMJ 2013;346:f2233
Steven A King, chair, DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR pain disorders committees; Pain Management and Psychiatry, New York  BMJ Rapid Response 28 March 2013

+++
Further reading:

Somatic Symptom Disorder could capture millions more under mental health diagnosis Suzy Chapman, May 26, 2012
Mislabeling Medical Illness As Mental Disorder Allen Frances, MD, Psychology Today, DSM 5 in Distress, December 8, 2012
Why Did DSM 5 Botch Somatic Symptom Disorder? Allen Frances, MD, Psychology Today, Saving Normal, February 6, 2013
New Psych Disorder Could Mislabel Sick as Mentally Ill Susan Donaldson James, ABC News, February 27, 2013
Dimsdale JE. Medically unexplained symptoms: a treacherous foundation for somatoform disorders? Psychiatr Clin North Am 2011;34:511-3. [PMID: 21889675]

+++
American Psychiatric Association justifications for SSD:

APA Somatic Symptom Disorder Fact Sheet 
Somatic Chapter Drops Centrality Of Unexplained Medical Symptoms Psychiatric News, Mark Moran, March 1, 2013
Somatic Symptoms Criteria in DSM-5 Improve Diagnosis, Care David J Kupfer, MD, Chair, DSM-5 Task Force, defends the SSD construct, Huffington Post, February 8, 2013

‘Somatic Symptom Disorders in DSM-5: A step forward or a fall back?’ Eleanor Stein MD FRCP(C)

‘Somatic Symptom Disorders in DSM-5: A step forward or a fall back?’ Eleanor Stein MD FRCP(C) slide presentation

Post #233 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2Jt

Eleanor Stein MD FRCP(C) is a psychiatrist in private practice and a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry, University of Calgary, Canada.

In March, Dr Stein gave a presentation on the new Somatic Symptom Disorder category (as it had stood at the third draft) to the Alberta Psychiatric Association and has very kindly made her presentation slides available. These are in PDF format so no PowerPoint viewer is required.

Somatic Symptom Disorders in DSM-5 A step forward or a fall back?

Alberta Psychiatric Association March 23, 2013

 Click link for PDF document   SSD Stein Presentation March 2013

The American Psychiatric Association is not affiliated with nor endorses this presentation.

The next edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders unwraps next month; finalized criteria sets are embargoed until May 22.

Until then, you will have to make do with the DSM-5 Table of Contents and Highlights of Changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5 and the fact sheets and justifications on this APA webpage.

Erasing the interface between psychiatry and general medicine?

It’s four years, now, since I first started reporting on the deliberations of the Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group.

The Somatoform Disorders section of DSM-IV has been dismantled and four rarely used disorders replaced for DSM-5 by a single new diagnosis, ‘Somatic Symptom Disorder’ (SSD).

From May, everyone with chronic medical illness or long-term pain becomes a potential candidate for this new mental disorder label.

Out go DSM-IV’s rigorous criteria sets and the requirement for multiple symptoms to be medically unexplained; in comes a far looser definition that doesn’t distinguish between ‘medically unexplained’ somatic symptoms or symptoms in association with diagnosed medical disease.

You can read APA’s rationale for the change here and here and Task Force Chair, David J Kupfer, defending the SSD work group’s decisions here, on Huffington Post.

For DSM-5, the SSD criteria set focuses on the psychological impact of persistent, distressing bodily symptoms on the patient’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours and the degree to which their response is perceived to be ‘disproportionate’ or ‘excessive’ – irrespective of symptom etiology.

Patients with common diseases like cancer, angina, diabetes, CVD, or multiple sclerosis; with long-term pain; with chronic illnesses and conditions like irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, CFS, interstitial cystitis, chronic Lyme disease, or persistent, somatic symptoms of unclear etiology may qualify for an additional mental disorder diagnosis if the clinician considers the patient also meets the criteria for ‘Somatic Symptom Disorder’ and may benefit from treatment  – psychotropic drugs, CBT or other therapies to modify ‘faulty illness beliefs’ and ‘maladaptive’ coping strategies.

“[The SSD Work Group’s] framework will allow a diagnosis of somatic symptom disorder in addition to a general medical condition*, whether the latter is a well-recognized organic disease or a functional somatic syndrome such as irritable bowel syndrome or chronic fatigue syndrome” [1]

“These disorders typically present first in non-psychiatric settings and somatic symptom disorders can accompany diverse general medical as well as psychiatric diagnoses. Having somatic symptoms of unclear etiology is not in itself sufficient to make this diagnosis. Some patients, for instance with irritable bowel syndrome or fibromyalgia would not necessarily qualify for a somatic symptom disorder diagnosis. Conversely, having somatic symptoms of an established disorder (e.g. diabetes) does not exclude these diagnoses if the criteria are otherwise met.

“The symptoms may or may not be associated with a known medical condition. Symptoms may be specific (such as localized pain) or relatively non-specific (e.g. fatigue). The symptoms sometimes represent normal bodily sensations (e.g., orthostatic dizziness), or discomfort that does not generally signify serious disease.” [2]

*According to page 1 of APA document Highlights of Changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5, under the heading “Terminology,” the document states: ‘The phrase “general medical condition” is replaced in DSM-5 with “another medical condition” where relevant across all disorders.’ Without better context for this change of terminology, it’s not clear what the implications might be or whether this might represent evidence of intent to blur the boundary between psychiatric and general medical conditions, or the colonization of general medicine. (If any readers are aware of earlier references to this change of terminology for DSM-5 and/or APA’s rationale, I should be pleased to receive information, as I can find no reference prior to January 21.)

Psychiatric creep

This new category will potentially result in a ‘bolt-on’ mental disorder diagnosis being applied to all chronic illnesses and medical conditions if the clinician decides the patient’s response to distressing bodily symptoms is ‘excessive’ or their coping strategies are ‘maladaptive,’ or that the patient is ‘catastrophising,’ or displaying ‘fear avoidance’ or is overly preoccupied with their symptoms (or in the case of a parent, a child’s symptoms).

If the practitioner feels the patient is spending too much time on the internet researching data, symptoms and treatments, or that their lives have become dominated by ‘illness worries,’ they may be vulnerable to dual-diagnosis with a mental disorder.

Patients with chronic, multiple bodily symptoms due to rare conditions or multi-system diseases like Behçet’s syndrome or Systemic lupus, which may take several years to diagnose, may be vulnerable to misdiagnosis with a mental disorder and premature case closure.

Families caring for children with chronic illness may be placed at risk of wrongful accusation of ‘over-involvement’ or of being ‘excessively concerned’ with a child’s symptoms or of colluding in the maintenance of ‘sick role behaviour.’

Just one distressing symptom for at least six months duration plus one of the three ‘B type’ criteria is all that is required to tick the box for a diagnosis of a mental health disorder – cancer + SSD; angina + SSD; asthma + SSD; COPD + SSD; diabetes + SSD; IBS + SSD; CFS + SSD…

15% of the ‘diagnosed illness’ study group (cancer and coronary disease) met the criteria for an additional diagnosis of SSD in the DSM-5 field trials.

In the ‘functional somatic’ study group (irritable bowel syndrome or chronic widespread pain), 26% were coded with SSD.

The criteria, as they stood at the third draft, caught 7% of the ‘healthy’ field trial control group.

The Somatic Symptom Disorder construct represents a significant change to the current DSM-IV-TR categories.

There is no substantial body of evidence to support the validity, reliability and safety of the application of SSD in adults or children nor any published data on projected prevalence rates across the entire disease spectrum or on the potential clinical and economic burdens for providers and payers – yet the SSD Work Group, Task Force and APA Board of Trustees have barrelled this through.

In February, SSD Work Group Chair, Joel E Dimsdale, MD, told journalist, Susan Donaldson James, for ABC News:

 “…If it doesn’t work, we’ll fix it in the DSM-5.1 or DSM-6.”

APA says there will be opportunities to reassess and revise DSM-5′s new disorders, post publication, and that it intends to start work on a DSM-5.1 release. Advocates and patient groups are not reassured by APA’s ‘publish first – patch later’ approach: is this science or Windows 7?

This section of DSM-5, seemingly overlooked by clinicians in the field, both within and outside psychiatry and psychosomatics, and by medico-legal and disability specialists demands scrutiny and investigation.

The SSD construct is now influencing emerging proposals and field testing for three severities of a new category for ICD-11, Bodily Distress Disorder, proposed to replace half a dozen existing ICD-10 Somatoform Disorders [3] [4].

As Dr James Brennan wrote in a recent BMJ Rapid Response:

“…All human distress occurs within the context of complicated factors (biological, psychological, emotional, interpersonal, social etc) and it is this context that demands our assessment and understanding, not reducing it all to a subjective judgment by a clinician as to whether a particular emotion is ‘excessive’ or ‘disproportionate’. How much distress ought a cancer patient to have? What democratic authority gives any of us the right to say what is excessive or proportionate about another person’s thoughts, emotions and behaviour? The SSD criteria in this regard are dangerously loose and over-inclusive.”

References

1 Dimsdale J, Creed F. DSM-V Workgroup on Somatic Symptom Disorders: the proposed diagnosis of somatic symptom disorders in DSM-V to replace somatoform disorders in DSM-IV – a preliminary report. J Psychosom Res 2009;66:473-6.
2 DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group Disorder Descriptions PDF document, published May 4, 2011 for the second stakeholder review.
3 Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry 2012;24:556-67.
4 Goldberg DP. Comparison between ICD and DSM diagnostic systems for mental disorders. In: Sorel E, ed. 21st century global mental health. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2012:37-53.

 

Further reading

APA Somatic Symptom Disorder Fact Sheet

Somatic Chapter Drops Centrality Of Unexplained Medical Symptoms Psychiatric News, Mark Moran, March 1, 2013

Somatic Symptoms Criteria in DSM-5 Improve Diagnosis, Care David J Kupfer, MD, Chair, DSM-5 Task Force, defends the SSD construct, Huffington Post, February 8, 2013

The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill Allen Frances, MD, BMJ 2013;346:f1580 BMJ Press Release

Somatic Symptom Disorder could capture millions more under mental health diagnosis Suzy Chapman, May 26, 2012

Mislabeling Medical Illness As Mental Disorder Allen Frances, MD, Psychology Today, DSM 5 in Distress, December 8, 2012

Why Did DSM 5 Botch Somatic Symptom Disorder? Allen Frances, MD, Psychology Today, Saving Normal, February 6, 2013

New Psych Disorder Could Mislabel Sick as Mentally Ill Susan Donaldson James, ABC News, February 27, 2013

Dimsdale JE. Medically unexplained symptoms: a treacherous foundation for somatoform disorders? Psychiatr Clin North Am 2011;34:511-3. [PMID: 21889675]

ICD-11 Beta draft and Bodily Distress Disorders; Per Fink and Bodily Distress Syndrome: Parts One and Two

ICD-11 Beta draft and Bodily Distress Disorders; Per Fink and Bodily Distress Syndrome Parts One and Two

Post #222 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2Dz

Caveats: The ICD-11 Beta drafting platform is not a static document: it is a work in progress, subject to daily edits and revisions, to field test evaluation and to approval by Topic Advisory Group Managing Editors, the ICD Revision Steering Group and WHO classification experts. The current draft may differ to the information in this report.

Part One

On January 6, I posted a brief update on proposals for the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform Disorders based on what can be seen in the public version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform and on a book chapter by Professor, Sir David Goldberg. [1]

Professor Goldberg chairs the working group for revision of the mental health chapter of ICD-1o-PHC, the abridged, primary care version of ICD-10.

For the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform Disorders sections for ICD-11, a WHO Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders has been assembled.

Professor Francis Creed (also a member of the DSM-5 Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders Work Group) is a member of this WHO working group, which is chaired by Professor Oye Gureje.

An April 2011 announcement by Stony Brook Medical Center states that Dr Joan E. Broderick, PhD had been appointed to the WHO Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders and that the first meeting of the group (said to consist of 17 international behavioral health professionals) was expected to be held in June 2011, in Madrid.

WHO has not published a list of  members of this working group or any progress reports and the names and affiliations of the 14 other members are unknown, so I am unable to confirm whether Professor Per Fink is a member of the group, which reports to the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders.

ICD-11 and Bodily Distress Disorders

ICD-11 is currently scheduled for completion in 2015/16. When viewing the public version of the Beta drafting platform please bear in mind the ICD-11 Revision Caveats: that the Beta draft is a work in progress, updated daily, is incomplete, may contain errors and is subject to change; not all proposals may be approved by the ICD-11 Revision Steering Committee or WHO classification experts, or retained following analysis of ICD-11 and ICD-11-PHC field trials.

The Bodily Distress Disorders section of ICD-11 Beta draft Chapter 5 can be found here:

Foundation View: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f1472866636
Linearization View: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f1472866636

As the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform stands at the time of compiling this report, the existing ICD-10 Somatoform Disorders are proposed to be subsumed under or replaced by Bodily Distress Disorders, and Psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere.

The following proposed ICD-11 categories are listed as child categories under parent term, Bodily Distress Disorders, and Psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere:

EC5 Mild bodily distress disorder
EC6 Moderate bodily distress disorder
EC7 Severe bodily distress disorder
EC8 Psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere

No Definition or any other Content Model parameters have been populated for the proposed categories EC5, EC6 and EC7, which are new entities to ICD. (EC8 is a legacy category from ICD-10.)

Note that the sorting codes assigned to categories are subject to frequent change as chapters are reorganized.

From the information currently displaying in the Beta draft, it is not possible to determine:

• how ICD-11 proposes to define Bodily Distress Disorders;

• what diagnostic criteria are being proposed;

whether diagnostic criteria would be based on a requirement for excessive or disproportionate psychological and behavioral characteristics in response to distressing somatic symptoms, such as illness anxiety, symptom focusing, catastrophising, maladaptive coping strategies, avoidance behavior or misattribution; or based on somatic symptom counts, or specific symptom clusters, or number of bodily systems affected, or a combination of these;

how the three Severity Specifiers: Mild, Moderate and Severe would be categorized;

• how the three Severities would be assessed for within primary and secondary care;

whether ICD-11’s proposed Bodily Distress Disorder construct is intended to mirror or incorporate DSM-5’s Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD) construct, in line with ICD-11/DSM-5 harmonization, or

whether it is intended to mirror or incorporate Per Fink’s Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS) construct, or to combine elements from both;

whether the Bodily Distress Disorder construct is proposed only to be applied to patients with distressing ‘medically unexplained somatic symptoms’ (MUS), or the so-called ‘Functional somatic syndromes’ (FSS), if the patient is considered to also meet the BDD criteria, or

whether it is proposed to be inclusive of patients with distressing somatic symptoms in the presence of diagnosed illness and general medical conditions, if the patient is considered to also meet the criteria;

• whether the Bodily Distress Disorder construct is proposed to be inclusive of parents or caregivers perceived as encouraging maintenance of sick role behavior or over-involved.

whether the Bodily Distress Disorder construct is proposed to be inclusive of children;

whether it is proposed that all or selected of the following: Neurasthenia and Fatigue syndrome (F48.0), Chronic fatigue syndrome (indexed to G93.3 in ICD-10; classified in ICD-11 Beta draft as an ICD Title term in Chapter 6: Diseases of the nervous system), IBS (K58), and Fibromyalgia (M79.7) should be reclassified under Bodily Distress Disorders;

• whether the Bodily Distress Disorder construct is proposed to subsume ICD-10’s Hypochondriacal disorder with somatic symptoms or incorporate this entity under Illness Anxiety Disorder for ICD-11.

(For ICD-11, ICD-10’s Hypochondriacal disorder [F45.2] is currently proposed to be renamed to Illness Anxiety Disorder and located underANXIETY AND FEAR-RELATED DISORDERS.)

 • what ICD-11 proposes to do with ICD-10’s Neurasthenia;

(ICD-10’s Chapter V Neurasthenia [F48.0] is no longer listed in the public version of the ICD-11 Beta draft. For ICD-11-PHC, the primary care version of ICD-11, the proposal is for the term Neurasthenia to be eliminated. Since terms used in ICD-11-PHC require corresponding terms in the main classification, the intention may be to eliminate Neurasthenia from the main version, or subsume under another term.) [2]

All that can be determined from the Beta draft is that these earlier ICD-11 Beta draft Somatoform Disorders categories appear proposed to be subsumed under or replaced with the new BDD categories, EC5, EC6 and EC7, set out above:

Somatization disorder [F45.0 in ICD-10]
Undifferentiated somatoform disorder [F45.1 in ICD-10]
Somatoform autonomic dysfunction [F45.3 in ICD-10]
Persistent somatoform pain disorder [F45.4 in ICD-10]
    > Persistent somatoform pain disorder
    > Chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors [Not in ICD-10]
Other somatoform disorders [F45.8 in ICD-10]
Somatoform disorder, unspecified [F45.9 in ICD-10]

I have previously reported that for ICD-11-PHC, the proposal, last year, was for a new disorder section called Bodily distress disorders, under which would sit new category Bodily stress [sic] syndrome.

This category is proposed for the ICD-11 primary care version to include “milder somatic symptom disorders” as well as “DSM-5’s Complex somatic symptom disorder” and would replace “medically unexplained somatic symptoms.” [2]

In a future post (Part Three of this report), I shall be discussing emerging proposals for the ICD-11 construct, Bodily Distress Disorders, which may serve to fill in some of the gaps.

In the meantime, since it is unclear whether and to what extent the ICD-11 Bodily Distress Disorders category is proposed to mirror or incorporate the Bodily Distress Syndrome construct developed by Per Fink et al, Aarhus, Denmark, I am providing some material on Bodily Distress Syndrome in Part Two

Update on ICD-11 Beta draft: Bodily Distress Disorder

Updates on ICD-11 Beta draft: Bodily Distress Disorder (proposed for ICD-11 Chapter 5: Mental and behavioural disorders); Chronic fatigue syndrome; Postviral fatigue syndrome; Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis (Chapter 6: Diseases of the nervous system)

Post #218 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2Bg

Dr Elena Garralda presentation slides:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Garralda%20E.pdf

or open here: Click link for PDF document    Garralda presentation Somatization in Childhood

Slide 1

Somatization in childhood

The child psychiatrist’s concern?

Elena Garralda

CAP Faculty Meeting, RCPsych Manchester, September 2012

Slide 11

New ICD-11 and DSM-V classifications

. Somatoform disorders >>>
– Bodily distress syndrome (ICD-11)
– Complex Somatic symptom disorder (DSM-V)

[Preceded by downward pointing arrow]

“Unexplained” or “functional” medical symptoms (CFS, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome)

[Preceded by upward pointing arrow]

Physical complaint (s)
with subjective distress/preoccupation ++,
illness beliefs impairment
health help seeking

+++

Notes on ICD-11 Beta drafting platform and DSM-5 draft by Suzy Chapman for Dx Revision Watch:

These notes may be reposted, if reposted in full, source credited, link provided, and date of publication included.

January 6, 2013

1] The publicly viewable version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform can be accessed here:
Foundation view: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en
Linearization view: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en

2] The various ICD-11 Revision Topic Advisory Groups are developing the Beta draft on a separate, more complex platform accessible only to ICD-11 Revision.

3] The ICD-11 Beta draft is a work in progress and not scheduled for completion until 2015/16. When viewing the public version of the Beta draft please note the ICD-11 Revision Caveats. Note also that not all proposals may be retained following analysis of the field trials for ICD-11 and ICD-11-PCH, the abridged Primary Care version of ICD-11:
http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/Help/Get/caveat/en

4] The Bodily Distress Disorders section of the ICD-11 Beta draft Chapter 5 can be found here:
http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fwho.int%2ficd%23F45
http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fwho.int%2ficd%23F45

According to the public version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, the existing ICD-10 Somatoform Disorders are currently proposed to be replaced with Bodily Distress Disorders, and Psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere, not with Bodily distress syndrome as Dr Garralda has in her slide presentation.

The following proposed ICD-11 categories are listed as child categories under parent, Bodily Distress Disorders, and Psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere:

EC5 Mild bodily distress disorder
EC6 Moderate bodily distress disorder
EC7 Severe bodily distress disorder
EC8 Psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere

There are no Definitions nor any other descriptors populated for the proposed, new ICD categories EC5 thru EC7.

EC8 is a legacy category from ICD-10 and has some populated content imported from ICD-10.

+++
These earlier ICD-11 Beta draft Somatoform Disorders categories appear proposed to be eliminated and replaced with the four new categories EC5 thru EC8, listed above:

Somatization disorder [F45.0 in ICD-10]
Undifferentiated somatoform disorder [F45.1 in ICD-10]
Somatoform autonomic dysfunction [F45.3 in ICD-10]
Persistent somatoform pain disorder [F45.4 in ICD-10]
    > Persistent somatoform pain disorder
    > Chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors [Not in ICD-10]
Other somatoform disorders [F45.8 in ICD-10]
Somatoform disorder, unspecified [F45.9 in ICD-10]

5] The existing ICD-10 Chapter V category Neurasthenia [ICD-10: F48.0] is no longer accounted for in the public version of the ICD-11 Beta draft. I have previously reported that for ICD-11-PHC, the Primary Care version of ICD-11, the proposal is to eliminate the term Neurasthenia.

(I cannot confirm whether the currently omission of Neurasthenia from the Beta draft is due to oversight or because ICD-11 Revision’s intention is that Neurasthenia is also eliminated from the main ICD-11 classification.)

+++
6] I have previously reported that for ICD-11-PHC, the abridged, Primary Care version of ICD-11, the proposal, last year, was for a disorder section called Bodily distress disorders, under which would sit Bodily stress syndrome [sic].

This category is proposed for ICD-11 Primary Care version to include “milder somatic symptom disorders” as well as “DSM-5’s Complex somatic symptom disorder” and would replace “medically unexplained somatic symptoms.”

7] Dr Garralda lists Complex Somatic symptom disorder (DSM-V) on Slide 11 of her presentation.

The manual texts for the next edition of DSM are in the process of being finalized for a projected release date of May 2013. The next edition of DSM will be published under the title DSM-5 not DSM-V . The intention is that once published, updates and revisions to DSM-5 will be styled: DSM-5.1, DSM-5.2 etc.

When the third draft of DSM-5 was released in May 2012, the proposal was to merge Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder with Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder and to call this hybrid category Somatic Symptom Disorder.

This would mean that this new disorder has the same name as the overall disorder section it sits under, which replaces DSM-IV’s Somatoform Disorders.

As any subsequent changes to draft criteria sets following closure of the third stakeholder review are embargoed, I cannot confirm whether the SSD Work Group has decided to rename this category to Somatic symptom Disorder or retain the original term, Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder, the term used by Dr Garralda in her presentation.

+++
8] Turning from ICD-11 Beta draft Chapter 5 Mental and behavioural disorders to Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system:

As previously reported, Chronic fatigue syndrome is listed under Diseases of the nervous system in the Foundation View. There is no listing for Chronic fatigue syndrome in the Linearization View nor is the term listed in the PDF for Chapter 6, that is available to those who are registered with ICD-11 Beta draft for access to additional content:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#http%3a%2f%2fwho.int%2ficd%23G93.3

Documentation from the ICD-11 iCAT Alpha draft dating from May 2010, implies that the intention for ICD-11 is a change of hierarchy for the existing ICD-10 Title term Postviral fatigue syndrome.

In the ICD-11 Beta draft, Chronic fatigue syndrome (which was listed only within the Index volume of ICD-10 and not listed in Volume 2: The Tabular List) appears to be elevated to ICD Title term status, with potentially up to 12 descriptive parameters yet to be completed and populated in accordance with the ICD-11 “Content Model”.

But the current proposed hierarchical relationship between PVFS and CFS for ICD-11 remains unconfirmed.

See image for documentation from the iCAT Alpha drafting platform, from May 2010:

https://dxrevisionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/change-history-gj92-cfs.png

There is no discrete ICD Title term displaying for Postviral fatigue syndrome in either the ICD-11 Beta Foundation View or Linearization View.

Neither is there any discrete ICD Title term displaying for Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis in either the Foundation View or Linearization View.

Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis appears at the top of a list of terms under “Synonyms” in the CFS description. [The hover text over the asterisk at the end of “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” reads, “This term is an inclusion term in the linearizations.”]

Postviral fatigue syndrome is also listed under “Synonyms” along with a number of other terms imported from other classification systems.

Included in this list under “Synonyms” are “chronic fatigue syndrome nos” and “chronic fatigue, unspecified,” both of which appear to have been sourced from the as yet to be implemented, US specific, ICD-10-CM.

+++
At some recent, unspecified date, a Definition has been inserted for ICD-11 Title term Chronic fatigue syndrome into the previously empty Definition field. An earlier Definition was removed when the Alpha draft was replaced with the Beta draft but can be seen in this screenshot, here, from June 2010:

https://dxrevisionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/2icatgj92cfsdef.png

The current Definition reads (and be mindful of the ICD-11 Caveats):

“Chronic fatigue syndrome is characterized by extreme chronic fatigue of an indeterminate cause, which is disabling andt [sic] does not improve with rest and that is exacerbated by physical or mental activity.”

There are no Definition fields for Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis or Postviral fatigue syndrome as these terms are listed under “Synonyms” to ICD-11 Title term, Chronic fatigue syndrome.

+++
Since one needs to be mindful of the ICD-11 Caveats and as the Chair of Topic Advisory Group for Neurology has failed to respond to a request for clarification of the intention for these three terms and the proposed ICD relationships between them, I am not prepared to draw any conclusions from what can currently be seen in the Beta drafting platform.

I shall continue to monitor the Beta draft and report on any significant changes.

For definitions of “Synonyms,” “Inclusions,” “Exclusions” and other ICD-11 terminology see the iCAT Glossary:
http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icatfiles/iCAT_Glossary.html

+++
Related material:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/8%20Ash%20IC2012.pdf

Presentation slides: Medically Unexplained Symptoms pages

Dr Graham Ash, Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust

Website pages featured in the slide presentation:

Medically Unexplained Symptoms

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/expertadvice/improvingphysicalandmh/aboutthissite.aspx

Dx Revision Watch Post, June 26, 2012: ICD-11 Beta drafting platform: Update (2): Neurasthenia, Postviral fatigue syndrome (PVFS), Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), Fibromyalgia (FM), Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS): http://wp.me/pKrrB-2mC

Trouble with timelines (2) Might APA hold back DSM-5 in response to an October 2014 ICD-10-CM compliance date?

Trouble with timelines (2): Might APA hold back publication of DSM-5 in response to a firm October 2014 ICD-10-CM compliance date?

Post #200 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2sW

Update at August 17: Commentary on DSM-5 from One Boring Old Man: didn’t need to happen…

Update at August 16: Commentary on DSM-5 from One Boring Old Man: all quiet on the western front…

+++

In Trouble with timelines (1): DSM-5, ICD-10-CM, ICD-11 and ICD-11-CM, on August 10, I wrote

With no changes to the published Timeline and no intimation of further delays, I’m assuming DSM-5 remains on target.

But it’s not necessarily a given that DSM-5 will be on the bookshelves for May 2013.

Roger Peele, M.D., D.L.F.A.P.A, has been a member of the DSM-5 Task Force since 2006. From 2007- 2010, Dr Peele was APA Trustee-At-Large; since 2010, Secretary to the APA Board of Trustees.

Dr Peele maintains a website at http://rogerpeele.com/index.asp providing clinical information for Montgomery County clinicians, resources for County residents and listing some of the initiatives taken relative to the American Psychiatric Association:

http://rogerpeele.com/

Writing just a few days after HHS Secretary’s announcement of intent to postpone the compliance date for adoption of ICD-10-CM/PCS codes sets for a further year, to October 1, 2014, Dr Peele informed his readers that the proposal to delay the compliance deadline

“…reduces some of the pressures to publish DSM-5 in 2013.”

In his post of February 23, Dr Peele goes on to say that a more certain answer was expected on February 28, but that remarks at the previous day’s American College of Psychiatrists meeting suggested the timing of DSM-5 for early 2013 was still on.

This suggests to me that if HHS decides not to take forward its proposal to delay ICD-10-CM compliance until October 1, 2014 but to stick with the original compliance date of October 1, 2013, that APA will still want to get its manual out several months ahead of the ICD-10-CM compliance deadline.

In order to meet a publication date of May 2013, APA says the final manual text will need to be with the publishers by December, this year. So unless HHS announces a decision within the next few weeks, APA isn’t going to have very much time left in which to dither over potentially shifting publication to 2014.

ICD-10-CM will be freely available online and is already accessible for pre implementation viewing. It’s the policy of WHO, Geneva, to make print versions of ICD publications globally available at reasonable cost. Although ICD-10-CM has been developed by US committees for US specific use, it’s not expected that print versions of ICD-10-CM will be as expensive as DSM-5.

DSM manuals are expensive; they are a commercial product generating substantial income for the APA’s publishing arm. APA will be looking to maximize sales and publication revenue and retain market share with this forthcoming edition.

There are already groups and petitions calling for the boycotting of DSM-5 in favour of using Chapter 5 of ICD-10-CM, when its code sets are operationalized.

So if ICD-10-CM is to be adopted by October 1, 2013, I cannot see APA and American Psychiatric Publishing not aiming to steal a march.

If, on the other hand, HHS were to announce shortly a firm rule that compliance for ICD-10-CM is being pushed back to October 2014, if DSM-5 Task Force and work groups are struggling to finalize the manual or having problems obtaining approval for some of their more contentious proposals from the various panels that are scrutinizing the near final draft, then delaying publication of DSM-5 to late 2013 or spring 2014 would provide APA with a window in which to complete its manual but still push it out ahead of ICD-10-CM.

Its PR firm can sell a publication delay to end-users as the APA’s taking the opportunity of postponement of ICD-10-CM compliance to allow more time for evaluation of DSM-5 field trial results, refinement of criteria or honing disorder description texts, and that a delay will better facilitate harmonization efforts with ICD-10-CM and ICD-11.

(ICD-10-CM is a modification of the WHO’s ICD-10 and has closer correspondence with DSM-IV than with DSM-5. Since 2003, ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes have been mandated by HIPAA for all electronic reporting and transactions for third-party billing and reimbursement and DSM-5 codes will need to be crosswalked to ICD-9-CM codes, for the remaining life of the ICD-9-CM. DSM-5 codes will also need to be convertible to ICD-10-CM codes for all electronic transactions.)

In a June 2011 presentation to the International Congress of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, APA President, John M. Oldham, MD, MS, spoke of “Negotiations in progress to ‘harmonize’ DSM-5 with ICD-11 and to ‘retro-fit’ these codes into ICD-10-CM” and that DSM-5 would need “to include ICD-10-CM ‘F-codes’ in order to process all insurance claims beginning October 1, 2011.”

With the drafting timelines for the three systems now so out of whack and a partial code freeze on ICD-10-CM, and with ICD-11 still at the Beta drafting stage, I can no longer be bothered to attempt to unscramble how alignment of the three systems [or best fit where no corresponding category exists] is going to dovetail, in practice, pre and post publication, or what the implications might be for the medical billing and coding industry, for clinicians and for patients.

Dr Peele then says

“Since ICD-11-CM is due in 2016, it may become appealing to the Feds to skip ICD-10-CM, and wait until 2016”

ICD-11-CM due in 2016?

Not so. It is the WHO’s ICD-11 that is aiming for readiness by 2016.

A misconception on the part of Dr Peele or wishful thinking?

It might suit the interests of APA and American Psychiatric Publishing, financially and politically, if ICD-10-CM were to be thrown overboard and instead, the US skip to a Clinical Modification of ICD-11, two or three years after a copy of its shiny new DSM-5 is sitting on every psychiatrist’s desk.

But that is not going to happen in 2016.

There is strong federal opposition, in any case, against leapfrogging over ICD-10-CM to a US modification of ICD-11:

Federal Register, January 16, 2009:

…We [ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee] discussed waiting to adopt the ICD-11 code set in the August 22, 2008 proposed rule (73 FR 49805)…

…However, work cannot begin on developing the necessary U.S. clinical modification to the ICD–11 diagnosis codes or the ICD–11 companion procedure codes until ICD–11 is officially released. Development and testing of a clinical modification to ICD–11 to make it usable in the United States will take an estimated additional 5 to 6 years. We estimated that the earliest projected date to begin rulemaking for implementation of a U.S. clinical modification of ICD–11 would be the year 2020.

The suggestion that we wait and adopt ICD–11 instead of ICD–10–CM and ICD–10–PCS does not consider that the alpha-numeric structural format of ICD–11 is based on that of ICD–10, making a transition directly from ICD–9 to ICD–11 more complex and potentially more costly. Nor would waiting until we could adopt ICD–11 in place of the adopted standards address the more pressing problem of running out of space in ICD–9–CM Volume 3 to accommodate new procedure codes…

And from a more recent Federal Register document:

Federal Register, April 17, 2012:

3. Option 3: Forgo ICD-10 and Wait for ICD-11

…The option of foregoing a transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10, and instead waiting for ICD-11, was another alternative that was considered. This option was eliminated from consideration because the World Health Organization, which creates the basic version of the medical code set from which all countries create their own specialized versions, is not expected to release the basic ICD-11 medical code set until 2015 at the earliest.

From the time of that release, subject matter experts state that the transition from ICD-9 directly to ICD-11 would be more difficult for industry and it would take anywhere from 5 to 7 years for the United States to develop its own ICD-11 CM and ICD-11-PCS versions.

 

From an interview with Christopher Chute, MD, Making the Case for the ICD-10 Compliance Delay April 4, 2012, by Gabriel Perna for Healthcare Informatics:

“…Chute is also adamant that there is no possible reason or possibility that the U.S. could just skip over ICD-10 right into ICD-11. Even with his ties to ICD-11, Chute says there it’s not realistic, nor is it plausible, to have seven-to-nine more years of ICD-9 codes, while the medical industry waits for the World Health Organization to finish drafting ICD-11 and then waits for the U.S. to adapt it for its own use.”

A recent article in the JOURNAL OF AHIMA/July 2012/Volume 83, Number 7 in response to Chute et al [1] suggests the earliest the US could move onto a CM of ICD-11 might be 2025, or 13 years from now.

So, if HHS were to announce, soonish, a final rule for an October 1, 2014 ICD-10-CM compliance date, it’s not totally out of the question, in my view, that APA (who might be struggling to complete the manual for December) may extend its publication date for a second time.

 

References

1] There are important reasons for delaying implementation of the new ICD-10 coding system. Chute CG, Huff SM, Ferguson JA, Walker JM, Halamka JD. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Apr;31(4):836-42. Epub 2012 Mar 21 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22442180  (Abstract free; Subscription or payment required for full text)