Definitions for three severities of “Bodily distress disorder” now inserted in ICD-11 Beta draft

Post #310 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3X9

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 ICD Revision Steering Group and WHO classification experts. Not all new proposals may survive ICD-11 field testing. Chapter numbering, codes and Sorting codes currently assigned to ICD categories may change as chapters and parent/child hierarchies are reorganized. The public version of the Beta draft is incomplete; not all “Content Model” parameters display or are populated; the draft may contain errors and category omissions.

This report updates on recent additions to the listing for Bodily distress disorder in the public version of the ICD-11 Beta draft.

This is an edited version of the report published on July 19.

+++
Bodily distress disorder (BDD) is a new, single diagnostic category that has been proposed for ICD-11. It is intended to subsume the seven ICD-10 Somatoform disorders categories F45.0 – F45.9, and F48.0 Neurasthenia.

Bodily distress disorder (BDD) is the term that has been entered into the Beta drafting platform since February 2012.

It is the term and disorder construct that has been proposed by the ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG), which is chaired by Professor Oye Gureje [1].

Note: the term Bodily stress syndrome (BSS) (Lam et al, 2012) is an alternative disorder term and diagnostic construct that has been proposed by the ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG), which is chaired by Professor Sir David Goldberg [2].

The disorder term and construct Bodily distress syndrome (BDS) has also been advanced for ICD-11 in a June 2013 editorial by Ivbijaro G and Goldberg D [3].

Neither of the terms Bodily stress syndrome (BSS) or Bodily distress syndrome (BDS) has been entered into the ICD-11 Beta draft.

+++
ICD-11 Beta drafting platform (public version):

A Definition for category Bodily distress disorder was inserted into the Beta draft in late January 2014.

At that point, no definitions or characterizations for any of the uniquely coded BDD severity specifiers (currently, BDD, mild; BDD, moderate; BDD, severe) had been inserted.

+++
How is BDD being defined for the purposes of ICD-11?

The psychological and behavioural features that characterize Bodily distress disorder, as currently defined in the Beta draft, are drawn from the disorder conceptualizations in the 2012 Creed, Gureje paper on emerging proposals for the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders [1].

This paper sits behind a paywall but I have had a copy since it was first published.

The paper describes a disorder model that has poor concordance with Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome construct.

The 2012 Creed, Gureje paper defines BDD as:

“a much simplified set of criteria”;

eliminates the requirement that symptoms be “medically unexplained” as the central defining feature;

focuses on identification of positive psychobehavioural responses (excessive preoccupation with bodily symptoms, unreasonable illness fear, frequent or persistent healthcare utilization, activity avoidance for fear of damaging the body) in response to any (unspecific) persistent, distressing, single or multiple bodily symptom(s), resulting in significant impairment of functioning or frequent seeking of reassurance;

makes no assumptions about aetiology and in “[d]oing away with the unreliable assumption of its causality the diagnosis of BDD does not exclude the presence of (…) a co-occurring physical health condition”;

has no requirement for symptom counts, or for symptom patterns or symptom clusters from body or organ systems

– which describes a disorder framework into which DSM-5′s “Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD)” could potentially be integrated, facilitating harmonization between a replacement for the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders and DSM-5’s new SSD.

+++
Whereas, Fink et al’s 2010 Bodily Distress Syndrome criteria are based on impairment and symptom patterns from body systems. Positive psychobehavioural features do not form part of the Fink et al criteria [4–6].

For ICD-11’s BDD, patients may be preoccupied with any bodily symptoms and the presence of a co-occurring physical health condition is not an exclusion.

But for Fink et al’s BDS, “If the symptoms are better explained by another disease, they cannot be labelled BDS.”

BDD’s three severity specifiers are proposed to be characterized on the basis of the extent to which responses to persistent, distressing symptoms are perceived as excessive and on degree of impairment, not on the basis of the number of bodily symptoms and the number of body or organ systems that are affected by the disorder.

In contrast, BDS’s two severities are based on symptom patterns (a BDS Modest, single-organ type and a BDS Severe, Multi-organ type).

Both BDD and BDS are intended to subsume the Somatoform disorders and Neurasthenia.

But BDS seeks to arrogate the so-called “functional somatic syndromes,” CFS, ME, IBS, Fibromyalgia, chronic pain disorder, MCS and some others, and subsume them under a single, overarching BDS diagnosis [6].

So although the BDD and BDS disorder names sound very similar (and the terms are sometimes seen used interchangeably), as defined in the 2012 Creed, Gureje paper and as defined by the recently inserted Beta draft Definitions, ICD-11’s BDD and Fink et al’s BDS present divergent constructs*.

It is the ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group‘s 2012 proposals for a “Bodily stress disorder” [2] that had stronger conceptual alignment and criteria congruency with Fink et al’s BDS.

*Discussions between Profs Creed and Fink during the Research Clinic for Functional Disorders Symposium presentations, Aarhus University Hospital, May 15, 2014, noted that Fink et al’s BDS and DSM-5’s SSD are “very different concepts.” That SSD and BDS are divergent constructs is also discussed in: Medically Unexplained Symptoms, Somatisation and Bodily Distress: Developing Better Clinical Services, Francis Creed, Peter Henningsen, Per Fink (Eds), Cambridge University Press, 2011.

+++
ICD-11 BDD, mild; moderate and severe specifiers, now defined:

In the last few days, Definitions for the three uniquely coded Severity specifiers:

6B40 Bodily distress disorder, mild

6B41 Bodily distress disorder, moderate

6B42 Bodily distress disorder, severe

have been inserted into the Beta draft.

+++
The Definition for the Title term Bodily distress disorder remains the same as previously reported:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/767044268

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/767044268

Chapter 06 Mental and behavioural disorders

Bodily distress disorder [In Mortality and Morbidity, Primary Care High Resource, Primary Care Low Resource Linearizations]

Foundation Id: http://id.who.int/icd/entity/767044268

Parent(s)

Mental and behavioural disorders            ICD-10 : F45

Definition

Bodily distress disorder is characterized by high levels of preoccupation regarding bodily symptoms, unusually frequent or persistent medical help-seeking, and avoidance of normal activities for fear of damaging the body. These features are sufficiently persistent and distressing to lead to impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning. The most common symptoms include pain (including musculoskeletal and chest pains, backache, headaches), fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, and respiratory symptoms, although patients may be preoccupied with any bodily symptoms. Bodily distress disorder most commonly involves multiple bodily symptoms, though some cases involve a single very bothersome symptom (usually pain or fatigue).

Synonyms

somatoform disorders
Somatization disorder

Exclusions [Ed: with the exception of Hypochondriasis, Exclusions are imported from ICD-10 F45 Somatoform disorders Exclusions.]

lisping
lalling
psychological or behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere
nail-biting
sexual dysfunction, not caused by organic disorder or disease
thumb-sucking
tic disorders (in childhood and adolescence)
Tourette syndrome
trichotillomania
dissociative disorders
hair-plucking
Hypochondriasis

+++
This is the recently added Definition for 6B40 Bodily distress disorder, mild:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1472866636

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1472866636

6B40 Bodily distress disorder, mild [In Mortality and Morbidity Linearizations]

Foundation Id: http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1472866636

Parent(s)

Definition 

Bodily distress disorder, mild is a form of Bodily distress disorder in which there is excessive attention to bothersome symptoms and their consequences, which may result in frequent medical visits. The person is not preoccupied with the symptoms (e.g., spends less than an hour per day focusing on them). Although the individual expresses distress about the symptoms and they may have some impact on his or her life (e.g., strain in relationships, less effective academic or occupational functioning, abandonment of specific leisure activities) there is no substantial impairment in the person’s personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

All Index Terms

  • Bodily distress disorder, mild

+++
Here’s the Definition for 6B41 Bodily distress disorder, moderate:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1967782703

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1967782703

6B41 Bodily distress disorder, moderate [In Mortality and Morbidity Linearizations]

Foundation Id : http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1967782703

Parent(s)

Definition 

Bodily distress disorder, moderate is a form of bodily distress disorder in which there is persistent preoccupation with bothersome symptoms and their consequences (e.g., spends more than an hour a day thinking about them), typically associated with frequent medical visits such that the person devotes much of his or her energy to focusing on the symptoms and their consequences, with consequent moderate impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (e.g., relationship conflict, performance problems at work, abandonment of a range of social and leisure activities).

All Index Terms

  • Bodily distress disorder, moderate

+++
  And here’s the Definition for 6B42 Bodily distress disorder, severe:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1121638993

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1121638993

6B42 Bodily distress disorder, severe [In Mortality and Morbidity Linearizations]

Foundation Id: http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1121638993

Parent(s)

Definition

Bodily distress disorder, severe is a form of bodily distress disorder in which there is pervasive and persistent preoccupation to the extent that the symptoms may become the focal point of the person’s life, typically requiring extensive interactions with the health care system. Preoccupation with the experienced symptoms and their consequences causes serious impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (e.g., unable to work, alienation of friends and family, abandonment of nearly all social and leisure activities). The person’s interests may become so narrow so as to focus almost exclusively on his or her bodily symptoms and their negative consequences.

All Index Terms

  • Bodily distress disorder, severe

+++
What will ICD-11 be field testing?

Field testing of a potential replacement for the existing ICD-10 Somatoform disorders framework is expected to be conducted over the next year or two. Disorders that survive the ICD-11 PHC field tests will require an equivalent disorder in the main ICD-11 classification.

So whatever replaces the existing ICD-10 PHC categories, F45 Unexplained somatic symptoms/medically unexplained symptoms and F48 Neurasthenia, (which is also proposed to be eliminated for the ICD-11 primary care version), will need an equivalent disorder in the main classification.

International field tests across a range of primary care settings had been anticipated to start from June, last year, but there were reported delays. It isn’t known whether consensus has been reached yet over disorder construct and diagnostic criteria for use in the field tests, or whether field testing is now underway.

I cannot confirm whether ICD-11 intends to release a protocol into the public domain for whatever construct it plans to field test, or may already be field testing.

Currently, there is no publicly available protocol or other information on finalized characteristics, diagnostic guidelines, criteria, inclusions, exclusions, differential diagnoses etc. that are planned to be used for the field tests which would provide the level of detail lacking in the public version of the Beta drafting platform.

+++

So which construct does ICD-11 Revision Steering Group favour?

Although BDD (and now its three severities) have been defined within the Beta draft, much remains unclear for proposals for the revision of this section of ICD-11 Mental and behavioural disorders.

The ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group’s alternative 2012 Bodily stress syndrome (BSS) construct – a near clone of Fink et al’s BDS criteria but with some SSD-like psychobehavioural responses tacked on – isn’t the construct that is entered and defined within the Beta draft.

In June 2013, Prof Gabriel Ivbijaro (not, himself, a member of the PCCG) and Prof Sir David Goldberg (who chairs the PCCG) published a joint editorial in Mental Health in Family Medicine, the official journal of The World Organization of Family Doctors (Wonca) Working Party on Mental Health, for which Prof Ivbijaro is Editor in Chief.

The authors advance the position that the forthcoming revision of ICD “provides an opportunity to include BDS in a revised classification for primary care” and imply that BDS (at least at that point) was progressing, imminently, to ICD-11 field trials.

This brief editorial was embargoed from June 2013 to June 2014 and I was unable to obtain a copy until last month, but you can read it now for free and in full here: Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (MUS).

Note, firstly, that the editorial does not declare Professor Goldberg’s interest as chair of the ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group.

It does not clarify whether the views and opinions expressed within the editorial represent the views of the authors or are the official positions of the PCCG working group, or of the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders, or of the ICD-11 Revision Steering Group (RSG), or of any committees on which co-author, Prof Ivbijaro, sits or of any bodies to which Prof Ivbijaro is affiliated.

No publicly posted progress reports are being issued by ICD-11 or by either of the two groups making recommendations for the revision of this section of ICD and I do not have a second source that confirms the status of proposals as they stood in June 2013.

But taking the editorial at face value, it would appear that the PCCG had revised its earlier proposals for a BSS construct (that drew heavily on Fink et al’s BDS criteria but had included the requirement for some psychobehavioural responses) and were now recommending that the Fink et al BDS construct and criteria should progress for ICD-11 PHC field testing and evaluation, that is, using the same disorder name and (presumably) the same criteria set that is already operationalized in research and clinical settings, in Denmark.

(The rationale for the apparent revision of the earlier BSS disorder name is not discussed within the editorial; nor whether any modifications to, or deviance from a “pure” BDS construct and criteria were being recommended for the purposes of ICD-11 field testing.)

The editorial doesn’t clarify whether the PCCG, the S3DWG and the ICD-11 Revision Steering Group (RSG) had reached consensus – it does not mention the alternative proposals of the S3DWG, at all, or discuss what is entered into the Beta draft, or discuss the views and preferences of the Revision Steering Group for any of recommendations made by the two advisory groups, to date.

It is unclear whether a “pure” BDS construct (as opposed to the PCCG’s earlier BSS modification) had already gained Revision Steering Group approval for progressing to field testing, at the point the editorial was drafted, or whether Prof Goldberg was using this Wonca house journal as a platform on which to promote his own opinions and expectations, in a purely personal capacity.

Crucially, it doesn’t explain why, if a BDS-like construct were anticipated to be progressed to field trials in the second half of 2013, it is the S3DWG’s Bodily distress disorder diagnostic construct that has been listed and defined in the Beta draft for Foundation, Mortality and Morbidity, Primary Care High Resource, Primary Care Low Resource linearizations – not the PCCG’s 2012 BSS modification, or the “pure” BDS that Prof Goldberg evidently champions.

As a source of information on the current status of proposals for the revision of the Somatoform disorders this June 2013 editorial is problematic (and now also over a year out of date).

I suspect the politics between the 12 member PCCG (which includes Marianne Rosendal*), the 17 member S3DWG and the ICD-11 Revision Steering Group are intensely fraught given Professor Goldberg’s agenda for the revision of the Somatoform disorders, since fitting BDS into ICD-11 hasn’t proved to be the shoo in that Fink, Rosendal and colleagues had hoped for**, and given that BDS cannot be harmonized with DSM-5’s SSD, as they are conceptually divergent.

*Dr Marianne Rosendal (Department of Public Health, Aarhus University), who has published with Prof Per Fink, is the European representative on WONCA’s International Classification Committee. The vice-chair of the PCCG is Dr Michael Klinkman, a GP who represents WONCA (World Organization of Family Doctors). Dr Klinkman is current convenor of WONCA’s International Classification Committee (WICC) that is responsible for the development of ICPC-2.
**Presentation, Professor Per Fink, March 19, 2014 Danish parliamentary hearing on Functional Disorders. Prof Fink stated that he and his colleagues had tried to get WHO to incorporate a section for a special group of disorders where BDS could be placed that was located neither in psychiatry nor in general medicine, but had not been successful.

+++
Requests for clarification repeatedly stonewalled:

ICD Revision has been asked several times, via the Beta drafting platform, to clarify current proposals for the framework and disorder construct for a replacement for the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders and to clarify which construct it intends to take forward to field testing. ICD Revision has also been asked to comment on the following:

“If, in the context of ICD-11 usage, the S3DWG working group’s proposal for a replacement for the Somatoform disorders remains for a disorder model with good concordance with DSM-5′s SSD construct, what is the rationale for proposing to name this disorder “Bodily distress disorder”?

“Have the S3DWG, PCCG and Revision Steering Group given consideration to the significant potential for confusion if its replacement construct for the Somatoform disorders has greater conceptual alignment with the SSD construct but is assigned a disorder name that sounds very similar to, and is already being used interchangeably with an operationalized but divergent construct and criteria set?”

No response has been forthcoming.

Lack of publicly posted progress reports by both working groups, confusion over the content of the Beta draft and ICD Revision’s failure to respond to queries from stakeholders is hampering stakeholder scrutiny, discourse and input. It is time clinicians, researchers, allied professionals and advocacy organizations demanded transparency from ICD Revision around current proposals and field trial intentions.

+++
September symposium presentation on BDD:

In September, Professor Oye Gureje (who chairs the ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders), will be presenting on Proposals and evidence for the ICD-11 classification of Bodily Distress Disorders, as part of series of symposia on the development of the ICD-11 chapter for mental and behavioural disorders, at the World Psychiatric Association XVI World Congress, in Madrid, Spain, 14–18 September 2014 [7].

Unfortunately, I cannot attend this symposium presentation but would be pleased to hear from anyone who may be planning to attend.

+++
References:

1. Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;24(6):556-67. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23244611 [Full text behind paywall]

2. Lam TP, Goldberg DP, Dowell AC, Fortes S, Mbatia JK, Minhas FA, Klinkman MS: Proposed new diagnoses of anxious depression and bodily stress syndrome in ICD-11-PHC: an international focus group study. Fam Pract Feb 2013 [Epub ahead of print July 2012]. [Abstract: PMID: 22843638] Full free text: http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/76.long

3. Ivbijaro G, Goldberg D. Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Ment Health Fam Med. 2013 Jun;10(2):63-4. Full free text available on 2014/6/1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3822636/pdf/MHFM-10-063.pdf

4. http://funktionellelidelser.dk/en/about/bds/

5. Fink P and Schröder A. One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2010;68:415–26.

6. Fink et al Proposed new BDS diagnostic classification

7. World Psychiatric Association XVI World Congress, Madrid, Spain, 14–18 September 2014.

+++
Further reading:

Dx Revision Watch Post: Editorial: Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (Goldberg and ICD-11-PHC), June 3, 2014: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3Uh

Advertisements

Editorial: Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (Goldberg and ICD-11-PHC)

Post #308 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3Uh

An editorial and four papers on the theme of medically unexplained symptoms, first published in the June 2013 issue of Mental Health in Family Medicine and embargoed until June 1, 2014, are now accessible for free at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/issues/229531/

Mental Health in Family Medicine is the official journal of The World Organization of Family Doctors (Wonca) Working Party on Mental Health.

The editorial: Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (MUS), is co-authored by Prof Gabriel Ivbijaro and Prof Sir David Goldberg.

Prof Ivbijaro is Editor in Chief, Mental Health in Family Medicine, a past chair of Wonca Working Party on Mental Health and was elected president elect of the World Federation of Mental Health in August 2013.

Prof Goldberg chairs the WHO Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG) that is leading the development of the primary care classification of mental and behavioural disorders for ICD-11 (known as ICD-11-PHC).

This report sets the editorial into context.

++
ICD-11 PHC

ICD-10 PHC (sometimes written as ICD-10-PHC or ICD10-PHC or ICD-10 PC), is a simplified version of the WHO’s ICD-10 chapter for mental and behavioural disorders for use in general practice and primary health care settings. This system has rough but not exact equivalence to selected of the mental disorders in the core ICD-10 classification.

The ICD-10 PHC describes 25 disorders commonly managed within primary care as opposed to circa 450 classified within Chapter V of ICD-10.

A revised edition, ICD-11 PHC, is being developed for use by clinicians and (often non-specialist) health-care workers in a wide range of global primary care settings and low- and middle-income countries.

The primary care version of the ICD-11 mental and behavioural disorders chapter is being developed simultaneously with the specialty settings version. Disorders that survive the ICD-11 PHC field tests require a corresponding disorder in the main ICD-11 classification.

The PCCG work group is developing and field testing 28 mental disorders for ICD-11 PHC, which includes making recommendations to the International Advisory Group for a potential replacement for the existing ICD-10 PHC category, F45 Unexplained somatic symptoms/medically unexplained symptoms.

A second ICD-11 working group, the Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG), is advising on the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform disorders in parallel with the PCCG and has proposed an alternative disorder construct.

Thus far, neither working group has commented publicly on the alternative proposals presented by the other group, how the two groups interrelate, whether they are expected to reach consensus over a potential new conceptual framework to replace the existing Somatoform disorders, or to what extent consensus has been reached.

No public progress reports are being published by either group, or by the International Advisory Group, and those monitoring and reporting on the revision of these ICD-10 Chapter V categories rely on journal papers, editorials, symposia presentations, internal ICD Revision summary reports and meeting materials and on the limited content in the public version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform to piece together updates.

++
Does this editorial advance our understanding of current proposals?

Key point: this Ivbijaro and Goldberg editorial is now over 12 months old and should be read with the caveat that proposals by the PCCG working group may have been revised since the editorial was first published.

As a source of information on the current status of proposals by the Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG), this editorial is problematic.

Firstly, it is over 12 months old and the PCCG’s proposals may have undergone further revision since the editorial was submitted for publication.

At the time of submission, the authors anticipated imminent field testing for ICD-11 PHC but the projected start dates for internet and clinic-based field testing, which will assess utility of proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines in different types of primary care settings with particular focus on low- and middle-income countries, may be delayed. (It is on record that field tests were running behind schedule and there have been funding shortfalls, two factors in WHO’s decision, earlier this year, to shift WHA approval of ICD-11 from 2015 to 2017 to allow more time for incorporation of field test results.*)

*WICC ICPC-3 presentation, June 2013, M Klinkman, Slide 29: http://www.ph3c.org/PH3C/docs/27/000312/0000451.pdf
Committee for the Coordination of Statistical Activities, Twenty-second Session 4-6 September 2013, Items for discussion and decision: Item 8 of provisional agenda, Pages 8-10:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/accsub/2013docs-22nd/SA-2013-12-Add1-Health-WHO.pdf

Secondly, the editorial does not declare Prof Goldberg’s interest as chair of the PCCG. It does not clarify whether the views and opinions expressed within the editorial represent the views and opinions of its authors or represent the official positions of the PCCG working group, or of the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders, or of the ICD-11 Revision Steering Group.

Thirdly, its brevity. This is a short editorial – not a paper:

it does not discuss the PCCG’s rationales for the changes made to its own proposals, as published in 2012.

it does not retrospectively review and compare the PCCG’s 2012 proposals for a construct which the group proposed to call, at that point, Bodily stress syndrome, with the 2012 proposals of the Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG) for an alternative construct called Bodily distress disorder.

it does not compare the PCCG’s revised proposals, as they stood in June 2013, with the S3DWG’s proposals, at that point.

crucially, it does not clarify why, if the PCCG’s June 2013 proposals were expected to be progressed to field trials, it is the S3DWG’s Bodily distress disorder diagnostic construct that has been listed and defined in the Beta draft for the Foundation, Mortality and Morbidity, Primary Care High Resource, Primary Care Low Resource linearizations.

Key points: It is difficult to disentangle the authors’ views and opinions from official position of the PCCG working group or the International Advisory Group. The editorial provides no discussion of the S3DWG’s alternative proposals or whether any consensus between the two groups had been reached. The opinions of the International Advisory Group on both sets of proposals are not discussed.

++
What new information does this June 2013 editorial provide since the 2012 Lam et al paper?

that the authors consider the Fink P, Schröder A. 2010 paper [1] provides evidence that the term Bodily Distress Syndrome has both face and content validity.

that the authors consider the concept Bodily Distress Syndrome as “a possible diagnosis that captures the range of presentations in primary care, which may be acceptable to both patient and medical professional”, for which the authors list “a range of poorly defined disorders [that include] chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), chronic pain syndrome, hyperventilation syndrome, non-cardiac chest pain and somatoform disorder.”

that the authors consider the forthcoming revision of the ICD provides an opportunity to include BDS in a revised classification for primary care, the ICD11-PHC, which is planned to be field tested in eight countries.

• that “not only has BDS replaced ‘medically unexplained symptoms’, but also ‘health anxiety’ has replaced ‘hypochondriasis'” and that the field trials “would examine whether primary care physicians wish to distinguish health anxiety (which may have few or indeed no somatic symptoms) from BDS (which by definition has at least three different somatic symptoms).”

According to the editorial, the PCCG had evidently revised its proposal for what to call its new disorder category since publication of the Lam et al paper, in 2012.

In 2012, the PCCG’s proposed term for ICD-11 PHC was Bodily stress syndrome (BSS). In this June 2013 editorial, the authors are using the term, Bodily distress syndrome (BDS).

In 2012, criteria for the PCCG’s BSS had included the requirement for psychobehavioural responses, which do not form part of the Fink et al 2010 BDS criteria – which are based on symptom patterns.

The editorial does not clarify whether, in June 2013, the PCCG (or its chair) was now advancing that the BDS construct and criteria should progress unmodified for ICD-11 PHC testing and evaluation, that is, in the form already operationalized in research and clinical settings in Denmark or would be modified for the purpose of ICD-11 PHC field trials, or to what extent.

(There is no revised criteria set included in this editorial for comparison with the detailed disorder descriptions and criteria set that had been included in Appendix 2 of the 2012 Lam et al paper.)

 Key point: The editorial provides no details or discussion of a 2013 field trial protocol. The most recent disorder descriptions, diagnostic guidelines and criteria proposed by the PCCG are not in the public domain. It is not known whether a field trial protocol has been finalized, whether or when it will be made available for public scrutiny, or whether field trials have started yet.

++
Before reading the editorial please read the appended notes and if you are linking to the editorial on social media or forums, please also include a link back to this report because it is important that this editorial is placed into context.
+++

Ment Health Fam Med.
2013 Jun;10(2):63-4.
Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (MUS).
Ivbijaro G, 1 Goldberg D. 2
Author information
1 Editor-in-Chief Mental Health in Family Medicine, Medical Director, Waltham Forest Community and Family Health Services, and Vice President (Europe), World Federation for Mental Health.
2 Professor Emeritus and Fellow, King’s College, London.PMID: 24427171
[PubMed] PMCID: PMC3822636 [Available on 2014/6/1]
Article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3822636/?report=classic
PubReader: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3822636/?report=reader
PDF – 44KB: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3822636/pdf/MHFM-10-063.pdf

+++

Two ICD Revision working groups – two sets of proposals published in 2012:

In their respective 2012 journal papers, the two working groups presented divergent conceptual proposals and neither group refers to the work being undertaken by the other group.

The 17 member Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (the S3DWG) is an ICD Revision sub working group advising specifically on the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform disorders.

Prof emeritus Francis Creed (a former DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder work group member) is a member of the S3DWG, and the group is chaired by Prof Oye Gureje.

In late 2012, Creed and Gureje published a paper which had included the S3DWG’s emerging proposals for a new, single diagnostic category that would subsume the existing Somatoform disorders categories F45.0 – F45.9 and Neurasthenia [2].

The S3DWG paper sets out the group’s remit which includes:

“To provide drafts of the content (e.g. definitions, descriptions, diagnostic guidelines) for somatic distress and dissociative disorder categories in line with the overall ICD revision requirements.

“To propose entities and descriptions that are needed for classification of somatic distress and dissociative disorders in different types of primary care settings, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.”

Which suggests that the proposals the S3DWG group are advancing are also being considered for utility in primary care and low resource settings, in parallel with those recommended by the PCCG.

The S3DWG’s 2012 paper had described a disorder model which it proposed to call Bodily distress disorder (BDD).

Key point: Although the Creed, Gureje 2012 paper does not acknowledge the congruency, the BDD disorder descriptions and criteria are conceptually close to DSM-5’s new Somatic symptom disorder (SSD).

With its

“much simplified set of criteria”; no assumptions about causality; elimination of the requirement that symptoms be “medically unexplained” as the central defining feature; inclusion of the presence of a co-occurring physical health condition; focus on identification of positive psychobehavioural responses (excessive preoccupation with symptoms, unreasonable illness fear, frequent or persistent healthcare utilization, activity avoidance for fear of damaging the body) in response to any (unspecific) persistent, distressing, single or multiple bodily symptoms; and with no requirement for symptom counts or symptom patterns from body or organ systems;

the group’s BDD construct had good concordance with DSM-5’s Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) and poor concordance with Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome.

++
The PCCG’s Bodily stress syndrome (BSS):

In contrast, the PCCG’s 2012 paper [3] had described a disorder construct which it proposed to call Bodily stress syndrome (BSS), that drew heavily on Fink et al’s 2010 Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS) disorder model [4].

BSS would replace ICD-10-PHC’s F45 Unexplained somatic symptoms/medically unexplained symptoms category. Primary care’s Neurasthenia category would also be eliminated for ICD-11-PHC.

Based (theoretically) on the “autonomic over-arousal” model, the PCCG’s BSS required symptom patterns from body systems to meet the diagnosis.

But, “If the symptoms are accounted for by a known physical disease this is not BSS.”

Which also mirrors Fink et al’s BDS – “if the symptoms are better explained by another disease, they cannot be labelled BDS. The diagnosis is therefore exclusively made on the basis of the symptoms, their complexity and duration” [4].

But the tentative BSS criteria, as presented by Lam et al, in 2012, also incorporated some DSM-5 SSD-like psychobehavioural responses, viz, “The patient’s concern over health expresses itself as excessive time and energy devoted to these symptoms.” (A straight lift from DSM-5’s SSD criteria.)

Psychological and behavioural responses do not form part of the Fink et al 2010 BDS criteria and their inclusion within BSS appeared to be a tokenistic nod towards accommodation of DSM-5’s SSD into any new conceptual framework for ICD-11. (The rationale for their insertion into an otherwise BDS-like construct is not discussed within the 2012 paper.)

Key point: In 2012, whilst highly derivative of BDS and the influence of PCCG group member, Marianne Rosendal, is clear, the proposed BSS model could not be described as a “pure” BDS model.

++
How viable is BDS for incorporation into ICD-11?

The vice-chair of the PCCG is Dr Michael Klinkman, a GP who represents WONCA (World Organization of Family Doctors). Dr Klinkman is current convenor of WONCA’s International Classification Committee (WICC) that is responsible for the development of ICPC-2.

Dr Marianne Rosendal (Department of Public Health, Aarhus University), who has published with Prof Per Fink, is the European representative on WONCA’s International Classification Committee and a member of the PCCG.

In addition to the revision of ICD-10 and ICD-10-PHC, the ICPC-2 (International Classification of Primary Care, Second edition), which classifies patient data and clinical activity in the domains of general/family practice and primary care, is also under revision.

Per Fink and colleagues have been lobbying for their Bodily Distress Syndrome construct to be integrated into forthcoming classification systems and adopted as a diagnosis by primary care practitioners.*

*Budtz-Lilly A: The Research Unit for General Practice, School of Public Health, Aarhus University, Denmark. Bodily Distress Syndrome: A new diagnosis for functional disorders in primary care, EACLPP 2012 Conference Abstract, p 17.

++
Proposed new classification

There are a number of reasons why the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders and the ICD Revision Steering Group might have difficulty justifying approval of any new disorder construct that seeks to arrogate the so-called “functional somatic syndromes,” CFS, IBS and Fibromyalgia, and subsume them under a new, overarching disorder category that also subsumes Neurasthenia and the Somatoform disorders.

limited independent evidence for construct validity, utility and safety of application of BDS in adults and children.

no requirements within BDS criteria for positive psychobehavioural features – location within the ICD-11 mental and behavioural disorders chapter is therefore problematic.

potential data loss, data disaggregation problems and code mapping issues resulting from loss of discretely coded terms currently located within various ICD chapters outside the mental and behavioural disorders chapter; loss of backward compatibility with ICD-10 codes and with ICD-10-CA, ICD-10-GM, ICD-10-AM and other country modifications. (Some countries may take many years to transition to ICD-11, or an adaptation of ICD-11.) Potential incompatibility problems mapping to SNOMED-CT.

• unacceptability to patients and medical professionals

medico-political sensitivities

BDS and SSD are divergent constructs; a hybrid between BDS and SSD-like characteristics is conceptually problematic and would present difficulties if the intention is to harmonize ICD-11 with DSM-5 for this section of the classification [5].

the DSM-5 to ICD-9/ICD-10-CM cross-walk already maps DSM-5 Somatic symptom disorder to ICD-9 code 300.82 (ICD-10-CM F45.1).

It has been proposed that Somatic symptom disorder is added to the U.S.’s forthcoming clinical modification as an inclusion term to F45.1, in the Tabular List and Index.* If approved by NCHS, ICD-10-CM and ICD-11 would lack congruency if a BDS-like disorder model were incorporated into ICD-11 to replace the existing Somatoform disorders, rather than an SSD-like model.**

*September 18-19, 2013 and March 19-20, 2014 NCHS/CMS ICD-10-CM Coordination and Management Committee meetings.
**Note: since early 2009, I have strongly opposed the introduction of SSD into the DSM-5, ICD-11 and ICD-10-CM, and I am not arguing, here, in favour of an SSD-like model to replace the existing ICD-10 Somatoform disorders. There is no public domain documentary evidence that the two ICD working groups are currently considering any alternative models as potential replacements for the Somatoform disorders.

++
Has Professor Fink achieved his goal?

Disorders that survive the ICD-11 PHC field tests must have an equivalent disorder in the main ICD-11 classification.

With the criteria’s lack of positive psychobehavioural features presenting barriers for location within the ICD-11 mental and behavioural disorders chapter and with a hybrid between BDS and SSD-like features conceptually problematic, fitting BDS into ICD-11 isn’t the shoo in that Rosendal, Fink and colleagues had hoped for.

At the presentations on Functional Disorders held at the Danish parliament (March 19, 2014), Prof Fink had stated that he and his colleagues had tried to get WHO to incorporate a section for a special group of disorders where BDS could be placed that was located neither in psychiatry nor in general medicine, but had not been successful. [Creating a new ICD chapter or new parent class within an existing chapter for “interface” disorders may possibly have been proposed to ICD Revision.]*

But if a “pure” BDS (or a modification of BDS for ICD usage) is progressed to field testing over the next year or two, it should perhaps be considered whether ICD Revision has agreed to field test the PCCG’s proposal as a “straw man” construct to disprove its clinical utility, reliability and acceptability, with the intention of defaulting, after field trial evaluation, to a disorder construct that is conceptually closer to SSD, if the latter is already the preference of the International Advisory Group and the ICD Revision Steering Group.

*See: Constanze Hausteiner-Wiehle and Peter Henningsen. Irritable bowel syndrome: Relations with functional, mental, and somatoform disorders World J Gastroenterol 2014 May 28; 20(20): 6024-6030 Full free text
“An overarching category of general (medical-psychiatry) interface disorders could be a helpful conceptualization for the many phenomena that are neither only somatic nor only mental [32,56,79]. The ICD-11, awaited in 2015, offers a new chance to do that. The concept of a bodily distress syndrome (BDS) offers another scientifically coherent common basis for the classification of different dimensional graduations of IBS [80].

++
WHO on Twitter:

On Feb 12, 2014, @WHO Twitter admin stated: “Fibromyalgia, ME/CFS are not included as Mental & Behavioural Disorders in ICD-10, there is no proposal to do so for ICD-11”. This position was additionally confirmed by Mr Gregory Härtl, Head of Public Relations/Social Media, WHO.

++
So what has been entered into the Beta drafting platform?

The term entered into the Beta platform (since February 2012) is Bodily distress disorder (the term favoured by the S3DWG working group) – not the term Bodily stress syndrome or Bodily Distress Syndrome.

A Definition for Bodily distress disorder was inserted around four months ago. There are no definitions or characterizations inserted yet for any of the three, uniquely coded severity specifiers (Mild; Moderate; Severe).

The psychological and behavioural features that characterize the disorder, as per the BDD Definition, are drawn from the disorder conceptualizations in the 2012 Creed, Gureje paper on emerging proposals for Bodily distress disorder which had described a disorder model with good concordance with DSM-5′s Somatic symptom disorder construct and poor concordance with Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome construct.

Key point: The term entered into the Beta drafting platform is Bodily distress disorder (the term favoured by the S3DWG working group) with a Definition based on disorder conceptualizations in the 2012 Creed, Gureje paper which had described a disorder model with good concordance with DSM-5′s Somatic symptom disorder and poor concordance with Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome construct.

++
This Dx Revision Watch post sets out (with screenshots) the most recent changes to the Beta drafting platform for the listing of BDD and the current Definition:

Recent changes to ICD-11 Beta drafting platform for “Bodily distress disorder”

++
Forthcoming symposium presentation:

In September, Oye Gureje (chair ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders), will be presenting on Proposals and evidence for the ICD-11 classification of Bodily Distress Disorders, as part of series of symposia on the development of the ICD-11 chapter on mental and behavioural disorders, at the World Psychiatric Association XVI World Congress, in Madrid, Spain, 14–18 September 2014 [6].

++
Field testing:

Field testing on a potential replacement for the ICD-10 Somatoform disorder categories is expected to be conducted over the next couple of years. Currently, there is no publicly available protocol or other information on the finalized characteristics, diagnostic guidelines, criteria, inclusions, exclusions, differential diagnoses etc. that are planned to be used for the field tests which would provide the level of detail lacking in the public version of the Beta drafting platform.

++
Requests for clarification repeatedly stonewalled:

ICD Revision has been asked several times, via the Beta drafting platform, to clarify its current proposals for the framework and disorder construct for a replacement for the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders. ICD Revision has also been asked to comment on the following:

“If, in the context of ICD-11 usage, the S3DWG working group’s proposal for a replacement for the Somatoform disorders remains for a disorder model with good concordance with DSM-5’s SSD construct, what is the rationale for proposing to name this disorder “Bodily distress disorder”?

“Have the S3DWG, PCCG and Revision Steering Group given consideration to the significant potential for confusion if its replacement construct for the Somatoform disorders has greater conceptual alignment with the SSD construct but is assigned a disorder name that sounds very similar to, and is already being used interchangeably with an operationalized but divergent construct and criteria set?”

No clarifications have been forthcoming to date. Lack of progress reports by both working groups and the degree of confusion over the content of the Beta draft is hampering stakeholder scrutiny, discourse and input. It’s not surprising few papers have been published to date reviewing and discussing ICD Revision’s proposals for a potential replacement for the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders when information on the most recent proposals for both working groups is proving so difficult to obtain.

It’s time medical and allied professionals and advocacy organizations demanded transparency from ICD Revision for its current intentions.

++
Caveats:

ICD-11 Beta is a work in progress, updated daily, not finalized. Proposals for new categories are subject to ongoing revision and refinement, to field test evaluation, may not survive field testing, and are not approved by ICD Revision or WHO.

++
References:

1. Fink P and Schröder A. One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2010;68:415–26.

2. Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;24(6):556-67. [Abstract: PMID: 23244611]

3. Lam TP, Goldberg DP, Dowell AC, Fortes S, Mbatia JK, Minhas FA, Klinkman MS: Proposed new diagnoses of anxious depression and bodily stress syndrome in ICD-11-PHC: an international focus group study. Fam Pract Feb 2013 [Epub ahead of print July 2012]. [Abstract: PMID: 22843638] Full free text: http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/76.long

4. http://funktionellelidelser.dk/en/about/bds/

5. Creed F, Fink P: Research Clinic for Functional Disorders Symposium presentations, Aarhus University Hospital, May 15, 2014.

That SSD and BDS are divergent constructs is also discussed in: Medically Unexplained Symptoms, Somatisation and Bodily Distress: Developing Better Clinical Services, Francis Creed, Peter Henningsen, Per Fink (Eds), Cambridge University Press, 2011.

6. World Psychiatric Association XVI World Congress, Madrid, Spain, 14–18 September 2014.

 

Recent changes to ICD-11 Beta drafting platform for “Bodily distress disorder”

Post #307 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3Ts

This post updates on further changes in the public version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform to the listing of proposed new ICD category, Bodily distress disorder.

Caveat: The ICD-11 Beta draft 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 International Advisory Group, the ICD Revision Steering Group and WHO classification experts. “Sorting codes” assigned to categories are subject to frequent change as chapters and categories are reorganized.

The revision of the Somatoform disorders categories has undergone a number of iterations since the release of the initial iCAT drafting platform, in May 2010.

Two working groups

The ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG) is one of two WHO convened groups charged with making recommendations for the revision of the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders categories.

The second group, the Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG), leads the development of the revision of the mental and behavioural disorders publication known as “ICD-10 PHC”.

The PCCG is making recommendations for the revision of ICD-10 PHC’s primary care diagnostic category, F45 Unexplained somatic symptoms/medically unexplained symptoms. Disorders included in the abridged primary care version will require an equivalent category within the core ICD-11 classification.

+++

What has the S3DWG work group been proposing?

The S3DWG has proposed Bodily distress disorder as a single diagnostic category to replace all of the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders between F45.0 – F45.9 and F48.0 Neurasthenia [1].

So initially, in the drafting platform, these ICD-10 legacy categories were removed.

As the Beta draft stood in mid 2013, Bodily distress disorder had been assigned three, uniquely coded severity specifiers: Mild BDD, Moderate BDD and Severe BDD. These were then reduced to just two: Bodily distress disorder and Severe bodily distress disorder.

So in January 2014, the Beta drafting platform had stood like this:

BDD at 02.02.14

Source: ICD-11 Beta drafting platform at January 29, 2014

+++

On February 18, I reported that Severe bodily distress disorder was no longer listed in the Beta drafting platform and had been replaced with the ICD-10 legacy category Somatization disorder.

I also reported that the ICD-10 category, Neurasthenia, previously proposed to be eliminated for both the ICD-11 core and Primary Care versions, had been inserted back into the Beta draft.

It was unclear how these two ICD-10 legacy categories were intended to relate to a single new diagnostic category whose conceptual framework had originally been proposed to replace both of them. The Definition texts displaying for both legacy categories had been imported unedited from ICD-10 and provided no clues to the (evidently revised) proposed framework.

So by February 2014, the draft stood like this:

BDD 240214

Source: ICD-11 Beta drafting platform at February 24, 2014

with Neurasthenia back in the draft under parent Mental and behavioural disorders:

Neurasthenia240214

Source: ICD-11 Beta drafting platform at February 24, 2014

+++
Since these changes, there have been several further modifications to the Beta draft:

Circa May 9, 2014:

Somatization disorder remained listed as a uniquely coded child category under Bodily distress disorder, with a definition comprising unedited text imported from the ICD-10 F45.0 classification.

But three uniquely coded severity specifiers had been added back in:

Bodily distress disorder, mild
Bodily distress disorder, moderate
Bodily distress disorder, severe

So by May 9, the Beta draft Joint Linearization for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics looked like this:

May_9_14_BDD

*Note that the “Sorting codes” assigned to categories change daily as chapters and category hierarchies are reorganized.

+++
Circa May 15, 2014:

Somatization disorder has now been removed from the Beta draft Linearizations as a uniquely coded child category under Bodily distress disorder.

Somatization disorder is now listed with the ICD-10 term somatoform disorders under Synonyms to Bodily distress disorder and both ICD-10 legacy terms are listed as Index Terms.

Update at June 6, 2014: The ICD-10 legacy terms, Somatoform disorders and somatization disorder are no longer listed under Index Terms to Bodily distress disorder in the Beta drafting platform or print version of the draft Alphabetical Index but remain listed under Synonyms. Both terms have been relocated under Index Terms to 6B4Z Bodily distress disorder, unspecified.

The three severity specifiers for BDD, (Mild, Moderate, Severe) remain.

So at May 27, the Beta draft Joint Linearization for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics looks like this:

May_15_14_BDD

Neurasthenia has also been removed from the Beta draft Linearizations. Nor is it listed in the PDF of the print version of the draft Alphabetical Index.

This might suggest that the most recent proposal has reverted back to eliminating Neurasthenia from ICD-11, but to retain both Somatization disorder and the term somatoform disorders under Synonyms to BDD, and as Index Terms (as opposed to retaining and coding specifically for Somatization disorder under new ICD parent term, Bodily distress disorder).

[Neurasthenia remains specified as an Exclusion to Generalized anxiety disorder (currently Chapter 06) and to Fatigue (currently Chapter 20) but this may be an oversight.]

You can view the entry for Bodily distress disorder here, in the Foundation Linearization, which also displays a Definition, Synonyms and Exclusions:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/767044268

(Click on the small grey arrow to the left of the BDD category term to display the three severity specifiers.)

+++

Current ICD-11 Definition:

A Definition for Bodily distress disorder was inserted around four months ago, but there are no definitions or characterizations inserted yet for any of the three severity specifiers (BDD Mild, Moderate, Severe).

The Definition for Bodily distress disorder remains the same as previously reported:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f767044268

“Bodily distress disorder is characterized by high levels of preoccupation regarding bodily symptoms, unusually frequent or persistent medical help-seeking, and avoidance of normal activities for fear of damaging the body. These features are sufficiently persistent and distressing to lead to impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning. The most common symptoms include pain (including musculoskeletal and chest pains, backache, headaches), fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, and respiratory symptoms, although patients may be preoccupied with any bodily symptoms. Bodily distress disorder most commonly involves multiple bodily symptoms, though some cases involve a single very bothersome symptom (usually pain or fatigue).”

The psychological and behavioural features that characterize the disorder, as per this definition, are drawn from disorder conceptualizations in the 2012 Creed, Gureje paper on emerging proposals for Bodily distress disorder.

The paper described a disorder model with good concordance with DSM-5’s Somatic symptom disorder construct and poor concordance with Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome construct [1,2].

+++

In sum:

At the point of publishing this post, we can say that the public version of the Beta draft displays:

 a single Bodily distress disorder category with three uniquely coded (but as yet uncharacterized) severities replacing all the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders between F45.0 – F45.9 and ICD-10’s Neurasthenia (F48.0);

that the ICD-10 legacy terms, somatoform disorders (F45) and Somatization disorder (F45.0), are listed under Synonyms and under Index Terms to Bodily distress disorder.

Update at June 6, 2014: The ICD-10 legacy terms, Somatoform disorders and somatization disorder are no longer listed under Index Terms to Bodily distress disorder in the Beta drafting platform and print version of the Alphabetical Index but remain listed under Synonyms. Both terms have been relocated under Index Terms to 6B4Z Bodily distress disorder, unspecified.

that ICD-10’s Neurasthenia is no longer displaying in any Linearization and may remain proposed to be eliminated for ICD-11 (but remains anomalously specified in two chapters as an Exclusion term);

that an ICD-11 Definition for Bodily distress disorder has been entered into the draft, the wording for which is based on disorder conceptualizations in the 2012 paper: Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;24(6):556-67.

Apart from scrutinizing the Definition, that is all we can safely determine about the current, proposed construct of Bodily distress disorder, in the context of ICD-11’s deployment of the term, solely from the content of the public version of the Beta drafting platform.

I’ll be writing more about this Definition and the 2012 proposals by both ICD-11 working groups in the next post (Post #308).

These recent changes are a good example of why the public version of the Beta drafting platform needs to be viewed with the WHO’s caveats in mind – the draft is in a state of flux, it is incomplete, it contains errors, omissions and anomalies and is subject to frequent rejiggery.

The entry for BDD may undergo further changes over the coming year or so and following field trials evaluation.

+++

iCAT ICD Collaborative authoring platform:

Note that ICD Revision staff and external editors are developing the draft on a separate, multi-authoring electronic platform called “iCAT ICD Collaborative authoring tool” — a platform considerably more technically sophisticated than the version of the draft that the public sees. In the editors’ version, more Content Model parameters display and there are tabs for change histories, category notes and discussions, and for reviews of proposals. 

So revisions to category chapter locations, hierarchies, internal and external peer review of proposals, drafting and revisions of textual content and rationales for these revisions can be tracked by users of the platform with editing rights or viewing access. The absence of this level of detail in the public version of the draft makes it very difficult for stakeholders to monitor changes and rationales for changes, or to account for missing or no longer displaying category terms.

iCAT ICD Collaborative authoring platform screencast:

This link ICD-11 iCAT screencast will open a 1:55 minute animated screencast intended as a demo for iCAT users but in the public domain. It shows the iCAT platform that the Managing Editors for the various chapters of ICD-11 are developing the draft on. Note the larger number of function tabs along the top of the screen and at 17 secs in, note the larger number of Content Model tabs load under “Details for Test 1” in the category description pane, on the right.

What you see in the Beta draft is a cut down version for public viewing and public interaction that omits many of the functions and much of the detail of the ICD Revision iCAT platform.

To be continued in Post #308.

+++
References:

1. Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;24(6):556-67. [Abstract: PMID: 23244611]

2. Fink P, Schröder A. One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders. J Psychosom Res. 2010 May;68(5):415-26. [Abstract: PMID: 20403500].

Global creep of DSM-5’s Somatic symptom disorder

Post #303 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3Qq

Update at April 14, 2014:

Written response (April 10, 2014) from Independent Hospital Pricing Authority (IHPA) to request for clarification regarding the term ‘Somatic symptom disorder’ and Australia’s clinical modification of ICD-10, ICD-10-AM:

PDF: IHPA response re SSD and ICD-10-AM


 

As previously posted:

In the previous posting Update on proposal to add DSM-5′s Somatic symptom disorder to ICD-10-CM I reported that NCHS is preparing to rubber stamp proposals to insert Somatic symptom disorder into the U.S.’s forthcoming clinical modification of ICD-10.

Comments/objections to Diagnosis Agenda proposals submitted at the March meeting need to be sent by email to NCHS at nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov by June 20th.

1] According to this Australian legislative document:

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L00304

Australian Government, Statement of Principles concerning somatic symptom disorder No. 24 of 2014

for the purposes of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004

“Somatic symptom disorder attracts ICD-10-AM code F45.1.”

For the purposes of the Statement of Principles:

“ICD-10-AM code” means a number assigned to a particular kind of injury or disease in The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM), Eighth Edition, effective date of 1 July 2013, copyrighted by the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, and having ISBN 978-1-74128-213-9;”

The Australian ICD-10-CM, Eighth Edition, July 2013 is not in the public domain. As I do not have access to a copy, I have contacted the relevant body for clarifications.

I have asked whether Somatic symptom disorder has been added to the Eighth Edition of ICD-10-AM as an Inclusion term to F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder in the Tabular List and Alphabetical Index.

Or, whether this legislative document relies on the ICD cross-walk codes as published in the DSM-5 in May 2013 for the cross-walk between DSM-5 disorders and the disorders in the U.S.’s ICD-9-CM and forthcoming ICD-10-CM.

Or, whether the legislative document relies on a cross-walk between DSM-5 disorders and ICD-10-AM codes developed specifically in relation to the ICD-10-AM Eighth Edition, July 2013.

I will update this post when I have received clarification.

According to this page: http://nccc.uow.edu.au/icd10am-achi-acs/overview/icd10am/index.html

“[Australia’s] ICD-10-AM has also enjoyed more widespread use, having been assessed, found suitable and adopted by many other countries, including: New Zealand, Ireland, Singapore, Slovenia.”

I am unable to confirm how many countries that have adopted ICD-10-AM have migrated from earlier editions to the July 2013 edition or are preparing to migrate to the most recent edition.

Other clinical modifications (CMs) of ICD-10:

Canada (ICD-10-CA): The most recent edition of ICD-10-CA is the 2009 edition Volume One: Tabular List 2009. Canada is anticipated to adopt a CM of ICD-11 before the U.S. does, but in meantime, an updated edition of ICD-10-CA might be anticipated, especially given the recent extension to the ICD-11 development timeline. Canadians will need to be alert to the potential for addition of SSD as an inclusion term to the next edition of ICD-10-CA.

Germany (ICD-10-GM): There is an ICD-10-GM version for 2014. There is no SSD under F45.x or under any other code, but watch for any updated versions released prior to transition to a CM of ICD-11.

Thailand (ICD-10-TM): There does not appear to be a more recent version of the Thai clinical modification than the online version for 2007, but watch for SSD in any updated versions prior to potential transition to a CM of ICD-11. ICD-10-TM Online version for 2007.

ICD-11 Beta drafting platform:

There is no documentary evidence of a proposal to add SSD, per se, to ICD-11. However, the wording for the Definition for Bodily distress disorder, as it currently stands in the Beta drafting platform, is drawn from the Gureje, Creed 2012 paper on the S3DWG sub working group’s emerging proposals for ICD-11 [1].

The paper described a simplified disorder framework – a construct into which DSM-5′s Somatic Symptom Disorder could be comfortably integrated, thus facilitating harmonization between the respective ICD-11 and DSM-5 disorder construct and criteria replacements for the Somatoform disorders classifications.

As with DSM-5′s SSD, for the emerging proposals for BDD, the focus was not on symptoms counts, or on strict symptom patterns or clusters from one or more body systems, or on whether symptoms were determined as being “medically explained” or “medically unexplained,” but on the perception of disproportionate or maladaptive psychobehavioural responses to, or excessive preoccupation with any troublesome chronic bodily symptom(s). And that in doing away with the “unreliable assumption of its causality” the diagnosis of BDD would not exclude the presence of a co-occurring physical health condition – which is very close to SSD’s defining characteristics.

1. Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;24(6):556-67. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23244611 [Abstract. Full text behind paywall]

2] On the Patient.co.uk site, a peer reviewed article on Somatic symptom disorder:

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/somatic-symptom-disorder

This article is not a recommendation and it draws heavily on the DSM-IV and current ICD-10 Somatoform disorders framework, criteria and literature. Though it does highlight that DSM-5 has a new, simplified framework and reformulated criteria that rely less on strict patterns of somatic symptoms and more on the degree to which a patient’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours about their symptoms are considered disproportionate or excessive; that for DSM-5, “medically unexplained” is de-emphasized – symptoms may or may not be associated with another medical condition and patients with organic comorbidities such as heart disease, osteoarthritis or cancer, who would have previously been excluded under DSM-IV, can now be included in the diagnosis of SSD.

There is little published research examining the reliability, utility, epidemiology, clinical characteristics or treatment of Somatic symptom disorder as a diagnostic construct and none of the article’s references are for papers specifically using the new Somatic symptom disorder criteria.

3] Somatic symptom disorder in a BMJ Rapid Response:

Rapid Response to: Clinical Review, Fibromyalgia by Anisur Rahman, Martin Underwood, Dawn Carnes [Full text for Clinical Review behind paywall]

http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g1224/rr/689294

Rapid Response: Fibromyalgia: an unhelpful diagnosis for both patients and doctors [Full text for Rapid Response accessible]

Christopher Bass, consultant in liaison psychiatry, John Radcliffe Hospital , Oxford OX3 9DU

Dr Max Henderson, senior lecturer in Epidemiology and Occupational psychiatry, Inststitute of psychiatry, Kings College London 

According to the authors, fibromyalgia ( coded in ICD-10 under Chapter XXIII Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue, at M79.7 ) is more appropriately described in terms of “polysymptomatic distress”; “polysymptomatic distress has been recognised as a somatoform disorder, specifically as a somatic symptom disorder or SSD,” and that since “FM overlaps with other disorders with medically unexplained symptoms such as irritable bowel syndrome and chronic fatigue syndrome” it is more appropriate to treat them with multidisciplinary teams within the same specialised service in the general hospital.

4] This commentary by infectious disease specialist, Judy Stone, MD, at Scientific American blogs, mentions concerns around SSD:

Have Pain? Are You Crazy? Rare Diseases Pt. 2

By Judy Stone | February 18, 2014

“It’s all in your head,” patients with unexplained pain or unexpected symptoms often hear…

5] Halifax Somatic Symptoms Disorder Trial

http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02076867

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02076867

Sponsor: Capital District Health Authority, Canada

The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy (ISTDP) plus Medical Care As Usual (MCAU) compared to MCAU for Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders (SSRD). Consenting patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected SSRD will be randomly allocated to receive either 8 weekly individual sessions of ISTDP or to an 8-week wait list followed by ISTDP. MCAU including emergency department and/or family doctor consultation is available throughout trial participation. The primary outcome measure is participant self-reported somatic symptoms at week 8.

 

Update on proposal to add DSM-5’s Somatic symptom disorder to ICD-10-CM

Post #302 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3PE

Update at April 5, 2014: Implementation of the U.S.’s forthcoming adaptation of ICD-10, ICD-10-CM, has been kicked further down the road to no earlier than October 1, 2015.

Bill H.R. 4302, known as the PAM Act (Protecting Access to Medicare Act), was signed into law by President Obama on April 1, 2014. This means that the U.S. cannot now transition from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM on October 1, 2014. CMS has yet to issue a full statement, update its webpages and issue guidelines for a new implementation date. No statement has yet been made concerning the impact of this legislation on the timeline for the ICD-10-CM update process during a partial code freeze.

Update at April 5, 2014: The Summary of the March 19–20, 2014 meeting of the ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting has now been posted

Lots of “outrage” over SSD and DSM-5 but I see little evidence of sustained “outrage” over proposals to add SSD as an Inclusion term to the U.S.’s ICD-10-CM.

If NCHS rubber stamps the addition of Somatic Symptom Disorder to ICD-10-CM it could leverage the future replacement of the existing Somatoform disorders categories with this new, poorly validated single SSD diagnostic construct, bringing ICD-10-CM in line with DSM-5.

There are implications for ICD-11, too.

Once SSD is inserted into ICD-10-CM, the presence of this term within the U.S. adaptation of ICD-10 may make it easier for ICD-11 Revision Steering Group to justify proposals to replace the existing ICD-10 Somatoform disorders categories with a single, new ICD construct contrived to incorporate SSD-like characteristics and facilitate harmonization between ICD-11 and DSM-5 disorder terms and diagnostic criteria.

+++
This post updates on proposals at the March meeting of the ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee to add DSM-5’s controversial new Somatic symptom disorder as an Inclusion term to ICD-10-CM.

But first, a necessary recap of the September 2013 meeting:

ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee meetings provide a public forum to discuss proposed changes to the U.S.’s forthcoming ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS, scheduled for implementation on October 1, 2014 to be confirmed.

The public meetings, which are co-chaired by representatives for CMS and NCHS, take place in March and September and are followed by public comment periods.

The fall meeting of the ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee was held on September 18–19, 2013.

On Day Two of the September meeting, American Psychiatric Association’s Darrel Regier, MD, had proposed six new DSM-5 disorders for inclusion in ICD-10-CM.

On Page 45 and 46 of the Diagnosis Agenda, under Additional Tabular List Inclusion Terms for ICD-10-CM, a number of other changes to specific Chapter 5 F codes had also been proposed. These were introduced en masse, by CDC’s Donna Picket. (Reached on Day Two, at 1:22:21 in from the start of Videocast Four.)

This section of the Diagnosis Agenda included the proposals to add the new DSM-5 disorders: Somatic symptom disorder (proposed to Add as an Inclusion term to F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder) and Illness anxiety disorder (proposed to Add as Inclusion term to F45.21 Hypochondriasis) to ICD-10-CM’s Chapter 5 codes.

(F45.1 and F45.21 are the ICD-10-CM codes to which these two new APA disorders are already cross-walked in the DSM-5.)

ICD10CM 4

Source: Page 45, Diagnosis Agenda (Topic Packet), September 18–19, 2013 ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting

+++
Videocasts of the entire September 2013 meeting proceedings, Diagnosis Agenda (Topic Packet), Procedural Agenda, Meeting materials etc can be found in Dx Revision Watch Post #277.

Note: there was no proposal at the September 2013 meeting to create a unique code for either Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) or Illness anxiety disorder, for either 2014 or October 1, 2015 implementation, and no proposal that Somatic symptom disorder should replace or subsume any of the existing ICD-10-CM F45.x Somatoform disorders. Note also, these proposals are specific to the forthcoming U.S. clinical modification of ICD-10.

In relation to the section of the Agenda on Pages 45 and 46, CDC’s, Donna Picket, had stated:

1:22:21 in: Diagnosis Agenda: “Additional Tabular List Inclusion Terms for ICD-10-CM”
Donna Pickett (CDC): “…And just to complete the package, there are other Tabular List proposals that appear on Page 45 and 46 that we would also invite your comments on. And again, with some of the terminology changes that Dr Regier has described the intent here is to make sure that if those terms are being used, that they do have a home somewhere within ICD-10-CM to facilitate people looking these up. So we invite comments. We’re showing the Tabular List proposed changes; however, there obviously would be associated Alphabetic Index changes with that which we didn’t show just to keep the package a little bit smaller…”
Source: [Unofficial transcription from Video Four, September 2013 ICD-9-CM C & M Committee meeting.]

There were no questions or comments from the floor or by phone link on any of the proposals listed on Pages 45 and 46 under “Additional Tabular List Inclusion Terms for ICD-10-CM” and no discussion or queries on any of the individual proposals listed under under this section of the Agenda between the meeting co-chairs and APA’s, Dr Regier.

NCHS’s decision on proposals to add Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) and Illness anxiety disorder as Inclusion terms to ICD-10-CM Tabular List Chapter 5, and to also add to the Index, isn’t known and may not be evident until the next ICD-10-CM Addenda is released, later this year, or until the Final Addenda released.

Some of the objections that were submitted last year to the proposal to add Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) as an Inclusion term in ICD-10-CM at the September 2013 meeting are collated on Dx Revision Watch here.

+++

March 2014 meeting of the ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee

This meeting took place on March 19–20, 2014. I was unable to attend as I live in the UK.

The ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM Timeline and Diagnosis and Procedure Codes Agenda (Topic Packet) can be found here, on the CDC website:

Proposals (Topic Packet) March 19-20, 2014

Procedure Agenda, Meeting Materials and Handouts can be downloaded from Zip files here, on the CMS website:

Meeting Materials March 19-20, 2014

A Summary Report of the Diagnosis part of the meeting is scheduled to be posted on the NCHS website, in June.

A Summary Report of the Procedure part of the meeting is scheduled to be posted on the CMS website, in June.

April 17, 2014: Deadline for receipt of public comments on proposed procedure code revisions discussed at the March 19, 2014 ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting for implementation on October 1, 2014.

June 20, 2014: Deadline for receipt of public comments on proposed code revisions discussed at the March 19–20 meeting for implementation on October 1, 2015.

ICD-10-CM is currently subject to a partial code freeze. During the freeze, the public will be asked to comment on whether or not a proposal should be approved, and if not, why; and whether requests for new diagnosis or procedure codes should be created based on the criteria of the need to capture a new technology or disease. Any code requests that do not meet the criteria will be evaluated for implementation within ICD-10-CM on and after October 1, 2015 to be confirmed once the partial freeze has lifted.

Comments on the diagnosis proposals presented at the ICD Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting should be sent, preferably by email, to the following address by June 20th deadline: nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov

+++

The Two Day proceedings were streamed live and can be watched on YouTube:

Video One: Day One: Morning Session: Procedural Codes: 2014 Mar 19th, FY 2014 ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee

+++
Video Two: Day One: Afternoon Session: Procedural Codes: 2014 Mar 19th, FY 2014 ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee

+++
Video Three: Day Two: Diagnosis Codes: 2014 Mar 20th, FY 2014 ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee

+++
Page 64, Topic Packet: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/Topic_packet_3_19_2014.pdf

[Extract]

Chapter 5 Addenda

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) proposes the following addenda changes to the ICD-10-CM Tabular and Index, specifically to Chapter 5, Mental, Behavioral and Neurodevelopmental disorders (F01-F99).

The APA indicates that these revisions are necessary because DSM-5 contains several new diagnoses, as well as new disorder titles, that do not map well to any existing ICD-10-CM codes.

Because of this, they are proposing numerous new index entries and tabular inclusion terms to ensure that coders can correctly identify the codes to use. The APA proposes that these changes will also ensure that new DSM-5 disorder titles correspond to a valid ICD-10-CM code.

Many of the changes in the proposed addenda relate to the reconceptualization of the substance use disorders from having separate disorder names and codes for substance abuse and dependence. However, extensive scientific evidence was assembled to show that, rather than existing as two separate disorders, these conditions exist on a spectrum that the APA has now conceptualized as ranging from mild to moderate to severe. In order to make the closest approximations with existing ICD-10-CM codes, it is noted that codes for mild substance use disorders correspond to the abuse codes and codes for moderate and severe substance use disorders correspond to dependence codes. The APA may recommend changes in the structure and names of ICD-10-CM substance related disorders, in the future, however at the present time they are only recommending the addition of the new terminology as inclusion terms.

The following addenda are proposed for implementation on October 1, 2015

[…]

1:12:12 in from start of YouTube Three: Chapter 5 Addenda Proposed Tabular Modifications.

1:12:12 Beth Fisher (CMS): Introduces proposals for [Tabular] modifications from APA for Chapter 5. These are all Addenda type changes because [ICD-10-CM is] in code freeze mode, we didn’t have the opportunity to do new codes just yet. Hands podium to Darrel Regier, MD.

1:13:01 Darrel Regier (APA): Mapping DSM-5 to ICD-10-CM codes; Major change to rename Dementias group to Major Neurocognitive Disorders, because including in this group some neurocognitive deficit conditions such as Traumatic brain injury and other neurocognitive disorders that are not inherently some of the neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Picks Disease. (Page 64 Diagnosis Agenda)

1:14:02 Darrel Regier (APA): We’ve also introduced [in DSM-5] a Mild neurocognitive disorder that reflects the Mild cognitive impairment, MCI, that is currently in ICD-9, ICD-10…

1:15:06 Darrel Regier (APA): A lot of significant changes to substance abuse disorder area which will require some notes and guidelines…

1:15:27 Darrel Regier (APA): [APA has] a number of new disorders…15 new disorders that are in the DSM-5, but there were 50 disorders that were actually subsumed into a spectrum of conditions that dropped the total number of disorders by something like 28; so you had 50 disorders that collapsed into 22 disorders. Among those, some of the most prominent – Aspergers, Autism, Pervasive developmental disorder NOS, into a single Autism spectrum disorder…assessed on two domains…assessed in terms of level of severity instead of categorical distinctions…

1:17:04 Darrel Regier (APA): Eliminating distinction between abuse and dependence so that on a continuum of Mild, Moderate, Severe…no strict separation between abuse category and dependence…

1:21:00: Question from floor re Alcohol abuse, Alcohol dependence.

1:31:15 Beth Fisher (CDC): Some of these Inclusion terms may have been proposed at September 2013 meeting. (But does not explain the reason for their being resubmitted at the March meeting.)

1:31:34 Beth Fisher (CDC): Begins running through all Addenda Additions.

1:31:42 Beth Fisher (CDC): At F44 Dissociative and conversion disorders, Add Conversion disorder, in parenthesis, functional neurological symptom disorder as Inclusion term.

March 2014 C and M meeting Conversion disorder (FNSD)

Source: ICD-10-CM C & M Committee meeting, March 20, 2014, Screenshot Video Three

Note, there was no proposal under these Proposed Tabular Modifications to Add Somatic symptom disorder as Inclusion term to F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder to the Tabular List. But the proposal to Add Somatic symptom disorder as an Inclusion term to F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder to the Tabular List and to the Alphabetical Index had been proposed at the September 2013 meeting.

Also, no proposal to Add Illness anxiety disorder to the Tabular List, but again, this had been proposed at the September 2013 meeting (under F45.21), for both the Tabular List and the Index. (Decisions on all four of these September 2013 meeting proposals are unknown.)

1:34:06 Beth Fisher (CMS): Concludes proposed Addenda Additions to Chapter 5 Tabular List.

1:34:12 Beth Fisher (CMS) Moves onto Proposed Index Modifications from Page 82, Topic Packet.

1:42:36 Beth Fisher (CMS) Page 89: [Under main Index term “Disorder”] And then Somatic symptom disorder to F45.1.

Page 89, Diagnosis Agenda Add Somatic symptom disorder

March14 ICD-10-CM Cand M SSD to Index

Source: ICD-10-CM C & M Committee meeting, March 20, 2014, Screenshot Video Three

(No comments from floor regarding proposal to Add SSD to Index, or queries in respect of outcome of September meeting proposals. It was not feasible for me to participate in this meeting via phone link from UK to query.)

Note, there was no proposal under Proposed Index Modifications to add Illness anxiety disorder to the Index, but this proposal had been included in the September 2013 Topic Packet. Why SSD has been resubmitted for consideration for addition to the Index at the March 2014 meeting is unclear, and as I say, the outcome of proposals for the September meeting for both SSD and IAD to be added to both Tabular List and to Index is unknown.

1:44:25 Beth Fisher (CMS): Concludes proposed Addenda Additions to Chapter 5 Alphabetical Index. Invites comments.

1:44:26: Questions from floor regarding Alcohol; Cannabis; Cocaine use; Implications for legal differences between states for use of cannabis. Question regarding Neurodegeneration due to alcohol.

1:50.02 Beth Fisher (CMS): Other Addenda (Ed: presumably Tab and Index Addenda on pp 91–93 and 93–97) were reached on Day One, as there was time, so not being presenting on Day Two. Invites further comments.

1:50.27 Donna Picket (CDC): Adjourns meeting. Reminds floor (and participants via phone link/videocasts and non attendees), to submit comments on Diagnosis proposals by June 20 deadline.

1:51:07 Question from floor: Process question: if these proposals are all approved, when will they be approved and when will they be effective, because we want to notify our members of what codes to use?

1:51:32: Donna Pickett (CDC): All of these being presented were for consideration for implementation in October 1, 2015. Within 2015, we have a huge body of work that has been accumulating during partial code freeze and we’ve encouraged comments to come in about the timing for making the Final Addenda available. The typical time frame we have used in the past is posting [Addenda] in June and proposals to become effective October 1, of that same year. However, issues have arisen because there is a huge body of work and it was mentioned, yesterday, [during Meeting Day One] that the industry may want to have an Addenda released earlier and we invited comment on that, because of the amount of work that would need to go into incorporating the changes into the relevant systems and programs etc. If we were to stay with the traditional process, the Addenda would be made available in June. Meeting concluded.

Comments on the diagnosis proposals presented at the ICD-10-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting should be sent, preferably by email, to the following address by June 20th deadline: nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov

Proposals and evidence for the ICD-11 classification of Bodily Distress Disorders: WHO ICD-11 Symposium IV, WPA XVI World Congress, Madrid

Post #299 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3Oe

Update at March 16, 2014: I am advised that Justice For Karina Hansen on Facebook has added a note of correction to its Facebook post.

BDD 240214

Image source: Chapter 06: Bodily distress disorder > Somatization disorder, ICD-11 Beta drafting platform at March 17, 2014

I am still seeing considerable confusion, misunderstanding and misreporting around what can and what cannot be determined from the public version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform on emerging proposals for revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform disorders.

Two recent examples: a media report (since pulled) and an incorrect statement posted by an admin for the Justice For Karina Hansen Facebook page:

“We are sad to share that bodily distress syndrome has made it one step closer to being part of the ICD. It appeared january 29th on ICD-11 Beta Drafting Platform…”

No. It didn’t.

The term Bodily distress syndrome does not appear in the public version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform.

The term entered into the Beta draft is Bodily distress disorder.

Bodily distress disorder did not appear in the Beta draft on January 29. It was entered into the draft, two years ago, in February 2012.

January 29 is the date on which I reported that an ICD-11 “Short Definition” had recently been inserted for the (long-standing) entry for a proposed Bodily distress disorder category.

If you have already written about proposals for the revision of the Somatoform disorders in the context of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform or if you are planning to write, please read this post.

If writing about complex classificatory revision processes, I suggest you first familiarize yourself with how the several ICD-11 Beta drafting platform linearizations function and interrelate; that you inform yourself about the proposals of both ICD-11 working groups charged with making recommendations for potential revision of the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders, including obtaining and scrutinizing key journal papers, reports or presentations on emerging proposals published by members of both working groups; and that for comparison, you have an understanding of the existing F45 Somatoform disorders framework and the disorder descriptions and criteria for categories located within this section of ICD-10, in order that you can provide evidenced based, accurate and up to date information and analysis, within the limitations of what information is public domain.

Reiteration of misinformation and inaccurate reporting on blogs, websites and social media platforms helps no-one. It delegitimizes patient and carer concerns; it undermines the work of advocates committed to providing accurate, referenced and timely information; it panics patients and provokes knee jerk “activism” and “slacktivism.”

And if you are shrugging and thinking Ho, hum, the (undefined) term, Bodily distress disorder and Fink et al’s (operationalized) Bodily Distress Syndrome are sometimes used interchangeably outside of ICD-11, so… ICD-11’s proposed flavour of BDD must mean that a similar disorder model to Fink’s BDS is intended in the Beta draft, read on…

Please note that it is not within the scope of this post to review or discuss the implications for retaining the ICD-10 status quo for ICD-11, or for adopting SSD-like or BDS-like constructs (or any variations on all three) – but to set out what can and what cannot safely be determined from the Beta draft and associated literature.

+++
Key points for this report:

• In September, Oye Gureje, who chairs the ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders, will be presenting on “Proposals and evidence for the ICD-11 classification of Bodily Distress Disorders” as part of a series of ICD-11 Symposia at the World Psychiatric Association’s XVI World Congress, in Madrid.

• There are two working groups advising ICD-11 on the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform disorders

The Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG);

The ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG).

• In 2012, the PCCG published a paper proposing a new disorder construct to replace ICD-10-PHC’s F45 “Unexplained somatic symptoms/medically unexplained symptoms” which the group proposed to call Bodily stress syndrome (BSS) [1]. 

F48 Neurasthenia was also proposed to be eliminated for the ICD-11-PHC.

• In 2012, the PCCG’s Bodily stress syndrome category was proposed to sit under a new Mental and behavioural disorder grouping called Body distress disorders, under which were grouped three other, unrelated disorders, like so:

Extract: 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 [Free PDF, Sample Chapter Two] [2]

Page 51, Table 2.5 The 28 Disorders Proposed for ICD11-PHC (the abridged Primary Care version of ICD-11)

Body distress disorders

15 Bodily stress syndrome [Replaces F45 Unexplained somatic symptoms/medically unexplained symptoms]
16 Acute stress reaction
17 Dissociative disorder
18 Self-harm

[F48 Neurasthenia proposed to be eliminated for ICD11-PHC]

So the PCCG group were proposing the use of a new term, Body [sic] distress disorders, as a disorder group name for a number of unrelated ICD-11-PHC primary care disorders, whilst proposing the term Bodily stress syndrome as a new ICD-11-PHC disorder category listed under that group.

[Leaving aside the issue of the current lack of evidence for the validity, reliability and utility of the BSS construct, this presents providers, payers, coders and patients with potentially confusing terminology. Given there is already an operationalized definition and criteria for Bodily Distress Syndrome, WHO classification experts should have qualms about the potential for confusion between disorder group names and disorder category names, and between proposed disorder names that sound similar to, but which may lack conceptual congruency with similarly named disorders for which definitions and criteria have already been published and which are already in limited use in research and clinical settings.]

• In 2012, the PCCG’s tentative new BSS disorder drew heavily on Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome’s (BDS) construct and criteria. Based on physical symptom clusters or patterns from various body systems and (theoretically) on the autonomic arousal or “over-arousal” illness model.

Though not explicit, BSS appeared to have the capacity for capturing the so-called functional somatic syndromes; and in common with BDS, if the symptoms “were better accounted for by a known physical disease this is not BSS.”

But the tentative BSS criteria also featured some DSM-5 SSD-like psychobehavioural characteristics, which do not form part of Fink et al’s BDS criteria. There were other, minor criteria discrepancies between BSS and BDS.

• In 2012, the second working group, the S3DWG, also published a paper presenting a new disorder construct which they proposed to call Bodily distress disorder (BDD) [3]. Again, a similar term to one already in use.

The S3DWG group proposed to subsume all of the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders categories of F45.0 – F45.9, plus F48.0 Neurasthenia, under a new, single BDD disorder category, with a number of severity specifiers (initially, Mild, Moderate and Severe).

• But the S3DWG’s emerging BDD construct was quite different to the PCCG group’s BSS. It was characterized by a simplified criteria set based on excessive preoccupation and psychobehavioural responses to single or multiple, non specific bodily symptoms. The BDD construct shared characteristics with DSM-5’s Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) – not with Fink et al’s BDS.

• In common with DSM-5’s SSD, the BDD diagnosis eliminated the “unreliable assumption of causality” and did not exclude the presence of a co-occurring physical health condition. BDD, as described in the 2012 Gureje, Creed paper, and Fink et al’s BDS are divergent constructs.

• So by late 2012, there were two sets of recommendations – BSS, drawing heavily on Fink’s BDS model, but with a nod towards DSM-5’s SSD, and BDD – with notable similarity to DSM-5’s SSD.

• In early 2012, the disorder name entered into the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform was Bodily distress disorder, (not Bodily stress syndrome or Bodily Distress Syndrome). No Definition for BDD was added at the time.

• In early 2014, a Definition for Bodily distress disorder was inserted into the Beta drafting platform. The Definition wording was drawn from the Gureje, Creed (S3DWG) 2012 BDD paper, which had described an SSD-like disorder construct.

• There is currently insufficient evidence in the Beta drafting platform to assert that, in the context of ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, BDD is being defined as a BDS-like construct. The defining BDD characteristics: 

high levels of preoccupation regarding bodily symptoms;
unusually frequent or persistent medical help-seeking;
avoidance of normal activities for fear of damaging the body;

are psychological and behavioural responses. Psychological and behavioural responses are not required for Fink et al’s BDS and these characteristics have greater congruency with DSM-5 SSD’s “B type”criteria. There is no evident requirement for symptom patterns or clusters from one or more body systems, as required to meet BDS criteria; examples of BDD symptoms are non specific and patients may be “preoccupied with any bodily symptoms.”

From the limited content displaying in the Beta draft, it simply isn’t possible to determine that BDD, in the context of ICD-11 Beta draft usage, is being defined as a Fink et al BDS-like disorder construct.

An additional layer of complexity: recently, the BDD severity specifier “Severe bodily distress disorder” has been removed from the draft and ICD-10’s Somatization disorder reinserted. Neurasthenia, previously proposed by both groups to be eliminated or subsumed for ICD-11, has also been inserted back into the Mental and behavioural disorders chapter, which is (currently numbered Chapter 06).

Neurasthenia240214

Image source: Chapter 06: Neurasthenia, ICD-11 Beta drafting platform at March 17, 2014

The Definition assigned to Somatization disorder remains unrevised from legacy text recently imported, unedited, from ICD-10. It is currently unclear how Somatization disorder and Neurasthenia are now intended to integrate within the core ICD-11 and the ICD-11 Primary Care framework, given that a new, single disorder construct had earlier been proposed by both groups to subsume Somatization disorder and all of the ICD-10 Somatoform Disorders categories between F45.0 – F45.9, and to subsume F48.0 Neurasthenia.

No other F45.x categories have been restored to the Beta draft. (There is a reference in the legacy Definition for Somatization disorder to F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder but this text has yet to be edited from the text as it had stood under ICD-10’s Somatoform disorders framework.) 

• The development of a replacement for the ICD-10 Somatoform Disorders is a work in progress and proposals may go through several iterations over the next two or three years. The two groups may or may not be striving to reach consensus. The construct favoured by ICD-11 Revision Steering Group may or may not be the construct that is put out for initial field testing.

• Without full disorder descriptions, criteria, inclusions, exclusions, differential diagnoses etc, there is currently insufficient content in the Beta drafting platform to determine the precise nature of whatever construct and criteria is currently favoured by ICD-11 Revision Steering Group; or whether the two groups have reached consensus over a new disorder name and concept; or whether and to what extent the groups’ two (divergent) constructs have been revised since publication of their respective 2012 papers.

Possibly the ICD-11 Symposium IV presentation, later this year, in Madrid, may elucidate. If there is a transcript, summary report or presentation slides of Dr Oye Gureje’s presentation to the World Psychiatric Association XVI World Congress in September, I will post presentation materials, when available. There are some additional notes below the WPA XVI World Congress details.

+++

The World Psychiatric Association’s XVI World Congress of Psychiatry will be held in Madrid, on September 14–18, 2014.

XVI World Congress of Psychiatry website: http://www.wpamadrid2014.com/

There will be a number of Symposia dedicated to the development of ICD-11

Scientific Programme

Topic 10. Diagnostic Systems (Updated)

Proposals Diagnostic Systems

Extracts:

Page 2:

000464 WHO ICD-11 Symposium I: An overview of the World Health Organization’s development of the ICD-11 classification of mental and behavioural disorders

000466: WHO ICD-11 Symposium III: Proposals and Evidence for ICD-11 – Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Disruptive Behaviour

000468: WHO ICD-11 Symposium IV: Proposals and Evidence for ICD-11– Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Primary Psychotic Disorders, Mood Disorders, Anxiety Disorders, and Common Mental Disorders in Primary Care

[…]

Speaker: Goldberg, David P., King’s College London – UK

Proposals and evidence for the ICD-11 classification of mental and behavioural disorders in primary care (ICD-11 PHC)

000469: WHO ICD-11 Symposium V: Proposals and Evidence for ICD-11 – Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders, Disorders Specifically Associated with Stress, Bodily Distress Disorders, and Dissociative Disorders

[…]

Speaker: Gureje, Oye, University of Idaban – NG

Proposals and evidence for the ICD-11 classification of Bodily Distress Disorders

Notes:

The ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group:

The 12 member PCCG leads the development and field testing of the revision of all 28 mental and behavioural disorders proposed for inclusion in the next ICD primary care classification (ICD-11-PHC), an abridged version of the core ICD-11 classification. Per Fink’s colleague, Marianne Rosendal, is a member of the PCCG group.

The members of the PCCG are: SWC Chan, AC Dowell, S Fortes, L Gask, D Goldberg (Chair), KS Jacob, M Klinkman (Vice Chair), TP Lam, JK Mbatia, FA Minhas, G Reed, and M Rosendal.

New disorders that survive the primary care field tests must have an equivalent disorder in the main ICD-11 classification.

The PCCG’s 2012 paper on emerging proposals for BSS and international focus group responses to these tentative proposals can be accessed for free here:

http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/76.long

http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/76.full.pdf+html

+++
The ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders:

The second sub working group advising on the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform Disorders is the 17 member Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG).

The S3DWG is chaired by Prof Oye Gureje. DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD) work group member, Prof Francis Creed, is a member of this group. Other than Athula Sumathipala, MD, PhD (UK) and Joan E. Broderick, PhD (Stony Brook University, NY) all other members of this sub working group have yet to be identified. Their names are not listed in the Gureje, Creed 2012 paper [3] and a list of members is not available from the ICD Revision website.

The term entered into the Beta draft is Bodily distress disorder not Bodily stress syndrome or Bodily Distress Syndrome.

Current Definition for Bodily distress disorder, as displaying in the Beta draft at March 16, 2014:

Bodily distress disorder is characterized by high levels of preoccupation regarding bodily symptoms, unusually frequent or persistent medical help-seeking, and avoidance of normal activities for fear of damaging the body. These features are sufficiently persistent and distressing to lead to impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning. The most common symptoms include pain (including musculoskeletal and chest pains, backache, headaches), fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, and respiratory symptoms, although patients may be preoccupied with any bodily symptoms. Bodily distress disorder most commonly involves multiple bodily symptoms, though some cases involve a single very bothersome symptom (usually pain or fatigue).

This BDD Definition wording is based – in some places verbatim – on the construct descriptions presented in the Gureje, Creed (S3DWG) “Emerging themes…” paper, published in late 2012 [3]. Unfortunately this journal paper remains behind a paywall but I do have a copy.

Extract, Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012:

“…At the time of preparing this review, a major highlight of the proposals of the S3DWG for the revision of the ICD-10 somatoform disorders is that of subsuming all of the ICD-10 categories of F45.0 – F45.9 and F48.0 under a single category with a new name of ‘bodily distress disorder’ (BDD).

“In the proposal, BDD is defined as ‘A disorder characterized by high levels of preoccupation related to bodily symptoms or fear of having a physical illness with associated distress and impairment. The features include preoccupation with bothersome bodily symptoms and their significance, persistent fears of having or developing a serious illness or unreasonable conviction of having an undetected physical illness, unusually frequent or persistent medical help-seeking and avoidance of normal activities for fear of damaging the body. These features are sufficiently persistent and distressing to lead to impairment of functioning or frequent seeking of reassurance.'”

This 2012 paper goes on to say that the S3DWG’s emerging proposals specify a much simplified set of criteria for a diagnosis of Bodily distress disorder (BDD) that requires the presence of:

1. High levels of preoccupation with a persistent and bothersome bodily symptom or symptoms; or unreasonable fear, or conviction, of having an undetected physical illness; plus,

2. The bodily symptom(s) or fears about illness are distressing and are associated with impairment of functioning.

And that in doing away with the “unreliable assumption of its causality” the diagnosis of BDD “does not exclude the presence of depression or anxiety, or of a co-occurring physical health condition.”

This is not a BDS model – it’s a disorder framework into which DSM-5’s “Somatic Symptom Disorder” (SSD) could comfortably be integrated, thus smoothing harmonization between ICD-11 and DSM-5.

(If you want to compare the extent to which the BDS construct and criteria diverges from DSM-5’s SSD construct and criteria, see my graphic here.)

For the S3DWG’s emerging proposals for BDD, as presented in late 2012, there was no evident requirement for specific symptom counts, or for BDS-like symptom clusters from one or more body systems. Examples of symptoms are non specific and patients may be “preoccupied with any bodily symptoms.”

As with DSM-5’s SSD, the focus was not on the number of symptoms, or on symptom patterns or clusters from one or more body systems, or whether symptoms were determined as “medically explained” or “medically unexplained” or of undetermined aetiology, but on the perception of “disproportionate” and “maladaptive” responses to, or “excessive” preoccupation with any troublesome chronic bodily symptom(s).

So in 2012, the two groups lacked agreement not only over what to call any new, single disorder replacement for ICD-10’s Somatoform disorders, but also on what disorder construct and criteria should be recommended to ICD Revision.

Given that the wording of the Definition for Bodily distress disorder as entered into the draft, in January, is based on text from the Gureje, Creed 2012 paper, which had described an SSD-like construct, one might argue that the disorder name and Definition currently displaying in the draft potentially better describes an SSD-like construct – not Fink et al’s BDS.

And with the recent reintroduction into the Beta drafting platform of Somatization disorder and Neurasthenia, one might further argue that there is perhaps a recent consideration for a construct that doesn’t veer too far away from the status quo, which could be moulded to accommodate selected of the ICD-10 legacy Somatoform disorders categories, but which removes the requirement for symptoms to be “medically unexplained” in order that SSD might be shoehorned into an ICD-11 framework for “harmonization” with DSM-5.

But at the moment and in the absence of documentary evidence or clarification by WHO/ICD Revision, what cannot safely be said is that in the context of ICD-11 usage, Bodily distress disorder equates with Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome.

Caveats: The ICD-11 Beta drafting platform is not a static document: as a work in progress over the next two to three years, it is subject to daily edits and revisions, to field test evaluation and to approval by Topic Advisory Group (TAG) Managing Editors, ICD Revision Steering Group and WHO classification experts.

+++
References:

1. Lam TP, Goldberg DP, Dowell AC, Fortes S, Mbatia JK, Minhas FA, Klinkman MS: Proposed new diagnoses of anxious depression and bodily stress syndrome in ICD-11-PHC: an international focus group study. Fam Pract Feb 2013 [Epub ahead of print July 2012].
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22843638
Full free text: http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/76.long
PDF: http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/76.full.pdf+html

2. 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 [Free PDF, Sample Chapter Two] http://samples.jbpub.com/9781449627874/Chapter2.pdf

3. Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;24(6):556-67. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23244611 [Abstract only. Full text behind paywall]

4. ICD-11 Beta drafting platform public version: Bodily distress disorder: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f767044268

%d bloggers like this: