Washington Examiner: Corrupting Psychiatry by Max Borders

Washington Examiner: Corrupting Psychiatry by Max Borders

Post #58 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-TU

Interesting commentary from writer Max Borders, last week, on the website of the Washington Examiner around the revision of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM):

Washington Examiner

Corrupting Psychiatry

By Max Borders 01/18/11 10:22 AM

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has gone crazy — like a fox.

“There was a time when we could be more charitable about the vagaries in the APA’s Bible, the DSM. But not anymore. If you’ve never heard of the DSM, it’s the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual series the APA publishes. Psychiatrists all over the world use the DSM as a guidebook for treating people with some form of mental illness. But the APA may test credulity with its upcoming edition.

“I refer specifically to proposed changes in the DSM-V due out in 2013. It’s no accident these changes reflect new political realities about how psychiatric medicine gets paid for and by whom…”

Read rest of article at the Washington Examiner

Commentary in response to “Corrupting Psychiatry” from Dutch philosopher and psychologist, Maarten Maartensz, on Nederlog here More on the APA’s mockery of medicine and morality and here More on the APA and the DSM-5

Comments on Washington Examiner to article “Corrupting Psychiatry” by Max Borders

By: Skeeter
Jan 21, 2011 9:55 PM

Good article, that says things that need to be said, long and loud.

Both the APA, and the broader psychiatric profession, are currently indulging in a seriously unjustified power grab, and they and their claims are in desperate need of much closer and tougher (and ongoing) external scrutiny then they have been subject to date.

Generally speaking, I would have to agree that the profession is becoming much too closely aligned with and mutually reliant on both state and corporate interests, as opposed to the interests of the patient and the science on which they base their claims to authority.

One small point: I would not invoke British psychiatry as any counterbalance to the excesses of their American colleagues. The Brits have their own serious problems. Not least of which is that they are mired deep in the methodological and ethical swamp of somatoform disorders (aka conversion or psychosomatic disorders, and their related ‘treatments’), and a lot of patients are paying a very heavy price indeed for this obsession by certain influential members of the British psych establishment.

By: Suzy Chapman
Jan 22, 2011 7:28 AM

Erasing the interface between psychiatry and medicine

The previous commenter cautions against invoking members of the “British psych establishment”. Two very influential members of the British psychiatry and psychosomatics establishment, Professors Michael Sharpe and Francis Creed, have seats on the DSM-5 “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group.

While many column inches by rightly perturbed journalists and a stream of often acerbic critiques from former DSM Task Force chairs, Allen Frances and Robert Spitzer, have focussed on the implications for introducing new additions into the DSM and broadening the definitions of existing diagnostic criteria, the DSM-5 “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group (Chair, Joel E Dimsdale) has been quietly redefining DSM’s “Somatoform Disorders” categories with proposals that if approved would legitimise the application of an additional diagnosis of “Somatic Symptom Disorder” to all medical diseases and disorders.

Radical proposals for renaming the “Somatoform Disorders” category “Somatic Symptom Disorders” and combining a number of existing categories under a new umbrella, “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD)” and a more recently suggested “Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSSD)”, have the potential for bringing millions more patients under a mental health banner and expanding markets for psychiatric services, antidepressants, antipsychotics and behavioural therapies such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) for all patients with somatic symptoms, irrespective of cause.

Professor Creed is co-editor of The Journal of Psychosomatic Research. In a June ’09 Editorial, titled “The proposed diagnosis of somatic symptom disorders in DSM-V to replace somatoform disorders in DSM-IV – a preliminary report”, which expanded on a brief DSM-5 Work Group progress report published on the DSM-5 Development website that April, Joel E Dimsdale and fellow DSM-5 Work Group member, Francis Creed, reported that by doing away with the “controversial concept of medically unexplained symptoms”, their proposed classification might diminish the “dichotomy, inherent in the ‘Somatoform’ section of DSM IV, between disorders based on medically unexplained symptoms and patients with organic disease.”

If the most recent “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group proposals gain DSM Task Force approval, all medical conditions, whether “established general medical conditions or disorders” like diabetes or conditions presenting with “somatic symptoms of unclear etiology” will have the potential for a bolt-on diagnosis of “somatic symptom disorder”.

Under the guise of “eliminating stigma” and eradicating “terminology [that] enforces a dualism between psychiatric and medical conditions” the American Psychiatric Association (APA) appears hell bent on colonising the entire medical field by licensing the application of a mental health diagnosis to all medical diseases and disorders.

By: KAL
Jan 23, 2011 1:36 PM

Who else might benefit? Disability Insurance. If you can be shown to have a “mental illness” then disability insurance only pays a maximum of two years of payments vs. a lifetime of payments for an organic disease.

Check the APA website for conflicts of interest for members of the working group for Somatic Disorders.

References:

DSM-5 Development website: Somatoform Disorders
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/SomatoformDisorders.aspx

Proposal: Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=368

Proposal: Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=491

The most recent versions of the two key documents associated with the proposals of the “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group are:

Update @ 7 February 2011

The Justification of Criteria document was revised again by the SSD Work Group on 1/31/11 to incorporate the new proposal for SSSD and other revisions and is replaced by:

DRAFT 1/31/11  Justification of Criteria – Somatic Symptoms

Descriptions document version 1/14/11 Revised Disorder Descriptions: Version 1/14/11

Rationale document version 10/4/10 Previous revised Justification of Criteria: Version 10/4/10

DSM-5: New category proposal “Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder”

DSM-5: New category proposal “Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder”

Post #57 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-TA

On 16 January, I reported that the page for current DSM-5 proposals for the revision of the DSM-IV “Somatoform Disorders” categories and diagnostic criteria had been updated on 14 January, with a new category proposal calledSimple Somatic Symptom Disorder”.

This proposal is in addition to the recommendations of the Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group, published in February 2010, for grouping a number of existing Somatoform categories under a common rubric “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD)” and does not replace “CSSD”.

For full details see previous Post #56: http://wp.me/pKrrB-St 

Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder

Updated January-14-2011

See Tab: Proposed Revision:

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=491

Simple (or abridged) Somatic Symptom Disorder (e.g. pain)

To meet criteria for Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder, criteria A, B, and C are necessary.

A. One or more highly distressign [sic] and disabling somatic symptoms

B. One of the following symptoms from CSSD (i.e. Disproportionate and persistent concerns about the medical seriousness of one’s symptoms; high level of health-related anxiety; or excessive time and energy devoted to these symptoms or health concerns)

C. Symptom duration is greater than 1 month

For full proposals for “Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder” open the Tabs on this page:

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=491

 

Key links and documents associated with the proposals of the Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group:

DSM-5 Development website: Somatoform Disorders
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/SomatoformDisorders.aspx

Proposal: Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=368

Proposal: Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=491

Update @ 7 February 2011

The Justification of Criteria document was revised again by the SSD Work Group on 1/31/11 to incorporate the proposal for SSSD and other revisions and is replaced by:

DRAFT 1/31/11 Justification of Criteria – Somatic Symptoms

        Revised Disorder Descriptions: Version 1/14/11

        Previous revised Justification of Criteria: Version 10/4/10

I shall be monitoring the DSM-5 Development website and if there are any further revisions to either document before the DSM-5 beta is published I will update this site.

According to the APA’s DSM-5 Development Timeline, the second draft is scheduled to be published by the DSM-5 Task Force in May-June, with a public review period of only around a month. The public review and comment period for the first draft, last year, had been around ten weeks.

The following patient organisations have been alerted to these revisions and sent copies of the key documents:

UK patient organisations:

Heather Walker, Action for M.E.
Neil Riley, Chair, Board of Trustees, ME Association
25% ME Group
Invest in ME
Jane Colby, The Young ME Sufferers Trust

US patient organisations and professionals:

Dr Alan Gurwitt, Massachusetts Chronic Fatigue and Immune Dysfunction Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalopathy and Fibromyalgia Association (Mass. CFIDS/ME & FM)
Dr Kenneth Friedman, IACFS/ME
Jennie Spotila, CFIDS Association of America
Dr Lenny Jason

International patient organisations and professionals:

ESME (European Society for ME)
Dr Eleanor Stein, Canada

Revisions to DSM-5 proposals on 14.01.11: New category proposed “Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder”

Revisions to DSM-5 proposals on 14.01.11: New category proposed “Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder”

Post #56 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-St 

DSM-5 Dustbin Diagnosis

For copies of International patient organisation and patient advocate submissions in the APA’s spring 2010 DSM-5 draft proposals review process see: http://wp.me/PKrrB-AQ

The page for current DSM-5 proposals for the “Somatoform Disorders” section of DSM-IV was updated on January 14, 2011 with a new category proposal called “Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder”.

Note this proposal is in addition to the recommendation of the Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group, in February 2010, for grouping a number of existing disorders under a common rubric “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD)”  and it does not replace “CSSD”.

As I have been highlighting for some time now, under these DSM-5 Task Force proposals, all medical conditions, whether “established” general medical conditions or disorders, or conditions presenting with “somatic symptoms of unclear etiology”, have the potential for qualifying for an additional diagnosis of a “somatic symptom disorder”.

There have also been revisions and additions to some of the text of the “Disorder descriptions” document dated “DRAFT January 29, 2010” that was first published by the DSM-5 Task Force when draft proposals for revisions to DSM-IV were posted on the APA’s DSM-5 website on February 10, 2010, for public review and comment.

Note also that the key document: “Justification of Criteria-Somatic Symptoms DRAFT 1/29/10” which is also associated with the proposals of the Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group has now been revised twice since February 2010.

Update @ 7 February 2011

The Justification of Criteria document was revised for a second time by the SSD Work Group on 1/31/11 to incorporate the new proposal for SSSD and other revisions and is replaced by:

DRAFT 1/31/11  Justification of Criteria – Somatic Symptoms

     Previous revised Justification of Criteria: Version 10/4/10

What are the changes since draft proposals were released in February 2010?

On the APA’s DSM-5 Development web page:

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/SomatoformDisorders.aspx

under “Somatoform Disorders Not Currently Listed in DSM-IV”

are now listed two proposals:

“Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder”

(which was discussed last year when the DSM-5 draft proposals were first released) and a new proposal:

“Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder”

See:

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/SomatoformDisorders.aspx  

Somatoform Disorders

 

Submissions 2010

International patient organisation and patient advocate submissions to DSM-5 draft proposals public review process, Feb-April 2010: http://wp.me/PKrrB-AQ

No publication of an ICD-11 Alpha Draft for public scrutiny

There will be no publication of an ICD-11 Alpha Draft for public scrutiny

Post #53 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-QL

For some time now, I have been trying to establish whether ICD Revision intends to release any form of ICD-11 Alpha Draft for public scrutiny. An Alpha Draft had originally been scheduled for May 2010.

On 6 August, ICD Revision on Facebook had stated:

“The ICD-11 Alpha Drafting process has been ongoing since the first iCamp that was held in Geneva, Switzerland in September 2009. A draft print version will be available in September 2010.”

On 29 September, I asked:

“Clarification would be welcomed on whether an Alpha Draft will be available this month for internal use only or whether it is intended for public viewing, and if for public viewing, in what format(s)?”

which received no response.

On 6 October, I asked, again:

“On 6 August, ICD Revision on Facebook stated that “A draft print version will be available in September 2010”. Other than what can be seen on the iCAT collaborative authoring platform, will ICD Revision please clarify for stakeholders, whether any form of Alpha Draft for ICD-11 is going to be placed in the public domain, when this will now be released, and in what formats?”

On 15 October, ICD Revision on Facebook responded: 

“Indeed a print version is available but as an alpha draft it is not for public consumption. Public draft ( beta draft) was and (is still) targeted for MAY 2011. iCAT authoring platform is not open to public and should be only seen by designated authors. — This is not something opaque. any project of this size and complexity has to pass through stages. In May 2011 more user-friendly software and easy-to-view options will be available…”

At that point, it was in fact the case that both the iCAT authoring platform server and the iCAT demo and training platform had been viewable by the public, although only WHO, ICD Revision Steering Group, ICD Revision IT technicians and Topic Advisory Groups (TAGs) had editing access.

The iCAT production server is at: http://icat.stanford.edu/
The iCAT demo and training platform is at: http://icatdemo.stanford.edu/

In early November, access to viewing the iCAT and the iCAT demo platform was closed to the public. 

Topic Advisory Group (TAG) members now require a password login for both browsing and editing the iCAT or importing data and the public can no longer view the iCAT and the population of ICD Title Categories and Content, at all.

APA Announces Start of Field Trials for DSM-5; MedPage Today commentary

APA Announces Start of Field Trials for DSM-5; MedPage Today commentary

Post #50 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-QC

APA News Release

PDF: News Release 05.10.10

American Psychiatric Association (APA)

For Information Contact:
Eve Herold, 703-907-8640
press@psych.org
Jaime Valora, 703-907-8562
jvalora@psych.org

For Immediate Release:
Oct. 5, 2010
Release No. 10-65

APA Announces Start of Field Trials for DSM-5

Sites to Test Proposed Diagnostic Criteria in Real-World Clinical Settings

ARLINGTON, Va. (Oct. 5, 2010) – The American Psychiatric Association today announced the start of field trials to test proposed diagnostic criteria for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Field trials will help assess the practical use of proposed DSM-5 criteria in real-world clinical settings.

The field trials follow a public comment period in which more than 8,000 written comments on the draft diagnostic criteria were submitted to the DSM-5 website by clinicians, researchers and family and patient advocates. Submitted comments were reviewed by DSM-5 Work Groups and resulted in further refinement of the criteria.

Evaluation measures

For the diagnostic criteria that are being evaluated, the results of the field trials will address:

. Feasibility: are the proposed criteria easy for clinicians to understand and to use?
. Clinical Utility: do the proposed criteria do a good job in describing patients’ psychiatric problems and help clinicians make decisions about treatment plans?
. Reliability: are the same conclusions reached consistently when the criteria are used by different clinicians?
. Validity: how accurately do the diagnostic criteria reflect the mental disorders they are designed to describe?

In addition, the field trials will help assess severity measures and cross-cutting dimensional measures.

Severity measures are questionnaires and other tools intended to help clinicians evaluate how severe the symptoms of an individual are on a rating scale.

Cross-cutting dimensional measures are tools for assessing symptoms that occur across a wide range of diagnoses, such as anxiety or sleep problems. Field trials will help determine whether these proposed tools provide useful information for clinicians and their patients, and whether they capture changes in symptoms over time to evaluate progress in treatment.

Two rigorous study designs

Since the DSM is used in many care settings, two standardized and methodologically rigorous study designs were developed by the DSM-5 Research Group to gather data from a wide range of clinicians and settings.

“It is important that the proposed diagnostic criteria are subjected to rigorous and empirically sound field trials before DSM-5 is published in 2013,” said David Kupfer, M.D., chair of the DSM-5 Task Force.

“The two field trial designs will allow us to better understand how the proposed revisions affect clinicians’ practices and, most importantly, patient care.”

One study design was developed for use in academic or other large clinical settings, and will be employed at 11 sites, chosen from among 65 centers that responded to APA’s call for proposals. Another study design was developed for use by individual practitioners and smaller clinical practices. These field trials will be conducted in diverse care settings by 3,900 mental health professionals: 1,400 psychiatrists selected from a randomly selected sample, as well as an additional 2,500 volunteer clinicians, including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and advanced practice psychiatric-mental health nurses.

Participating clinicians must meet eligibility criteria and complete a web-based training seminar.

Clinicians in the field trials will evaluate new and existing patients at different stages of treatment using the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and measures.

All patients considered for participation in the field trial will receive information about the trial and must give their consent. None of the patients will have their identities revealed in the results of the studies.

In the field trials conducted in the academic and large medical centers, patient evaluations will begin with an initial baseline assessment by a clinician. A different clinician will conduct a second assessment 4 hours to 2 weeks later, to help determine reliability of the diagnostic criteria. This assessment will be repeated in a follow-up visit (4 to 12 weeks after the second evaluation) to test whether the severity and cross-cutting measures are sensitive to changes in treatment progression.

Academic and Large Medical Centers

The 11 large academic medical settings participating in field trials are:

Pediatric Sites

. Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass.
. Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute, Child Psychiatry Division, in collaboration with colleagues at New York Presbyterian

. Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York Presbyterian
. Hospital/Westchester Division, and the North Shore Child and Family Guidance Center, Roslyn Heights, New York

. Stanford University, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.
. The Children’s Hospital, Aurora, Colo.

Adult Sites

. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto
. Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center
. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Menninger Clinic, Baylor College of Medicine,   Houston
. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
. University of California, Los Angeles
. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
. University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio

More information on the participating academic large medical centers and the specific disorders being tested in field trials is available on www.dsm5.org .

Disseminating the Field Trial Findings

The DSM-5 Field Trials team will disseminate the results of these initial field trials through presentations at scientific meetings, with professional and consumer groups and in articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and DSM-5 source books.

After completion of the first phase of field trials and another period of public comment via the DSM5.org web site, work group members will make any necessary revisions to their draft criteria. This will be followed by a second phase of field trials for further examination of selected criteria, scheduled to take place in 2011 and 2012.

“The process for developing DSM-5 continues to be deliberative, thoughtful and inclusive,” said Darrel Regier, M.D., M.P.H., vice-chair of the DSM-5 Task Force, and APA research director. “Large-scale field trials are the next critical phase in this important process and will give us the information we need to ensure the diagnostic criteria are both useful and accurate in real-world clinical settings.”

The American Psychiatric Association is a national medical specialty society whose physician members specialize in the diagnosis, treatment, prevention and research of mental illnesses, including substance use disorders.

Visit the APA at http://www.psych.org and www.healthyminds.org .

[Ends]

Commentary and previous commentaries on the development of DSM-5 from MedPage Today here:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/DSM-5/
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/DSM-5/22579

DSM-5 Field Trials Off to Late Start

By John Gever, Senior Editor, MedPage Today
Published: October 05, 2010

“Testing of new diagnostic criteria proposed for DSM-5, the revision of the psychiatric profession’s manual for patient assessment, is finally underway, more than two months behind schedule…”

(With thanks to Kelly Latta for alerting me to the MedPage Today commentary.)

———-

Current proposals by the DSM-5 Work Group for disorders related to the diagnostic category, Somatoform Disorders, can be found here:

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/SomatoformDisorders.aspx 

and here, in Post #17, on Dx Revision Watch site:

Proposed revisions and draft criteria for DSM-5 categories were published by the American Psychiatric Association on 10 February

 

DSM-5 Submissions to the public review process

There were considerable concerns, earlier this year, in response to the proposal of the DSM-5 Work Group for “Somatic Symptom Disorders” to combine several existing somatoform disorder categories into one larger category, Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD).

Patient organisations, professionals and advocates submitting comments in the DSM-5 draft proposal public review process were invited to provide copies of their submissions for publication on this page:

http://wp.me/PKrrB-AQ

———-

This table sets out how the current versions of classification systems, DSM-IV and ICD-10, have corresponded for Somatoform Disorders:

Current DSM-IV Codes and Categories for Somatoform Disorders and ICD-10 Equivalents

Source: Mayou R, Kirmayer LJ, Simon G, Kroenke K, Sharpe M: Somatoform disorders: time for a new approach in DSM-V. Am J Psychiat. 2005;162:847-855.

 

ICD-11 Alpha Draft

According to sources, in July, a print version of the ICD-11 Alpha Draft was expected to be made available around the time that the rescheduled iCamp2 meeting took place in September.

In August, ICD Revision confirmed that a “draft print version will be available in September 2010”.

iCamp2 has now concluded, but it remains unclear whether a print version has been produced. ICD Revision has been asked to clarify the status and availability of an Alpha Draft, whether it is intended for internal use only or is going to be made available for public scrutiny, and if so, when, and in what format(s).

For update on status and availability of ICD-11Alpha Draft see: Post #53

The publication of DSM-5 is currently timelined for May 2013.

Implementation of ICD-10-CM, the US specific “Clinical Modification” of ICD-10, is scheduled for October 2013.

According to the APA’s DSM-5 website Timeline:

http://www.dsm5.org/about/Pages/Timeline.aspx

[…]

As the Phase 1 field trials are underway, members of the DSM-5 Task Force and Work Group will begin drafting their initial text for DSM-5. During this time, case studies will also be developed, which will be published after DSM-5’s release in a series of case books.

March – April 2011: Revisions to Proposed Criteria. Based on results from the first phase of field trials, the DSM-5 Task Force and Work Group members will make revisions to the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and dimensional measures. These revised criteria and measures will be tested in a second phase of field trials.

April – May 2011: Review of Revised Criteria. Revised proposed criteria will be subjected to internal review, including a review by the DSM-5 Task Force and Research Group and by other relevant work groups.

May-July 2011: Online Posting of Revised Criteria. Following the internal review, revised draft diagnostic criteria will be posted online for approximately one month to allow the public to provide feedback. This site will be closed for feedback by midnight on June 30, 2011.

[…]

 

Update on the ICD-11 Alpha Draft 06.09.10

Update on the ICD-11 Alpha Draft at 06.09.10

Post #47 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-MD

The information in this update relates only to proposals for ICD-11.

This information does not apply to ICD-10-CM, the forthcoming “Clinical Modification” of ICD-10, which is scheduled for implementation in October 2013 and is specific to the US.

Post #45 is intended to clarify any confusion between ICD-10, ICD-11 and the forthcoming US specific “Clinical Modification”, ICD-10-CM.

See: US “Clinical Modification” ICD-10-CM 

On 7 June, in Post #46, I published a report that includes 13 screenshots from the iCAT, the wiki-like Web 2.0 collaborative authoring platform through which ICD-11 is being drafted.

To view proposals as they currently appear in the iCAT, see the screenshots and my brief notes here:

PVFS, ME, CFS: the ICD-11 Alpha Draft and iCAT Collaborative Authoring Platform

Note that what currently appears in the iCAT and in my June report may be subject to revision by the ICD Revision Steering Group and Topic Advisory Groups prior to an alpha draft being publicly released or presented at the forthcoming September iCamp2 meeting.

 

Update on the ICD-11 Alpha Draft

ICD Revision maintains a website at: http://sites.google.com/site/icd11revision/

where the public can access minutes of iCamp and Topic Advisory Group (TAG) meetings, meeting agendas, key documents and presentations.

Text on this website had read:

“ICD-11 alpha draft will be ready by 10 May 2010
ICD-11 beta draft will be ready by 10 May 2011
ICD final draft will be submitted to WHA by 2014”

This text has recently been changed to read:

“ICD-11 alpha draft process began September 2009
ICD-11 beta draft process will begin in 2011
ICD final draft will be submitted to WHA by 2014”

No detailed timeline has been published but there is a “Project milestones and budget, and organizational overview” on page 7 of this document:

ICD-11 Revision Project Plan – Draft 2.0 (v March 10) PDF: ICD Revision Project Plan

or: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/ICDRevisionProjectPlan_March2010.pdf

which projects a Beta Draft release for May 2012.

Release of ICD-11 Alpha Draft

No ICD-11 Alpha Draft was publicly released in May. But a hard copy “snapshot” of the alpha, as it stood at that point, was presented by the WHO at the 63rd World Health Assembly meeting, between 17 and 25 May.

September iCamp2 meeting

An ICD Revision iCamp2 meeting had been scheduled for April but was postponed. The meeting has been rescheduled for later this month.

iCamp2 is now scheduled for 27 September – 1 October 2010, in Geneva.

The revised Agenda for this meeting is here:

http://sites.google.com/site/icd11revision/home/face-to-face-meetings/icamp2-2010

http://sites.google.com/site/icd11revision/home/face-to-face-meetings/icamp2-2010/icamp-2-agenda

Following iCamp meetings, PowerPoint presentations are sometimes made publicly available on the website.

According to sources, the print version of the alpha draft is now expected to be made available around the time that the iCamp2 meeting takes place, later this month.

ICD Revision maintains a blog, here, which hasn’t been updated since last October and a Facebook presence here

In response to some questions raised several months ago, ICD Revision confirmed, on 6 August, that:

“A draft print version will be available in September 2010.”

On 7 August, I raised the following:

“ICD Revision has clarified that a draft print version will be available in September 2010.

Clarification would also be welcomed on whether this Alpha Draft will be available for internal use only or intended for public viewing, and if for public viewing, in what format(s)?

According to the Revision document ICD Revision Project Plan [1], published on the ICD Revision Google site, in March:

‘The Alpha draft will be produced in a traditional print and electronic format. The Alpha Draft will also include a Volume 2 containing the traditional sections and including a section about the new features of ICD-11 in line with the style guide [2]. An index for print will be available in format of sample pages. A fully searchable electronic index using some of the ontological features will demonstrate the power of the new ICD.’

Since 2007, it has been possible for stakeholders in the development of ICD-11 to submit proposals and comments, supported by citations, via the ICD Update and Revision Platform Intranet. It was understood last year, that for some Topic Advisory Groups a proposal form for ICD-11 was being prepared for use by stakeholders. Information about the availability of proposal forms for the various Topic Advisory Groups, up to what stage in the development process timeline these might be used, and which stakeholders would be permitted to make use of proposal forms would be welcomed.

It remains unclear what will be ready by September, whether it will be available for public scrutiny, and in what format(s), and by what various means stakeholders might submit proposals prior to and following the release of an Alpha Draft.”

This request for clarification has yet to receive a response.

 

Current proposals for the classification and coding of PVFS, ME and CFS for the ICD-11 Alpha Draft

On my DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch website, at Post #46, is a report I published on 7 June that includes screenshots from the iCAT, the wiki-like collaborative authoring platform through which ICD-11 is being drafted.

To view what is currently visible in the iCAT, see the screenshots and my brief notes here:

PVFS, ME, CFS: the ICD-11 Alpha Draft and iCAT Collaborative Authoring Platform, 7 June 2010

Caveat

For better understanding, it is important that the brief iCAT Glossary page is read in conjunction with the iCAT screenshots, especially the Glossary entries for ICD-10 Code; ICD Title; Definition; Terms: Synonyms, Inclusions and Exclusions [4].

Read the iCAT Glossary here: http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icatfiles/iCAT_Glossary.html

Secondly, it needs to be understood that the alpha draft is a “work in progress”. Not all content will have been compiled yet and entered into the iCAT and there are many blank fields awaiting population for all chapters and for all categories. It also needs to be understood that some text already entered into the various “Details” fields may still be in the process of internal review and subject to revision.

Because Topic Advisory Groups are still in the process of entering content into the iCAT not all listings and content that is intended to be included in the print version of the alpha draft may be visible to us, at this point, in the iCAT drafting platform.

ICD-10 > ICD-11

One of the biggest changes between ICD-10 and ICD-11 is that in ICD-11, Categories will be defined through the use of multiple parameters.

In ICD-10, there is no textual content for the three terms “Postviral fatigue syndrome”, “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” and “Chronic fatigue syndrome”. There are no definitions and the relationship between the three terms is not specified.

But in ICD-11, categories will be defined through the use of multiple parameters: Title & Definition, Terms: Synonyms, Inclusions, Exclusions, Clinical Description, Signs and Symptoms, Diagnostic Criteria and so on, according to a common “Content Model” [2] and as evidenced by the screenshots.

So have a look at Post #46 if you have not already done so. Or have a poke around in the iCAT wiki production server. The public has no editing rights so you can’t break anything [3].

 

Request for clarification to Advisory Group for Neurology

On 28 June, I contacted Dr Raad Shakir who chairs the ICD Revision Topic Advisory Group for Neurology, for clarifications in respect of current proposals for ICD-11 Chapter 6 (VI).

Dr Shakir has been asked if he would disambiguate current proposals for ICD-11 for the classification of, and relationships between the three terms, “Postviral fatigue syndrome”, “Chronic fatigue syndrome” and “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis”, since this is not explicit from the information as it currently displays in the iCAT, nor from the Discussion Note for “Gj92 Chronic fatigue syndrome”, which has been listed in Chapter 6 (VI) under

Chapter 6 (VI) Disorders of the nervous system

             > GN Other disorders of the nervous system

(“Gj92” is a “Sorting label”. It is understood that a “Sorting label” is a string that can be used to sort the children of a category and is not the ICD code.)

I was advised by Dr Shakir, on 5 July, by email, that my queries have been passed to the Advisory Group for a response. I have yet to receive a clarification.

To: Dr Raad Shakir, West London Neurosciences Centre, Charing Cross
Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London W6 8RF
raad.shakir@imperial.nhs.uk

Re: Query in relation to Topic Advisory Group for Neurology proposals for ICD-11 Chapter 6 (VI)

28 June 2010

Dear Dr Shakir,

I am writing to you in your capacity as Chair, ICD Revision TAG Neurology, with a request for clarification of current proposals for the restructuring of categories classified in ICD-10 under G93 Others disorders of brain, specifically those at G93.3. That is:

Diseases of the nervous system (G00-G99)

      > Other disorders of the nervous system (G90-99)

             > G93 Other disorders of brain

[…]

G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome
Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis

(with Chronic fatigue syndrome indexed to G93.3 in ICD-10: Volume 3: The Alphabetical Index)

In the absence of the release of an ICD-11 Alpha Draft, I rely on information as it currently displays in the ICD Categories listed in the iCAT production server at: http://icat.stanford.edu/

My understanding is that what is being proposed at this point for ICD-11 is that ICD categories coded between G83.9 thru G99.8 in ICD-10 Chapter VI: Diseases of the nervous system, are being reorganised.

That in ICD-11, Chapter 6 (VI) codings beyond G83.9 are represented by new parent classes numbered GA thru to GN thus:

Chapter 6 (VI) Disorders of the nervous system

[…]
G80-G83 Cerebral palsy and other paralytic syndromes
GA Infections of the nervous system
GB Movement disorders and degenerative disorders
GC Dementias
[…]
GN Other disorders of the nervous system

That “GN Other disorders of the nervous system” is parent to five child classes that are assigned the “Sorting labels” Gj90-Gj94.

(It is understood that a “Sorting label” is a string that can be used to sort the children of a category and is not the ICD code.)

At Gj92, sits “Chronic fatigue syndrome”

That “Gj92 Chronic fatigue syndrome” displays no child classes of its own.

The Category Note associated with “Gj92 Chronic fatigue syndrome” records a Change in hierarchy for class: G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome because its parent category (G93 Other disorders of brain) is removed.*

[*Ed: Note that the removal of the parent “G93 Other disorders of brain” affects many other categories also classified under G93 in ICD-10, not just G93.3, which have also been assigned “Sorting labels”.]

According to the iCAT ICD Categories “Details for Gj92 Chronic fatigue syndrome”

“Gj92 Chronic fatigue syndrome” displays as a ICD Title term.

“Gj92 Chronic fatigue syndrome” has a Definition field populated.**

[**Ed: Which may be subject to revision and in response to proposals.]

It has an External Definitions field populated which includes definitions imported from other classification systems, the text of which includes “Also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis”.

It has “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” specified under Inclusions.

It has no Synonyms, Exclusions or other descriptor fields populated yet.

That at this point and as far as the iCAT version displays, there is no explicit accounting for “Postviral fatigue syndrome”, as an entity, other than that “Postviral fatigue syndrome” is specified under Exclusions to Chapter 5 (V) F48.0 Neurasthenia and to Chapter 18 (XVIII) R53 Malaise and fatigue and is referenced in these chapters as

            postviral fatigue syndrome G93.3 -> Gj92 Chronic fatigue syndrome

It is further understood, from the iCAT Glossary at
http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icatfiles/iCAT_Glossary.html

that:

“Inclusion terms appear in the tabular list of the traditional print version and show users that entities are included in the relevant concept. All of the ICD-10 inclusion terms have been imported and accessible in the iCat. These are either synonyms of the category titles or subclasses which are not represented in the classification hierarchy. Since we have synonyms as a separate entity in our ICD-11 content model, the new synonyms suggested by the users should go into the synonyms section. In the future, iCat will provide a mechanism to identify whether an inclusion is a synonym or a subclass.”

I should be most grateful if you could clarify the following for me:

1] In ICD-10 Volume 3: The Alphabetical Index, “Chronic fatigue syndrome” is indexed to G93.3 but does not appear in the Tabular List.

In ICD-11, is it being proposed that “Chronic fatigue syndrome” will be included in the Tabular List in Chapter 6 (VI) Diseases of the nervous system under “(GN) Other disorders of the nervous system”?

2] In ICD-11, is it being proposed that rather than “Postviral fatigue syndrome” being the ICD Category Title term (previously coded at G93.3, but which has now lost its parent class, G93) that “Gj92 Chronic fatigue syndrome” is proposed as a new ICD Category Title term?

If this is the case, what is the current proposed relationship between the terms “Postviral fatigue syndrome” and “Gj92 Chronic fatigue syndrome”?

That is, is it proposed that in the tabular list, “Postviral fatigue syndrome” would still appear as a discrete Category Title term or is it intended that it should be subsumed under “Gj92 Chronic fatigue syndrome” or become a Subclass of, or Synonym to “Chronic fatigue syndrome”, or to have some other relationship?

3] In the iCAT, the term “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” (previously coded at G93.3, but which has now lost its parent class G93) is listed as an Inclusion under “Details for Gj92 Chronic fatigue syndrome” but does not appear listed under “GN Other disorders of the nervous system” in the ICD Category List with a Sorting label of its own, nor as a child to “Gj92 Chronic fatigue syndrome”.

What is currently being proposed for ICD-11 for the classification and coding of “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis”, as an entity, and its relationship to “Chronic fatigue syndrome”?

Since this is not explicit from the information as it currently displays in the iCAT, nor from the Discussion Note to Gj92, I should be pleased if you could disambiguate current proposals for the classification of, and relationships between these three terms for ICD-11.

Sincerely,

etc

 

I will update when a response has been received and when further information about a print version of the alpha draft becomes available.

Other than making general enquiries around the development of ICD-11 and the operation of the iCAT and this request for clarification of current proposals, I have made no representations to any ICD Topic Advisory Group, nor submitted any proposals through any means nor have I had any discussions with WHO personnel or Topic Advisory Group members in relation to current or future proposals for the three terms of interest to us.

References:

PVFS, ME, CFS: the ICD-11 Alpha Draft and iCAT Collaborative Authoring Platform, 7 June 2010, Post # 46: http://wp.me/pKrrB-KK

[1] ICD-11 Revision Project Plan – Draft 2.0 (v March 10):
Describes the ICD revision process as an overall project plan in terms of goals, key streams of work, activities, products, and key participants: ICD Revision Project Plan
http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/ICDRevisionProjectPlan_March2010.pdf

[2] Content Model Specifications and User Guide (v April 10):
Identifies the basic properties needed to define any ICD concept (unit, entity or category) through the use of multiple parameters: http://tinyurl.com/ICD11ContentModelApril10

[3] iCAT production server and Demo and Training iCAT Platform:
http://sites.google.com/site/icd11revision/home/icat
iCAT production server: http://icat.stanford.edu/

[4] iCAT Glossary
http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icatfiles/iCAT_Glossary.html