Management of self-imposed factitious disorder includes acute treatment in inpatient settings with multidisciplinary teams as well as in longer-term settings with ongoing medical and psychological support.5 The key to achieving positive outcomes in both settings is negotiation and agreement with the patient on their diagnosis and engagement in treatment.5 There is little evidence available to support the effectiveness of any particular management strategy for factitious disorder, specifically in the inpatient psychiatric setting. A primary reason for this paucity of data is that most patients are lost to follow-up after initiation of a treatment plan.6
Addressing factitious disorder with patients can be particularly difficult; it requires a thoughtful and balanced approach. Typical responses to confrontation of this deceptive behavior involve denial, leaving AMA, or potentially verbal and physical aggression.4 In a review of medical records, Krahn et al6 found that of 71 patients with factitious disorder who were confronted about their role in the illness, only 23% (n = 16) acknowledged factitious behavior. Confrontation can be conceptualized as direct or indirect. In direct confrontation, patients are directly told of their diagnosis. This frequently angers patients, because such confrontation can be interpreted as humiliating and can cause them to seek care from another clinician, leave the hospital AMA, or increase their self-destructive behavior.4 In contrast, indirect confrontation approaches the conversation with an explanatory view of the maladaptive behaviors, which may allow the patient to be more open to therapy.4 An example of this would be, “When some patients are very upset, they often do something to themselves to create illness as a way of seeking help. We believe that something such as this must be going on and we would like to help you focus on the true nature of your problem, which is emotional distress.” However, there is no evidence that either of these approaches is superior, or that a significant difference in outcomes exists between confrontational and nonconfrontational approaches.7
The treatment for factitious disorder most often initiated in inpatient settings and continued in outpatient care is psychotherapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy, supportive psychotherapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, and short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy.4,8,9 There is, however, no evidence to support the efficacy of one form of psychotherapy over another, or even to establish the efficacy of treatment with psychotherapy compared to no psychotherapy. This is further complicated by some resources that suggest mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, or antidepressants as treatment options for psychiatric comorbidities in patients with factitious disorder; very little evidence supports these agents’ efficacy in treating the patient’s behaviors related to factitious disorder.7
No data are available to support a management strategy for patients with factitious disorder who have a respiratory/pulmonary presentation, such as Ms. B. Suggested treatment options for hyperventilation syndrome include relaxation therapy, breathing exercises, short-acting benzodiazepines, and beta-blockers; there is no evidence to support their efficacy, whether in the context of factitious disorder or another disorder.10 We suggest the acronym VENTILATE to guide the treating psychiatrist in managing a patient with factitious disorder with a respiratory/pulmonary presentation and hyperventilation (Table 44,5,7-10).
Bass et al5 suggest that regardless of the manifestation of a patient’s factitious disorder, for a CL psychiatrist, it is important to consult with the patient’s entire care team, hospital administrators, hospital and personal attorneys, and hospital ethics committee before making treatment decisions that deviate from usual medical practice.
Continue to: OUTCOME