Advanced Search

REGULAR | January 01, 2009

Teaching Psychodynamics to Psychiatric Residents through Psychiatric Outpatient Interviews

Eva Helena C. Cardoso Zoppe; Patricia Schoueri; Mônica Castro; Francisco Lotufo Neto

Academic Psychiatry 2009;33:51-55.

View Article Information

Received May 11, 2007; revised July 5, September 21, and November 3, 2007; accepted November 14, 2007. The authors are affiliated with the Department and Institute of Psychiatry at the Hospital das Clínicas of the University of São Paulo Medical School in São Paulo, Brazil. Address correspondence to Eva Helena C. Cardoso Zoppe, Rua João Moura, 647 cj 154 Cep:05412-001, São Paulo, Brazil; ezoppe@hotmail.com (e-mail).

Article

Tables

References

text A A A

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluates whether a course that was designed for first-year psychiatric residents and that specifically addressed psychodynamic principles fostered residents’ progress in knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding these concepts. Methods: The course was given in the 2005 academic year to all residents (N=18) in their first psychiatric postgraduate year at the Department and Institute of Psychiatry, University of São Paulo, Brazil. The residents were assessed in the first and last sessions of the course through a written test that was blindly rated by two independent judges. Residents were also interviewed to observe whether psychodynamic concepts had been integrated into actual practice. Their responses were subjected to content analysis. Significance was tested using analysis of variance or nonparametric tests when necessary. Agreement between the judges was tested using intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: The judges demonstrated a high level of agreement. The difference in mean scores before and after the course was such that the total score increased by a mean of 2.5 points (total test score was 10 points). Additionally, residents started to undergo personal psychotherapy after the course. They reported that this course had markedly improved their relationship with patients. They emphasized the opportunities for self-reflection and gaining insights into themselves and patient treatment issues. Conclusion: This initial study indicates that this educational method can effectively promote psychodynamic knowledge, skills, and appropriate attitudes for managing psychiatric outpatients among residents. The course was very well received by the residents, and a similar method can easily be instituted within other residency programs that pursue integrated teaching methods.

Figures in this Article

Methods

Today, there is broad agreement regarding the value of an integrated (biopsychosocial) approach toward treating psychiatric patients. Psychiatrists are expected to treat the whole person, by assessing biological, psychological, and social factors that contribute to mental health problems (¹). However, there is still tension between biological and psychological tendencies. Social scientists have observed that psychiatrists continue to operate according to a mind-brain dichotomy (²). Teaching methods that directly or indirectly favor this lack of integration have usually presented these approaches in different lectures, by different teachers, associated with different patients, and in different settings (³, ⁴). In such contexts, residents are taught how to "switch between distinct hats according to settings" (⁵), instead of developing an effective, unified approach toward patients.

To address these issues, we designed a 16-session course for first-year psychiatric residents that includes seminars about psychodynamic concepts and a biopsychosocial interview with their own outpatients who have been treated by psychopharmacotherapy.

We hypothesized that watching patients being interviewed with this focus and having the opportunity to discuss the pharmacological, the psychodynamic, and the social characteristics of the same patient might make it easier for residents to perceive the complementary nature of these approaches.

All 18 first-year psychiatric residents at the Institute of Psychiatry, University of São Paulo, participated in the course. They ranged from 24 to 32 years old (mean=26.3); 72% were men (n=13).

After a complete description of the study to the residents and patients was recorded on video, written informed consent was obtained. The institutional review board of the University of São Paulo, approved all study procedures.

The weekly sessions consisted of one practical activity and one theoretical activity, lasting 1.5 hours each. For the practical activity, each resident in turn chose to bring an outpatient who was attended with a pharmacological focus for a biopsychosocial interview conducted by the supervisor. After the interview, the group postulated differential diagnoses and psychodynamic formulations and discussed implications for treatment, including aspects of the doctor-patient relationship (⁶—⁹). Suggestions were also made for different approaches and interventions that residents could utilize for subsequent attendance of the patient.

For the theoretical activity, each resident in turn presented a paper selected by the supervisor on the doctor-patient relationship, intrapsychic conflict, ego defense mechanisms, transference and countertransference, paranoid-schizoid position, depressive position, manic defenses, good-enough mother, false self and true self, transitional space, and transitional object.

On the first and penultimate days of the course, residents watched a video of an outpatient interview conducted by the supervisor. Three videos (A, B, and C) were selected. Six residents watched video A at the start and video B at the end; six watched video B at the start and video C at the end; and six watched video C at the start and video A at the end. They then took a test (available upon request from the authors) consisting of five questions. Three questions (one discursive and two testing) were conceptual, to assess residents’ knowledge. Two discursive questions were related to the patient on the video, to assess residents’ skills. For example, residents were asked to identify the patient’s main defense mechanisms and the influence of these on the treatment and to correlate the patient’s psychodynamic functioning with the diagnosis (¹⁰—¹²). The total score of the test was 10 points, and each question received a value of 2 points. Two faculty members independently judged the discursive questions and were blind regarding the residents’ identities and the time when the test was done (at the start or end). In addition to the tests, residents received a form with two questions: Are you doing or have you done any coursework on psychodynamics? Are you doing or have you done any personal psychotherapy?

On the last day of the course, each resident was interviewed individually. The interview was recorded on audiotape and consisted of seven questions investigating residents’ thoughts about the course and assessing whether psychodynamic concepts had been incorporated into their attitudes in daily practice. The residents’ declarations were transcribed and grouped in accordance with the collective subject discourse methodology (¹³). The interview questions are available from the authors.

Results

We tested significance using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurements. Nonparametric tests were used when necessary (¹⁴). The agreement among the judges was tested using intraclass correlation coefficients between the scores given before and after the course, for each judge. They demonstrated a high level of agreement (minimum r=0.90). The significance level adopted was 5%.

For the three conceptual test questions, ANOVA with repeated measurements was performed. There were significant differences between the means for the scores at the start (0.55, 0.49, 1.56) and end (1.18, 1.13, 1.97) of the course, such that the final mean was greater than the initial mean (p=0.002, p=0.000, p=0.016, respectively).

For questions relating to the patients on the videos, ANOVA with repeated measurements was performed; the scores could depend on whether the video was seen before or after the course and on which video was watched. The difference between the scores at the start and end depended on which video was watched initially. Only the residents who initially watched video B had a significant increase in the mean score at the end of the course.

The analysis of the variables "doing or already done other coursework on psychodynamics" and "doing or already done personal psychotherapy" did not suggest that these had any influence on the residents’ total scores. Some extracts from the interviews conducted with the residents are shown in Appendix 1.

Discussion

The teaching methodology presented in this study is original in that it uses patients whom the residents have attended using a pharmacological approach to teach psychodynamic principles. This emphasizes an integrated view of patients while at the same time focusing on problems encountered in the daily routine of the outpatient clinic.

Psychodynamic concepts are so interlinked with medication-related conflicts that Mintz (¹⁵) devised a course using psychopharmacology to teach psychodynamics. However, there are not many references in the literature to teaching programs with similar concepts. The neural systems-based neurobiology and neuropsychiatry course taught within the National Capital Consortium Psychiatry Residency Program (¹⁶) can be highlighted. This course aimed to integrate biology, psychodynamics, and psychology, describing a new format for teaching psychodynamics that would use metaphors for neuronal functioning (¹⁷). Most teaching methods directed toward learning psychodynamic theories do not have an integrated focus between "biological" and "psychological" psychiatry (¹⁸—²¹).

The intention of our course was not to train psychotherapists but to demonstrate the applicability of psychodynamic thinking to psychiatric consultations (²², ²³). Extended interviews with outpatients is very useful for this purpose (²⁴).

Responses to theory questions in the test showed that the residents achieved significant learning of the psychodynamic concepts addressed in the course. All the residents started the course with similar levels of knowledge and, on average, all obtained the same growth in learning by the end of the course.

For questions relating to the patients on the videos, analysis of the residents’ progress showed that only those who watched video B initially had a significant increase in mean score at the end. This suggests that video B presented a greater degree of difficulty than the others. Although the interview with the patient on video B was held using the same format as the others, there was one striking feature: the patient’s intense degree of suffering and dramatic life story. Every time this video was shown to the residents, there were a lot of emotional comments expressing sadness, pity, and disgust.

The patient in video B had a depressive disorder with significant somatic and psychotic symptoms, while the patient in video A had a chronic depressive disorder with conversive symptoms, and the patient in video C had a mild depressive disorder with obsessive symptoms and very infantile behavior. Thus, perhaps exactly because of the dichotomy between the biology and the psychodynamics, it was more difficult for the residents to learn about the psychodynamic functioning of the patient in video B in between so many symptoms that rapidly fulfilled the diagnostic criteria needed for a known explanation. These symptoms could easily be attributed to neurobiological causes, which according to Miresco and Kirmayer (²), makes doctors judge that patients have no responsibility for their problems and have more pity for such patients. On the other hand, the more that behavioral problems are seen as originating in "psychological" processes, the more the patients tend to be viewed as responsible and blameworthy for their symptoms.

The residents who watched video B at the start probably initially learned to observe patients better, including their psychodynamic characteristics, in addition to looking for diagnostic criteria, and/or they learned to deal better with countertransference such that it did not interfere with their assessments.

Facing psychic sorrow moves one toward experiencing specific projective and identification anxieties (⁹). Teaching psychodynamics enhances residents’ skills to deal with unconscious feelings of countertransference, which became a highly important source of a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation and treatment planning. These feelings can provide insight into the disease dynamics underlying symptomatology. However, if they are not monitored carefully, the consequence could be a wrong diagnosis and inadequate treatment (²⁵).

A significant number of residents began to undergo personal psychotherapy during the course. The most likely explanation must lie in the degree of closeness to their patients that they attained during the course. The long interviews, which deepened relationships, and the discussions emphasizing transference and countertransference favored conscious identification by the residents with their patients and an attitude of introspection and reflection. These patients became people who could be like the residents themselves or anyone within their circles of relationships. This experience, which was repeated several times during the course, brought questioning and anxieties, and the residents went looking for resources for this task.

Fogel et al. (²⁶) reported that psychiatric residents believed that their training programs explicitly encouraged personal psychotherapy and that they saw this as a respected and valued educational and therapeutic experience. The residents’ interviews showed that they valued the course and emphasized the learning acquired. Their comments on how they were managing to treat their patients in a broader manner, and including psychodynamic characteristics in their assessments, showed that integration occurred between what was learned in the course and their attitudes in outpatient practice.

Conclusion

This initial study indicates that the described educational method can effectively promote psychodynamic knowledge, skills, and appropriate attitudes among residents for managing psychiatric outpatients. However, we cannot say how consistent this learning was and how durable these changes to the residents’ attitudes will be. There are also clear limitations to this study, which was conducted among a single group of residents, with a limited sample size, in one institution. Consequently, the conclusions drawn may not apply to other residency programs. Thus, this study should be repeated among new groups of residents and with consecutive evaluations over a longer period.

Because it is very difficult to repeat a qualitative evaluation like this every academic year, the next residents’ evaluations should be made based only on the data obtained through the written tests. An easier method that could be feasible in each group of residents, like the Psychodynamic Psychotherapy Competency Test (²⁷) would be desirable to measure changes in residents’ attitudes.

Despite these limitations, we believe that this course is a potentially useful starting point in integrating biological and psychodynamic approaches in patient care and resident education.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My POL

APPENDIX 1. Sample Narrative Interview Responses.

Acknowledgments

At the time of submission, the authors disclosed no competing interests.

References

Chaimowitz G: Psychotherapy in psychiatry. Can J Psychiatry 2004; 49:145—148

Miresco MJ, Kirmayer LJ: The persistence of mind-brain dualism in psychiatric reasoning about clinical scenarios. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163:913—918

Frey BN, Mabilde LC, Eizirik CL: The integration of psychopharmacotherapy and psychoanalytical psychotherapy: a critical review. Rev Bras Psiquiatr 2004; 26:118—123

Gabbard GO, Kay J: The fate of integrated treatment: whatever happened to the biopsychosocial psychiatrist? Am J Psychiatry 2001; 158:1956—1963

Lissak M: Biopsychosocial psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160:185—186

Balint M: The doctor, the patient, and his illness. London, Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, 1957

Nuzzarello A, Birndorf C: An interviewing course for a psychiatry clerkship. Acad Psychiatry 2004; 28:66—70

Kassaw K, Gabbard GO: Creating a psychodynamic formulation from a clinical evaluation. Am J Psychiatry 2002; 159:721—726

Pompili M, Mancinelli I, Tatarelli R: Training in psychodynamic psychotherapy. Am J Psychiatry 2002; 159:2115

Beresford TP: Learning to recognize ego defense mechanisms: results of a structured teaching experience for psychiatric residents. Acad Psychiatry 2005; 29:474—478

Weerasekera P, Antony MM, Bellissimo A: Competency assessment in the McMaster psychotherapy program. Acad Psychiatry 2003; 27:166—173

Tasman A: Teaching psychodynamic psychiatry during medical school and residency. J Psychother Pract Res 1999; 8:187—190

Lefèvre F, Lefèvre AMC, Teixeira JJV: O discurso do sujeito coletivo: uma nova abordagem metodológica em pesquisa qualitativa. Caxias do Sul RS. Educs, 2000

Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, et al: Applied linear statistical models. 4th ed. New York, Irwin, 1996

Mintz D: Psychodynamic trojan horses: using psychopharmacology to teach psychodynamics. J Am Acad Psychoanal Dyn Psychiatry 2006; 34:151—161

Lacy T, Hughes JD: A neural systems-based neurobiology and neuropsychiatry course: integrating biology, psychodynamics, and psychology in the psychiatric curriculum. Acad Psychiatry 2006; 30:410—415

Leeman E, Leeman S: Elements of dynamics IV: neuronal metaphors-probing neurobiology for psychodynamic meaning. J Am Acad Psychoanal Dyn Psychiatry 2004; 32:645—659

Coyle B, Miller M, McGowen KR: Using standardized patients to teach and learn psychotherapy. Acad Med 1998; 73:591—592

Tasini M: Teaching psychodynamic psychiatry to students on general medical rotations. J Psychother Pract Res 1999; 8:204—209

Gold JH: Reflections on psychodynamic psychotherapy supervision for psychiatrists in clinical practice. J Psychiatr Pract 2004; 10:162—169

Touchet BK, Coon KA: A pilot use of team-based learning in psychiatry resident psychodynamic psychotherapy education. Acad Psychiatry 2005; 29:293—296

Dewald PA: Preserving the "psychosocial" in an era of biological psychiatry. Am J Psychother 2000; 54:301—304

Ingram DH: Teaching psychodynamic therapy to hardworking psychiatric residents. J Am Acad Psychoanal Dyn Psychiatry 2006; 34:173—188

Davis H, Aronzon R, Rosca-Rebaudengo P, et al: Extended psychiatric interview and medical students: a tool for teaching psychotherapeutic skills. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci 2003; 40:118—125

Yager J, Mellman L, Rubin E, et al: The RRC mandate for residency programs to demonstrate psychodynamic psychotherapy competence among residents: a debate. Acad Psychiatry 2005; 29:339—349

Fogel SP, Sneed JR, Roose SP: Survey of psychiatric treatment among psychiatric residents in Manhattan: evidence of stigma. J Clin Psychiatry 2006; 67:1591—1598

Mullen LS, Rieder RO, Glick RA, Luber B, Rosen PJ: Testing psychodynamic psychotherapy skills among psychiatric residents: the psychodynamic psychotherapy competency test. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161:1658—1664