Site maintenance Wednesday, November 13th, 2024. Please note that access to some content and account information will be unavailable on this date.
Skip to main content

Assessment and Determination of Treatment Plan

Statement 1 – Initial Assessment

APA recommends (1C) that the initial assessment of a patient with possible borderline personality disorder include the reason the individual is presenting for evaluation; the patient’s goals and preferences for treatment; a review of psychiatric symptoms, including core features of personality disorders and common co-occurring disorders; a psychiatric treatment history; an assessment of physical health; an assessment of psychosocial and cultural factors; a mental status examination; and an assessment of risk of suicide, self-injury, and aggressive behaviors, as outlined in APA’s Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults, 3rd Edition.

Implementation

The importance of the psychiatric evaluation cannot be underestimated because it serves as the initial basis for a therapeutic relationship with the patient and provides information that is crucial to differential diagnosis and shared decision-making about treatment. The initial evaluation can also provide an opportunity for educating patients, family members, friends, or others involved in the patient’s care about such factors as BPD features, treatments, course, and prognosis. APA’s Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults, 3rd Edition (American Psychiatric Association 2016a), describes recommended and suggested elements of assessment for any individual who presents with psychiatric symptoms (Table 2). These elements are by no means comprehensive, and additional areas of inquiry will become apparent as the evaluation unfolds, depending on the responses to initial questions, the presenting concerns, the observations of the clinician during the assessment, the complexity and urgency of clinical decision-making, and other aspects of the clinical context. In many circumstances, aspects of the evaluation will extend across multiple visits (American Psychiatric Association 2016a).
The specific approach to the interview will depend on many factors, including the patient’s ability to communicate, degree of cooperation, level of insight, illness severity, and ability to recall historical details (American Psychiatric Association 2016a). Such factors as the patient’s health literacy (Clausen et al. 2016) and cultural background (Lewis-Fernández et al. 2016) can also influence their understanding or interpretation of questions. Typically, a psychiatric evaluation involves a direct interview between the patient and the clinician (American Psychiatric Association 2016a). The use of open-ended, empathic questions about the patient’s current life circumstances and reasons for evaluation can provide an initial picture of the person and serve as a way of establishing rapport. Such questions can be followed up with additional structured inquiry about history, symptoms, or observations made during the assessment.
Recommended aspects of the initial psychiatric evaluation
History of present illness
Reason the patient is presenting for evaluation, including current symptoms, behaviors, and precipitating factors
Current psychiatric diagnoses and psychiatric review of systems
Psychiatric history
Hospitalization and emergency department visits for psychiatric issues, including substance use disorders
Psychiatric treatments (type, duration, and, where applicable, doses)
Response and adherence to psychiatric treatments, including psychosocial treatments, pharmacotherapy, and other interventions such as electroconvulsive therapy or transcranial magnetic stimulation
Prior psychiatric diagnoses and symptoms, including
 Hallucinations (including command hallucinations), delusions, and negative symptoms
 Aggressive ideas or behaviors (e.g., homicide, domestic or workplace violence, other physically or sexually aggressive threats or acts)
 Impulsivity
 Suicidal ideas, suicide plans, and suicide attempts, including details of each attempt (e.g., context, method, damage, potential lethality, intent) and attempts that were aborted or interrupted
 Intentional self-injury in which there was no suicide intent
Substance use history
Use of tobacco, alcohol, and other substances (e.g., vaping, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens) and any misuse of prescribed or over-the-counter medications or supplements
Current or recent substance use disorder or change in use of alcohol or other substances
Medical history
Whether or not the patient has an ongoing relationship with a primary care health professional
Allergies or drug sensitivities
All medications patient is currently taking or has recently taken and side effects of these medications (i.e., both prescribed and nonprescribed medications, herbal and nutritional supplements, and vitamins)
Past or current medical illnesses and related hospitalizations
Relevant past or current treatments, including surgeries, other procedures, or complementary and alternative medical treatments
Sexual and reproductive history
Cardiopulmonary status
Past or current neurological or neurocognitive disorders or symptoms
Past physical trauma, including head injuries
Past or current endocrinological disease
Past or current infectious disease, including sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, tuberculosis, hepatitis C, and locally endemic infectious diseases such as Lyme disease
Past or current sleep abnormalities, including sleep apnea
Past or current symptoms or conditions associated with significant pain and discomfort
Additional review of systems, as indicated
Family history
Including history of suicidal behaviors or aggressive behaviors in biological relatives
Personal and social history
Preferred language and need for an interpreter
Personal/cultural beliefs, sociocultural environment, and cultural explanations of psychiatric illness
Presence of psychosocial stressors (e.g., financial, housing, legal, school/occupational, or interpersonal/relationship problems; lack of social support; painful, disfiguring, or terminal medical illness)
Exposure to physical, sexual, or emotional trauma
Exposure to violence or aggressive behavior, including combat exposure or childhood abuse
Legal or disciplinary consequences of past aggressive behaviors
Examination, including mental status examination
General appearance and nutritional status
Height, weight, and body mass index (BMI)
Vital signs
Skin, including any stigmata of trauma, self-injury, or drug use
Coordination and gait
Involuntary movements or abnormalities of motor tone
Sight and hearing
Speech, including fluency and articulation
Mood, degree of hopelessness, and level of anxiety
Thought content, process, and perceptions, including current hallucinations, delusions, negative symptoms, and insight
Cognition
Current suicidal ideas, suicide plans, and suicide intent, including active or passive thoughts of suicide or death
If current suicidal ideas are present, assess patient’s intended course of action if current symptoms worsen; access to suicide methods including firearms; possible motivations for suicide (e.g., attention or reaction from others, revenge, shame, humiliation, delusional guilt, command hallucinations); reasons for living (e.g., sense of responsibility to children or others, religious beliefs); and quality and strength of the therapeutic alliance.
Current aggressive ideas, including thoughts of physical or sexual aggression or homicide
If current aggressive ideas are present, assess specific individuals or groups toward whom patient’s homicidal or aggressive ideas or behaviors have been directed in the past or at present; impulsivity, including anger management issues and access to firearms.
Source. Adapted from American Psychiatric Association 2016a.
A respectful and empathic approach to the interview is important because patients may have had prior experiences with stigma or bias in health care settings or may have self-stigmatizing views (Denning et al. 2022; Goldhammer et al. 2019; Klein et al. 2022a; Masland et al. 2023; McKenzie et al. 2022; Olbert et al. 2018; Rodriguez-Seijas et al. 2023; Schwartz and Blankenship 2014; Stiles et al. 2023; Zimmerman et al. 2022). These biases, stigma, and self-stigma can also influence assessment and diagnosis related to BPD (Klein et al. 2022a; Masland et al. 2023; McKenzie et al. 2022; Stiles et al. 2023). In addition, disparities in assessment and diagnosis based on race or gender identity are common (Denning et al. 2022; Goldhammer et al. 2019; Masland et al. 2023; Olbert et al. 2018; Rodriguez-Seijas et al. 2021; Schwartz and Blankenship 2014; Zimmerman et al. 2022).
Many individuals with BPD will also have had traumatic experiences during their lifetime, such as childhood maltreatment, sexual trauma, or violent victimization (de Aquino Ferreira et al. 2018; Hailes et al. 2019; Porter et al. 2020; Tate et al. 2022). Sensitivity to the impact of these experiences, including use of trauma-informed approaches, can aid in establishing a supportive environment that is conducive to rapport (Burns et al. 2023; Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 2014; Huo et al. 2023; Menschner and Maul 2016; National Council for Mental Wellbeing 2019; Raja et al. 2015; Rudolph 2021; Saunders et al. 2023; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2014). Depending on the circumstances of the initial evaluation, it may be preferable to defer discussion of prior traumatic experiences until a therapeutic relationship is established or until the setting is more conducive to obtaining detailed information.
Throughout the assessment process, it is important to gain an understanding of the patient’s goals, view of the illness, and preferences for treatment. This information will serve as a starting point for person-centered care and shared decision-making with the patient, family, friends, and others involved in the patient’s care (Dixon et al. 2016; Hamann and Heres 2019). It will also provide a framework for recovery, which has been defined as “a process of change through which individuals improve their health and wellness, live self-directed lives, and strive to reach their full potential” (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2012, p. 3). Consequently, discussions of goals should be focused beyond symptom relief and may include goals related to schooling, employment, living situation, relationships, leisure activities, and other aspects of functioning and quality of life. Family context and educational factors are particularly crucial to identify when assessing adolescents and emerging adults. Questions about the patient’s views may help determine whether the patient is aware of having an illness and assist in understanding the patient’s explanations for or experience of their symptoms or distress (Saks 2009). Based on prior treatment experiences, patients may have specific views about such topics as medications, other treatment approaches, mechanical restraints, or involuntary treatment. It is also important to inquire about the patient’s strengths and protective factors. For example, they may be able to delineate strategies that have been helpful for them in coping with or managing their symptoms in the past (Cohen et al. 2017). Some patients will have completed a psychiatric advance directive (Murray and Wortzel 2019) and, if so, it will be important to review that with them.
In addition to direct interview, patients may be asked to complete electronic or paper-based forms that ask about psychiatric symptoms or key aspects of the history (American Psychiatric Association 2016a). When available, prior medical records, electronic prescription databases, and input from other treating clinicians can add further details to the history or corroborate information obtained in the interview (American Psychiatric Association 2016a).
People with BPD have heterogeneous relationships with family members, friends, and other individuals. Often, family members, friends, or others in the patient’s support network can be an important part of the care team. Such individuals can also serve as valuable sources of collateral information about the reason for evaluation, the patient’s past history, and their current symptoms and behavior (American Psychiatric Association 2016a). Input from and engagement of parents, guardians, or other caregivers is particularly important when assessing and treating adolescents and emerging adults.
In other circumstances, a patient may not want a specific family member or other individual to be involved in their care. For example, a patient may wish to avoid burdening a loved one or may have experienced abuse by a particular family member in the past. A patient may also have felt unsupported by family members or others in terms of issues such as their life goals, their gender identity, coping with their BPD symptoms, or other aspects of their lives. For these reasons, the patient’s permission is typically obtained before outreach to family, friends, and others in the support network, except in emergent situations to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of the patient or others (American Psychiatric Association 2013b, 2016a; Office for Civil Rights 2017). In addition, under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA; Office for Civil Rights 2017), a clinician may listen to information provided by a family member or other involved person, as long as confidential information about the patient is not provided to that individual (American Psychiatric Association 2016a).
The initial evaluation typically begins with the reason the individual is presenting for evaluation. Common concerns in individuals with BPD include anxiety, depression, mood instability, irritability, difficulties with anger, hopelessness, low self-esteem, unstable self-image or sense of self, unstable and intense interpersonal relationships, concerns about real or feared abandonment, suicidal thoughts or attempts, NSSI, other impulsive or self-harming behaviors (e.g., substance use, reckless driving, risky sexual behavior), or harm to others.
As part of the initial evaluation, it is useful to ask about the onset, course, and duration of symptoms. Features common in BPD that can aid in establishing a diagnosis include extreme responses to real or imagined abandonment, sudden shifts in the person’s views of others, intense dysphoria, prominent mood reactivity, chronic feelings of emptiness, or intense anger (American Psychiatric Association 2022a). Other illness-driven behaviors, such as self-injurious behavior, may also be present. Specific questions may be needed to identify whether the patient has had transient dissociative experiences, hallucinations, ideas of reference, or persecutory ideas, particularly in periods of stress (American Psychiatric Association 2022a). It is also helpful to determine whether impairments are present in self-functioning (i.e., identity and self-direction) and in interpersonal functioning (i.e., empathy and intimacy) (American Psychiatric Association 2022a).
If the patient has received treatment previously, it is important to ask about a broad range of treatments and other approaches used to address the patient’s symptoms and functioning and to specifically ask about the full range of treatment settings (e.g., outpatient, partial hospitalization, inpatient) and approaches or aspects of the therapeutic relationships that the patient has found helpful or problematic (American Psychiatric Association 2016a; Bachelor 2013; Barnicot et al. 2022; de Freixo Ferreira et al. 2023; Woodbridge et al. 2023). For example, prompting may be needed to learn information about the patient’s experiences with psychotherapies (e.g., dialectical behavior therapy [DBT], cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], mentalization-based treatment [MBT], transference-focused psychotherapy [TFP], schema-focused therapy [SFT], dynamic deconstructive psychotherapy [DDP], other psychodynamic therapies, couples or family therapy, supportive therapy) as well as their formats, frequencies, and durations. A patient may believe that they have not responded to a specific type of psychotherapy, but the fidelity to key treatment principles (as described in the “Implementation” section of Statement 5) may have been limited or the treatment intensity or duration may have been insufficient. The formats and focus of the different psychotherapies may be a good fit for some individuals but not for others; for example, some but not all patients do well with the structure of homework assignments, some prefer individual treatment to groups, and some prefer insight-oriented approaches to skills-based approaches (Woodbridge et al. 2023). With medications, information about the specific medication, duration of treatment, formulation, route, and dosage are important to obtain. Specific questions may be needed on long-acting injectable (LAI) medications (e.g., antipsychotics, naltrexone, buprenorphine) or implants (e.g., buprenorphine, contraceptive agents), over-the-counter medications, herbal products, or nutritional supplements because these medications may be overlooked by patients and are less likely to be included in pharmacy databases and patients’ lists of active medications. Experimental treatments such as psilocybin and ketamine are increasingly available. Other interventions can include substance use treatments, neuromodulatory therapies (e.g., electroconvulsive therapy [ECT], transcranial magnetic stimulation [TMS]), court-ordered treatment, treatment while incarcerated, 12-step programs, self-help groups, culture-based approaches, spiritual healers, and complementary or alternative treatment approaches. For each specific type of intervention that the patient has received, it is important to learn more about their response (including tolerability, changes in quality of life, level of functioning, symptom response/remission, and persistence of improvement) as well as their engagement in therapy and degree of adherence.
A thorough history is also important for identifying the presence of co-occurring psychiatric conditions or physical disorders that need to be addressed in treatment planning (American Psychiatric Association 2016a; Firth et al. 2019). Substance use and SUDs are common in individuals with BPD (Grant et al. 2008; Trull et al. 2018), and some individuals with BPD may use substances to cope with their emotional distress or help regulate their emotions. Therefore, a substance use history will be valuable in determining whether the individual uses tobacco, marijuana, or other substances such as alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, cocaine, opioids, sedative-hypnotic agents, stimulants, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), solvents, androgenic steroids, hallucinogens, ketamine, or synthetic substances (e.g., “bath salts,” K2, Spice). The route by which substances are used (e.g., ingestion, smoking, vaping, intranasal, intravenous) and the frequency and circumstances of use are also important to document.
In addition to SUDs, other common co-occurring psychiatric conditions in individuals with BPD include MDD, bipolar disorder, PTSD, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, ADHD, and other personality disorders (Choi-Kain et al. 2022; Friborg et al. 2014; Geluk Rouwhorst et al. 2023; Grant et al. 2016; Gunderson et al. 2014; Keuroghlian et al. 2015; Leichsenring et al. 2011; Lenzenweger et al. 2007; McDermid et al. 2015; McGlashan et al. 2000; Miller et al. 2022; Momen et al. 2022; Philipsen et al. 2008; Santo et al. 2022; Tate et al. 2022; Trull et al. 2018; Zanarini et al. 2004a, 2010, 2019; Zimmerman et al. 2017). Individuals with BPD may also have physical health conditions, sleep disturbances, or chronic pain that need to be considered in assessing functioning and developing a plan of treatment (Doering 2019; El-Gabalawy et al. 2010; Heath et al. 2018b; Kalira et al. 2013; Sansone and Sansone 2012; Vanek et al. 2021; Winsper et al. 2017). Prior head trauma or other brain abnormalities (e.g., due to anoxic injury) can contribute to impulsivity or emotional dysregulation (McHugo et al. 2017).
The psychosocial history reviews the stages of the patient’s life and may include attention to perinatal events, delays in developmental milestones, disruptive behavioral disorders in childhood, childhood maltreatment (including neglect or emotional, physical, or sexual abuse), academic history and performance (including a history of being bullied, learning difficulties, special education interventions, or disciplinary actions), occupational history (including military history), legal history, and identification of major life events (e.g., adoption or foster care, family separation, parental loss, divorce, migration history, sexual trauma, other traumatic experiences) and psychosocial stressors (e.g., financial, housing, legal, school/occupational, or interpersonal/relationship problems; childcare or other caregiving responsibilities; lack of social support; trauma related to racial/ethnic discrimination; discrimination or trauma related to LGBTQ+ identity; painful, disfiguring, or terminal medical illness; other social determinants of health) (American Psychiatric Association 2016a; Barnhill 2014; MacKinnon et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2019). Information on the patient’s gender identity and pronouns are also important to elicit.
Individuals may have received disability-related income support, supported employment, or accommodations related to disability in academic, workplace, or other settings. Such accommodations are important to be aware of because they can help promote functioning and enhance integration into the community. If patients are eligible for disability-related income support, supported employment, or disability-related accommodations but have not received them, this will also be relevant to treatment planning. Furthermore, inquiring into an individual’s accommodation history can serve as a starting point for discussion around accessibility needs during treatment and ensuring that these are met.
The patient’s history of interpersonal relationships, including family and intimate relationships, is particularly essential to obtain. Such relationships can be supportive and helpful, or they can be unstable or intense in individuals with BPD. The patient’s current and prior degree of interpersonal functioning (including in academic, occupational, social, and family roles, such as parenting) is similarly vital to the history and subsequent treatment planning. Assessment of interpersonal functioning should take developmental considerations into account, particularly in adolescents and emerging adults. Information about the patient’s family constellation and other persons who provide support serves as a foundation for working collaboratively with the patient and their support network. A family health history is also important in identifying family members who have a history of personality disorder, particularly BPD or BPD traits, as well as the presence of SUDs, other psychiatric disorders, or suicidal behaviors in the family.
The patient’s cultural history is similarly integral to understanding them and developing an effective plan of treatment. In addition to emphasizing relationships, both familial and nonfamilial, it also delineates the role of important cultural, spiritual, and religious beliefs and practices in the patient’s life (Aggarwal and Lewis-Fernández 2015; American Psychiatric Association 2022b; Lewis-Fernández et al. 2016). The Cultural Formulation Interview (American Psychiatric Association 2022b) provides a framework for obtaining this information as part of the evaluation. Clinicians should be especially careful to avoid cultural bias when applying the diagnostic criteria and evaluating sexual behavior, expressions of emotion, suspiciousness, or impulsiveness, which may have different norms in different cultures or subcultures. Individuals from different cultures or with different spiritual or religious beliefs may also have different views of roles among family members and intimate partners as well as different views of and knowledge about health and mental health, including diagnoses, treatments, attitudes, and beliefs toward the patient’s health and mental health issues.
The mental status examination is an essential part of the initial assessment. A full delineation of the mental status examination is beyond the scope of this document, and detailed information on conducting the examination is available elsewhere (American Psychiatric Association 2016a; Barnhill 2014; MacKinnon et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2019; Strub and Black 2000). In addition, for individuals with possible BPD, risk assessment is particularly important. It is crucial to identify past and current risks to self (e.g., suicidal ideas, methods, plans, and intent; NSSI; suicide attempts, including interrupted and aborted suicide attempts) and risks to others (e.g., aggressive or homicidal thoughts, statements, or behaviors). Information gathered and synthesized as part of the history and mental status examination will help identify modifiable risk factors for suicidal or aggressive behaviors that can serve as targets of intervention when constructing a plan of treatment. Inquiring about the patient’s degree of insight and judgment, as discussed earlier, also provides information relevant to risk assessment, treatment outcomes, and adherence (Mintz et al. 2003; Mohamed et al. 2009).

Statement 2 – Quantitative Measures

APA suggests (2C) that the initial psychiatric evaluation of a patient with possible borderline personality disorder include a quantitative measure to identify and determine the severity of symptoms and impairments of functioning that may be a focus of treatment.

Implementation

Several rating scales are available that have been used to identify and determine the severity of symptoms of BPD. Although rating scales have primarily been used in research contexts, they can also be used clinically to complement other aspects of the screening and assessment process (American Psychiatric Association 2016a).
Use of rating scales can aid treatment planning in several ways. Such measures provide a structured, replicable way to document the patient’s baseline symptoms. They also can help to determine which symptoms should be the target of intervention on the basis of factors such as frequency of occurrence, magnitude, or impact on the patient’s functioning, well-being, and quality of life. As treatment proceeds, use of quantitative measures allows more precise tracking of whether psychotherapies or other treatments are having their intended effect or whether a shift in the treatment plan is needed (Lewis et al. 2019). The exact frequency of measures depends on clinical circumstances. Nevertheless, it is preferable to use a consistent approach to quantitative measurement for a given patient because each rating scale defines and measures symptoms differently. In addition, patients’ ratings can be compared with family members’ impressions of treatment effects to clarify the longitudinal course of the patient’s illness.
When rating scales are used, they should always be implemented in a way that supports developing and maintaining the therapeutic relationship with the patient. Often, patient-rated scales are less time-consuming to administer than clinician-rated scales or structured or semistructured interviews. The use of anchored, self-rated scales with criteria to assess the severity and frequency of symptoms can also help patients become more informed self-observers. In addition, they provide important insights into the patient’s experience that support person-centered care. Reviewing scale results with the patient can help foster a collaborative dialogue about progress toward symptom improvement, functioning gains, and recovery goals. Such a review may help clinicians, patients, families, and other support persons recognize that improvement is occurring or, conversely, identify issues that need further attention.
If more than one quantitative measure is being used, it is important to minimize duplication of questions and avoid overwhelming the patient with an excessive number of scales to complete. Optimal scale properties (e.g., sensitivity, specificity) differ depending on the desired purpose(s) for using the scale in a given patient. In addition, when choosing among available quantitative measures, the psychometric properties (e.g., scale validity, reliability)1 and the objectives for using the scale (e.g., screening, documenting baseline symptoms, ongoing monitoring) should be considered. Assessments of scale properties are typically conducted cross-sectionally, however; therefore, less information may be available about longitudinal use.
A number of factors can affect the interpretation of quantitative measures. For example, some scales ask the patient to rate symptoms over several weeks, which can reduce their ability to detect changes in symptoms. This can be particularly problematic in acute care settings, where treatment adjustments and symptom improvement can occur quickly. Other symptom-based quantitative measures focus either on symptom frequency over the observation period or on symptom severity. Although these features often increase or decrease in parallel, that is not invariably the case. Quantitative measures that ask the patient to consider both symptom frequency and severity can also make the findings difficult to interpret.
It is also possible for rating scales to introduce biases into the assessment process. Factors such as comorbid illnesses, age, language, race, ethnicity, sex/gender, cultural background, literacy, and health literacy are often inadequately addressed during rating scale development. These factors and others can affect patients’ interpretation of questions. Thus, the answers to questions and the summative scores on quantitative measures need to be interpreted in the context of the rating scale’s properties and the patient’s clinical presentation.
The type and extent of quantitative measures used will also be determined by the clinical setting, the time available for evaluation, the urgency of the situation, the availability of validated rating scales in the patient’s primary language, and the patient’s age. In adolescents, for example, self-report scales and ratings from parents/guardians and teachers can provide helpful information (De Los Reyes et al. 2015). In some clinical contexts, such as a planned outpatient assessment, patients may be asked to complete electronic- or paper-based quantitative measures, either prior to the visit or on arrival at the office (Allen et al. 2009; Harding et al. 2011). Between or prior to visits, electronic approaches (e.g., mobile phone applications, clinical registries, patient portal sites in electronic health records) may also facilitate obtaining quantitative measurements (Lewis et al. 2019; Palmier-Claus et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2018). In other clinical contexts, such as acute inpatient settings, electronic modes of data capture may be more challenging. As an alternative, printed versions of scales may be completed by the patient (or a proxy) or administered by the clinician. In emergency settings, use of a quantitative rating scale may need to be postponed until the acute crisis has subsided or until the patient’s clinical status permits a detailed examination. Furthermore, some patients may have difficulty completing self-report instruments due to severe symptoms, co-occurring psychiatric conditions, low health literacy, reading difficulties, or cognitive impairment (Harding et al. 2011; Narrow et al. 2013; Valenstein et al. 2009; Zimmerman et al. 2011).
Although recommending a particular measure is outside the scope of this practice guideline, a number of objective, quantitative rating scales are available for monitoring the symptoms and features of BPD. The 23-item version of the Borderline Symptom List (BSL-23), which is condensed from the 93-item version (Bohus et al. 2007; Central Institute of Mental Health 2020), is a freely available self-report scale that assesses 23 feelings and experiences typically reported by BPD patients (Kleindienst et al. 2020). Individuals are asked to describe the extent to which they experienced a particular item in the past week based on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very strong) (Kleindienst et al. 2020). The BSL-23, similar to the BSL-93, was found to have high internal consistency, good sensitivity to the effects of treatment, and an ability to discriminate BPD from other psychiatric diagnoses (Bohus et al. 2009). In addition, symptom severity as measured by the BSL-23 appears to correlate with treatment seeking, as well as with the presence of a BPD diagnosis (Kleindienst et al. 2020).
The Borderline Evaluation of Severity Over Time (BEST) is another freely available self-report scale that focuses on the degree to which a symptom interfered with life in the past week and on idealization/devaluation shifts in relationships (Pfohl et al. 2009). In addition, the BEST includes two anger-related items, two abandonment-related items, one item for other BPD criteria, and an item for suicidal ideation (Pfohl et al. 2009). It is reported to have high internal consistency and moderate test-retest reliability (Pfohl et al. 2009).
For adolescents, the 11-item Borderline Personality Features Scale for Children includes self-report and parent-report versions (Sharp et al. 2011, 2014; Vanwoerden et al. 2019; Wall et al. 2019).
The self-report version of the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD; Zanarini et al. 2015) is developed from and organized and scored similarly to the interview-based version of the ZAN-BPD (Zanarini et al. 2003). Both versions of the scale require the author’s permission for use, are based on the nine items in the DSM-IV criteria for BPD, and include anchored ratings on a five-point scale from 0 (no symptoms) to 4 (severe symptoms). The scores for each item can be summed to yield a total score, or scores can be calculated for four symptom domains: affective, cognitive, impulsive, and interpersonal (Zanarini et al. 1990). Alternatively, the self-report version of the rating scale can be formatted with Yes/No answers to questions for use as a screening measure. Both versions of the ZAN-BPD showed adequate sensitivity to change at 7–10 days (Zanarini et al. 2015). In addition, scores of the self-report version of the ZAN-BPD showed high convergent validity with scores based on the interview version of the scale as well as good internal consistency and excellent same day test-retest reliability (Zanarini et al. 2015).
The Difficulty in Emotional Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz and Roemer 2004) is another self-report scale that has been used clinically and in research studies of individuals with BPD. It is freely available and consists of 36 items rated from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always) that address six domains: nonacceptance of negative emotions, inability to engage in goal-directed behaviors when distressed, difficulties controlling impulsive behaviors when distressed, limited access to emotion regulation strategies perceived as effective, lack of emotional awareness, and lack of emotional clarity. The psychometric properties of the DERS have been noted to be improved by removing the scale items related to awareness (Hallion et al. 2018; Lee et al. 2016). However, in other respects, the DERS scores generally have good internal consistency and construct validity in adolescents as well as adults (Fowler et al. 2014; Gratz and Roemer 2004; Neumann et al. 2010; Ritschel et al. 2015). In addition, it shows changes with treatment (Gratz et al. 2014; McCauley et al. 2018). Several shortened versions of the DERS are available: the DERS-18 (Victor and Klonsky 2016), the DERS-16 (Bjureberg et al. 2016), the DERS-8 (Penner et al. 2022), and the DERS-SF (Kaufman et al. 2016). Results of the shortened versions correlated with findings on the full 36-item scale. Two studies that compared the original 36-item DERS with the DERS-18, DERS-16, and DERS-SF did not find any of these shortened versions to be superior to the others (Hallion et al. 2018; Skutch et al. 2019).
Self-harm, including suicide attempts and NSSI, is common among individuals with BPD (Grilo and Udo 2021; Yen et al. 2021; Zanarini et al. 2008). Although many of the rating scales for BPD symptoms include items related to self-harm, multiple scales exist that provide more detailed information about self-harming behaviors (Latimer et al. 2012; Sansone and Sansone 2010). One example of such a scale is the Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory (DSHI; Gratz 2001), which is a freely available 17-item self-report tool with good test-retest reliability and construct validity (Fliege et al. 2006; Gratz 2001). In addition to noting which self-harming behaviors are present and their frequency, information from the scale can be transformed into a continuous variable by summing the frequency scores for each item (Gratz and Gunderson 2006). Another scale, the Inventory of Statements About Self-injury, is aimed at assessing the patient’s perspective on interpersonal and intrapersonal functions of non-suicidal self-injurious behaviors (Klonsky and Glenn 2009).
The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF) is aimed at assessing personality function more broadly, consistent with the AMPD (Hutsebaut et al. 2016; Weekers et al. 2019). It is freely available and consists of 12 statements rated as “very false or often false,” “sometimes or somewhat false,” “sometimes or somewhat true,” or “very true or often true.” Factor analysis suggested that the LPFS-BF evaluates two domains: self-functioning and interpersonal functioning (Weekers et al. 2019). In addition, there was high sensitivity to change at 3 months of treatment, adding to the evidence that LPFS-BF scores are indicative of personality functioning (Le Corff et al. 2022; Weekers et al. 2019).
Other self-report rating scales of relevance to individuals with a personality disorder have been reviewed in detail by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), a multidisciplinary international working group that conducted a systematic review and subsequent Delphi process to develop a standard set of outcome measures for individuals with personality disorders (Prevolnik Rupel et al. 2021).
Because reductions in symptoms can occur despite significant impairments in quality of life or functioning (Gunderson et al. 2011; Niesten et al. 2016), rating scales that assess these latter domains can also provide helpful information. One example of a scale that can be utilized to assess quality of life is the WHOQOL-BREF scale (Skevington et al. 2004; WHOQOL Group 1998; http://depts.washington.edu/seaqol/WHOQOL-BREF), developed by the World Health Organization. For assessing functioning difficulties due to health and mental health conditions, DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association 2013a) includes the 36-item self- and proxy-administered versions of the World Health Organization Disability Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0; American Psychiatric Association 2013c; Üstün et al. 2010). Other options for assessing functioning include the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS; American Psychiatric Association 2000) and the Personal and Social Performance scale (Morosini et al. 2000). Several versions of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scales, which address social roles and functioning, are also available (www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/promis).

Statement 3 – Treatment Planning

APA recommends (1C) that a patient with borderline personality disorder have a documented, comprehensive, and person-centered treatment plan.

Implementation

Overview of Treatment Planning
When treating individuals with BPD, a person-centered treatment plan should be developed, documented in the medical record, and updated at appropriate intervals. Whenever possible, development and updating of the treatment plan should be done in a collaborative fashion with the patient. When treating an adolescent, parents or other involved caregivers will be crucial to engage when creating a treatment plan. Although patients’ relationships with family members can be heterogeneous, many adults will welcome involvement of family members and others (Cohen et al. 2013; Lamont and Dickens 2021). Input from these individuals can be vital in developing a full picture of the patient (as discussed in Statement 1) as well as in formulating and implementing a person-centered treatment plan. If the patient is also receiving care from another health professional, for BPD or for other conditions, communication with those individuals is essential.
A person-centered treatment plan can be recorded as part of an evaluation note or progress note and does not need to adhere to a defined development process (e.g., face-to-face multidisciplinary team meeting) or format (e.g., time-specified goals and objectives). Depending on the urgency of the initial clinical presentation and the availability of other sources of information, the initial treatment plan may need to be augmented over several visits as more details of history and treatment response are obtained. When adapting treatment to the needs of the individual patient, the treatment plan may also need to be tailored on the basis of developmental, sociocultural, or dimensional aspects of personality pathology, with an aim of enhancing quality of life or aspects of functioning (e.g., social, academic, occupational). Adjustments to the treatment plan will occur throughout the course of treatment as symptoms or presenting concerns change and as the clinical formulation evolves.
The overarching aims of treatment are 1) to promote and maintain recovery, 2) to maximize quality of life and adaptive functioning, 3) to reduce or eliminate symptoms, including self-injurious and suicidal behaviors, and 4) to address developmental considerations and co-occurring disorders in the context of BPD treatment. To achieve these aims and inform treatment planning, it is crucial to identify the patient’s aspirations, goals for treatment, and treatment-related preferences. For patients who have completed a psychiatric advance directive (Kemp et al. 2015; Shields et al. 2014; Wilder et al. 2010), wellness recovery action plan (Copeland 2000), or individualized crisis prevention or safety plan (Stanley and Brown 2012; Stanley et al. 2018), these documents will be important to review with the patient when crafting a person-centered approach to care. When developing an individual treatment plan, the clinician should explain and discuss the range of treatments available for the patient’s condition, the modalities being recommended, and the associated rationale for having selected them. As part of the discussion, the patient’s views of the proposed treatment will be elicited and the plan can be modified, to the extent feasible, to incorporate their views and preferences.
Elements of the Treatment Plan
Depending on the clinical circumstances and input from the patient and others, a comprehensive and person-centered treatment plan will typically delineate treatments aimed at improving functioning, reducing symptoms, and addressing the core personality features of BPD. If co-occurring psychiatric symptoms or disorders are present, it is important to identify them and to incorporate appropriate interventions into the treatment plan. Psychotherapeutic approaches will be at the core of the treatment plan for BPD (see Guideline Statement 5), but medications may also be appropriate to use, typically on a limited basis (see Guideline Statements 6 through 8).
Other elements of the treatment plan often include the following:
Identifying needs for additional evaluation
History or mental status examination
Physical examination (either by the evaluating clinician or by another health professional)
Laboratory testing, imaging, electrocardiography (ECG), or other clinical studies (if indicated on the basis of the history, examination, and planned treatments)
Determining the most appropriate treatment setting
Providing psychoeducation about BPD and approaches to treatment
Addressing barriers to adherence
Collaborating with other treating clinicians
Involving family members, other caregivers, and other individuals in the patient’s support network
Delineating plans for addressing risks of harm to self or others, if present
Addressing co-occurring disorders, if present
Incorporating goals of treatment related to culturally sensitive care, as well as psychosocial considerations such as school or employment, past or current adversity, or interpersonal, family, or intimate relationships
Determining a Treatment Setting
When determining a treatment setting, considerations for individuals with BPD are similar to those for individuals with other diagnoses. Thus, in general, patients should be cared for in the least restrictive setting that is likely to be safe and to allow for effective treatment of BPD and co-occurring conditions. Often, outpatient treatment will be the appropriate setting of care. When a patient requires more monitoring or assistance than is available in routine outpatient care, programs that provide an intermediate level of care (e.g., intensive outpatient programs, partial hospital programs, residential treatment programs) may be indicated. Although evidence is limited, assertive community treatment has occasionally been used for individuals with BPD who have complex health and social service needs, particularly when treatment adherence has been challenging (Grambal et al. 2017; Horvitz-Lennon et al. 2009b).
Indications for hospitalization usually include the patient posing a serious threat of harm to self or others or being unable to care for themself and needing constant supervision or support as a result. Other possible indications for hospitalization include psychiatric or other medical problems that make outpatient treatment unsafe or ineffective and that warrant initial inpatient stabilization to promote reduction of acute symptoms and permit engagement in treatment. If inpatient care is deemed essential, efforts should be made to hospitalize patients voluntarily. If hospitalization is deemed essential but is not accepted voluntarily by the patient, state or jurisdictional requirements for involuntary hospitalization should be followed.
Determination of treatment setting will also require weighing the pluses and minuses of possible settings to identify the optimal location for care. For example, hospitalization can have benefits in terms of safety but add to financial burdens; disrupt school, work, or caregiving responsibilities; or be upsetting for patients due to repeated hospitalizations (Comtois and Carmel 2016) or to negative experiences with inpatient care (Stapleton and Wright 2019). In most circumstances, management of the patient on an inpatient psychiatric service in collaboration with consultants of other medical specialties will be optimal. However, individuals with BPD who have other significant health issues may need significant medical or surgical interventions or monitoring that are not typically available on a psychiatric inpatient service. Under such circumstances, the patient will likely be better served on a general hospital unit or in an intensive care setting with input from consultation-liaison psychiatrists and education and supervision of staff to help them engage with the patient in a therapeutic and non-judgmental fashion.
Establishing and Maintaining a Therapeutic Framework and Alliance
The therapeutic relationship is an essential ingredient in the treatment of patients with BPD (Bender 2005; Rudge et al. 2020) and for mental health treatment in general (Baier et al. 2020; Frank and Frank 1993; Oldham 2022b; Stubbe 2018). Because patients with BPD may have difficulty developing and sustaining trusting relationships, establishing and strengthening the therapeutic alliance will generally be a focus of treatment from the initial session (Culina et al. 2023). Although the underpinnings of the therapeutic alliance vary, clinicians are expected to offer understanding, responsiveness, explanations for treatment interventions, undistracted attention, and respectful, validating, and compassionate attitudes, with judicious feedback to patients that can help the patients develop self-efficacy and attain their goals. In addition to interactions with the treating clinician or treatment team, the therapeutic alliance can also be affected by the patient’s prior experiences, including those related to biases and health disparities (e.g., related to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or sex/gender) (Maharaj et al. 2021; Spengler et al. 2016; Sue et al. 2007).
At the outset of treatment, it is important to establish a clear and explicit treatment framework with which the patient agrees (Sledge et al. 2014). Although this process is generally applicable to the treatment of all patients, regardless of diagnosis, such an agreement is particularly important for patients with BPD and can serve as a model for healthy boundaries in other aspects of the patient’s life. As part of this treatment framework, patients and clinicians should establish agreements about the goals of treatment sessions (e.g., symptom reduction, personal growth, improvement in functioning), ways to facilitate these goals (e.g., reporting on such issues as conflicts, dysfunction, and impending life changes; completing homework between sessions; developing an individualized safety plan), and what role each is expected to perform to achieve these goals. Although some therapeutic approaches incorporate specific criteria that would lead treatment to be discontinued, it is always important to emphasize these aspects of the treatment framework that will help contribute to treatment success. In addition, it is essential for patients and clinicians to work toward establishing agreements about 1) when, where, and with what frequency sessions will be held; 2) notification of planned or urgent session cancellations or delays in keeping appointments; 3) the fee, billing, and payment schedule; 4) clarification of the clinician’s after-hours availability; and 5) a plan for crisis management, which may include a coordinated plan for patients to have intersession access to the treatment team. Furthermore, it is important to review expectations if emergency care is needed. Mechanisms for emergency department staff to reach and communicate with the treatment team are equally important when a patient is in crisis.
To adhere to a framework for successful treatment, clinicians often need to communicate with patients about realistic limits while simultaneously addressing patient concerns. In communicating limits, the clinician should recognize that an excessive focus on limits may overshadow treatment goals and compromise the therapeutic alliance. Rather, the focus should be on preventing harm to the patient, maintaining appropriate boundaries to facilitate treatment, and fostering open communication about the patient’s experience in treatment. For example, clinicians may need to reiterate aspects related to payment, times when they can be available to the patient, clinical coverage during vacations, or plans for dealing with phone calls or crises (Epstein 1994; Gabbard and Wilkinson 2000; Skodol and Oldham 2021). Clinicians may also need to address specific patient behaviors that would be disruptive to the therapeutic relationship or that would suggest a need for treatment plan revisions. For example, patients may be reluctant to disclose self-harming behaviors, yet recognizing that these behaviors are occurring could lead the clinician to a greater understanding of the patient’s internal experiences. In addition, patients, family members, or others involved in the patient’s care may need to raise concerns about factors that could rupture the therapeutic relationship (e.g., sudden changes in the clinician’s schedule; perceived biases in the clinician’s attitude or interactions; negative experiences with the clinician, other treatment team members, administrative staff members, or other group therapy participants). In discussing such concerns, the clinician should remain nonjudgmental while gaining an understanding of the patient’s experience.
The intensity of the patient’s emotional experience and the behaviors that are part of BPD can also evoke various emotional reactions (i.e., countertransference) in clinicians ranging from warmth and empathy to desires to “rescue” the patient to negative feelings (e.g., frustration, anger) (Bhola and Mehrotra 2021). If not recognized by the clinician, such emotional reactions can impact clinical decision-making in ways that are not in the patient’s best interest. Team consultation and supervision are important avenues for understanding these emotional responses and the perspectives of different clinicians so that treatment is not adversely affected. If treatment is discontinued, whether by the patient or the clinician, attention should be given to its timing and to transfer of care (American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics 2023a). If the treatment termination process is unusually difficult or complex, a consultation with another clinician should be considered.
Even when the treatment framework has been developed and agreed to at the start of treatment, situations can arise in which the boundaries of the framework become blurred or are crossed (Bender 2005; Gutheil 2005). Certain situations (e.g., practicing in a small community, rural area, or military setting) may complicate the task of maintaining treatment boundaries (Sederer et al. 1998). The advent of the internet and social media has introduced additional challenges (Gabbard et al. 2011). Nevertheless, it is always the clinician’s responsibility to monitor and sustain the treatment framework. Furthermore, clinicians should be proactive in exploring the meaning of any boundary crossing—whether originating from their own behavior or that of the patient—and restate their expectations about the treatment boundaries and their rationale (Bender 2005; Gutheil 2005). Clinicians should also be alert to their own feelings toward the patient and any deviations from their usual way of practicing that may signal a risk of boundary violations (e.g., appointments at unusual hours, longer-than-usual appointments, doing special favors for the patient, developing a personal friendship outside of the professional situation) (Gutheil 2005). In such circumstances, consultation, personal psychotherapy, or both may be warranted. Sexual interactions between a clinician and a patient are always unethical and, in most jurisdictions, a reportable event that can affect continued licensure (Gutheil 2005; MacIntyre and Appel 2020). If this type of boundary violation occurs, the clinician should immediately refer the patient to another clinician.
Strategies to Promote Adherence
Adherence with treatment is a crucial aspect of achieving therapeutic benefit, yet clinical studies of BPD typically have significant dropout rates (Barnicot et al. 2011; Iliakis et al. 2021). Thus, strategies to promote adherence are always important to consider when developing a patient-centered treatment plan. Adherence will generally be aided by obtaining patient input, engaging in shared decision-making as part of treatment planning, and developing a collaborative therapeutic alliance (Barnicot et al. 2022; de Freixo Ferreira et al. 2023). In youth, one study suggests that youth-oriented case management and psychiatric care focused on BPD is associated with better adherence and treatment retention than general youth-oriented care models (Chanen et al. 2022). Some potential factors that can influence adherence may become evident during the initial evaluation or early sessions. These include difficulties in prior therapeutic relationships, ineffectiveness of prior treatment, viewing treatment as unnecessary, perceptions of stigma about needing treatment (including self-stigma), prior difficulties with adherence, cultural or family beliefs about illness or treatment, lack of support from significant others for treatment, or the presence of co-occurring conditions (e.g., depression; alcohol, cannabis, other SUDs). Other common issues with adherence to treatment include financial barriers (e.g., cost, lack of insurance or underinsurance), difficulties scheduling visits around work or school schedules, limited geographical availability or accessibility of services, or issues with transportation or with childcare. When medications are part of the treatment plan, many of the same elements apply (e.g., cost, lack of perceived need for treatment, concerns about prior treatment experiences or stigma). In addition, patients may have concerns about side effects (e.g., weight gain, sexual dysfunction) or difficulty with managing complex regimens (e.g., due to frequency of doses, number of medications) (Anderson et al. 2020; Kardas et al. 2013; Nieuwlaat et al. 2014; Peh et al. 2021). These potential contributors to nonadherence can be explored proactively or be reassessed if adherence difficulties develop. Addressing these barriers as part of the treatment plan requires active collaboration and problem-solving between the clinician and the patient, often with input from the patient’s family and others involved in the patient’s life. With adolescents, involvement of parents, family members, and other caregivers is critical.
Using Peer-Support Programs to Enhance Care
Peer-support programs have been used in SUD treatment programs (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2022), as well as in mental health treatment programs (Høgh Egmose et al. 2023; Mirbahaeddin and Chreim 2022) more broadly. Although research on peer support programs has been limited, available evidence suggests that they may have small positive effects on anxiety and personal recovery (Høgh Egmose et al. 2023). Peer support can also be used to complement, but not replace, other treatment approaches in various settings and formats (e.g., individual, group, in-person, online) (Emotions Matter 2023b; Høgh Egmose et al. 2023; Mirbahaeddin and Chreim 2022; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2022). In patients with BPD, peer support may help individuals feel less isolated, more understood, and hopeful and may assist them in developing coping skills with input from the perspective of someone with lived experience (Barr et al. 2020, 2022). When peer support is used as part of the treatment plan, it is important to have a specific framework or structure in place (e.g., as with the peer support groups provided by Emotions Matter 2023b). If peer support services are integrated into hospital-based or outpatient-based treatment programs, other implementation issues should be considered to optimize benefits and to avoid potential harms for the patient and the peer support worker (e.g., role definitions and boundaries, supervision, privacy of patient health records, relationships with team members; Mirbahaeddin and Chreim 2022).
Coordinating the Treatment Effort
Treatment of BPD can be provided by a single clinician performing multiple tasks or by multiple clinicians performing separate treatment tasks. Treatment by multiple clinicians has potential advantages but can contribute to fragmentation of care. Consequently, when a team-based approach to treatment is used, ongoing coordination of the overall treatment plan needs to be ensured through clear role definitions, plans for management of crises, and regular communication among the clinicians and the patient. Often, family members and other caregivers will also be involved in care coordination, and this is particularly crucial in the treatment of adolescents. Communication and coordination of care may also be needed with primary care or specialty care clinicians who are addressing the patient’s physical health needs.
When treatment is provided by multiple clinicians, divisiveness or polarization among treatment team members can be associated with the tendency for idealization and devaluation of others (i.e., “splitting”) that occurs as a part of BPD. It is the responsibility of the treatment team to manage such issues if they occur, recognize the heightened need for intentional communication, and enhance coordination among involved clinicians to ensure that therapeutic decision-making is not compromised. For this reason, many treatments for BPD are explicit in defining roles and relationships among treatment team members.
Addressing Risks for Suicidal and Aggressive Behavior
General Aspects of Risk Assessment
Identifying risk factors and estimating risks for suicidal and aggressive behaviors are essential parts of psychiatric evaluation (American Psychiatric Association 2016a; described in detail in the “Implementation” section of Statement 1). Despite identification of these risk factors, it is not possible to predict whether a patient will engage in aggressive behaviors or attempt or die by suicide. However, when an increased risk for such behaviors is present, it is important that the treatment plan identifies the optimal setting of care and implements approaches to target and reduce modifiable risk factors. Although demographic and historical risk factors are static, potentially modifiable risk factors may include poor adherence, co-occurring symptoms (e.g., depression, hopelessness, hostility, impulsivity, sleep disturbance), or co-occurring diagnoses (e.g., depression, alcohol use disorder [AUD], other SUDs, physical health conditions). Life events that may increase risk in a patient include traumatic experiences, disrupted relationships, perceived failures at school or work, or discrimination experienced in relation to race, ethnicity, or sex/gender. Risk may be reduced by increased monitoring or more intensive services during periods of increased risk (e.g., with significant psychosocial crises, during incarceration, subsequent to hospital discharge). With adolescents, and often with patients of other ages, involvement of family members or other caregivers can be helpful in strengthening social support networks and providing collateral information that is relevant to risk assessment (Mammen et al. 2020).
Risk for Suicide and Suicidal Behaviors
Although suicidal ideation does not occur in all patients with BPD (Zimmerman and Becker 2023), many individuals with BPD will experience suicidal ideation at some point in their lifetime. It is estimated that self-injurious behavior occurs in more than 90% of individuals with BPD, with suicide attempts in approximately 75% and suicide death in 3%–10% (Black et al. 2004; Cipriano et al. 2017; Goodman et al. 2017; Grilo and Udo 2021; Kjær et al. 2020; Leichsenring et al. 2011; Links et al. 2013; Machado et al. 2022; Paris 2019; Temes et al. 2019; Yen et al. 2021; Zanarini et al. 2008). Managing suicide risk in individuals with BPD can be challenging for several reasons. For the patient, suicidal thoughts are associated with distressing internal experiences that may include feelings of hopelessness, failure, loss of control, or harsh self-criticism (Berg et al. 2017, 2020; Gaily-Luoma et al. 2022; Schechter et al. 2019). In addition, because patients with BPD may have difficulty forming stable interpersonal relationships, it can be difficult for them to work collaboratively in treatment to reduce their risk of serious self-harm or suicide. Furthermore, many patients with BPD have ongoing risk factors for suicide (e.g., prior suicide attempts, chronic thoughts of suicide, frequent episodes of NSSI), which makes it difficult to discern when a patient is at imminent risk of making a serious suicide attempt. Even with careful attention to suicide risk, it is often difficult to predict serious self-harm or suicide because this behavior can occur impulsively and without warning. Because of the heightened risk of suicide attempts and suicide death in individuals with BPD, it is important that patients be monitored for suicide risk, suicide risk assessments be documented, individualized safety plans be developed (Nuij et al. 2021; Stanley and Brown 2012; Stanley et al. 2018), and treatment plans be adjusted or reformulated as clinically necessary.
APA’s Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults, 3rd Edition (American Psychiatric Association 2016a) include detailed information on specific elements to assess in making a determination about suicide risk (see Table 2). Structured approaches to assessing suicide risk can also be helpful for asking about and documenting suicide-related risk information in a consistent fashion. Examples of such approaches include the Suicide Assessment Five-Step Evaluation and Triage for Clinicians (SAFE-T) framework (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2009) and the Assessment of Suicide and Risk Inventory (ASARI; T. Black 2013; Health Standards Organization 2023).
If suicidal ideas, plans, or intent are reported, these should be addressed with the patient. Collaborating with the patient in developing an individualized crisis prevention or safety plan is an essential component of this process (Nuij et al. 2021; Stanley and Brown 2012; Stanley et al. 2018). In the absence of acute factors increasing suicide risk, chronic aspects of risk can typically be addressed in the context of therapy. However, the clinician should also be mindful of situations such as feelings of rejection, fears of abandonment, changes in treating clinicians, or conflicts in interpersonal relationships that may have precipitated suicidal ideas or behaviors in an individual patient in the past. When co-occurring disorders are present that may increase suicide risk (e.g., depressive episodes, AUD or other SUDs), these should be addressed as part of the treatment plan, if not already being treated.
If significant acute suicide risk is present, actions such as hospitalization may be needed to provide more intensive observation and treatment and to reduce the risk of serious self-harm. Referral to a more intensive level of care may also be needed if self-injurious behaviors are frequent. If patients with high levels of suicide risk do not appear to be responding to treatment, consultation with a colleague can be useful.
Risk for Aggressive Behavior
Anger and impulsivity are other aspects of emotional dysregulation that are common in individuals with BPD and can be directed inwardly or at others, including the clinician. Anger is particularly likely to occur when there is a disruption in the patient’s relationships or when the patient feels frustrated, abandoned, betrayed, or seriously misunderstood. Thus, it can be helpful to gain a better understanding of the patient’s internal experience and its association with anger while emphasizing the need to maintain boundaries of acceptable behavior for purposes of safety. As with suicide risk, it is important for patients to be monitored for risks of aggression, for such risk assessments to be documented, and for treatment plans to be adjusted or reformulated as clinically necessary. However, even with close monitoring and attention to anger, impulsivity, and aggression risk, it is difficult to predict their occurrence. In addition, a complicating factor is that the patient’s anger or behavior may produce anger in the therapist, which has the potential to adversely affect clinical judgment.
APA’s Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults, 3rd Edition (American Psychiatric Association 2016a) include detailed information on specific elements to assess when determining a patient’s risk of aggressive behaviors (see Table 2). In terms of BPD, patients who also have antisocial personality traits or antisocial personality disorder may be at further risk of aggression to others, and severe antisocial features may limit the viability of psychotherapy. Aggression may also be more likely when an SUD is present (Zanarini et al. 2017), when anger is intense (Neukel et al. 2022), when impulsivity and intense anger occur in the presence of identity disturbance (Harford et al. 2019), or when an individual has experienced verbal, emotional, physical, or sexual abuse during adulthood (Zanarini et al. 2017). Contacts with law enforcement or the criminal justice system can occur in individuals with BPD (Epshteyn and Mahmoud 2021; Nakic et al. 2022; Wetterborg et al. 2015) and may be more common in those who experience anger as a prominent symptom (Kolla et al. 2017; McGonigal and Dixon-Gordon 2020). In addition, men with BPD may be more likely to present with externalizing symptoms, such as anger, than women with BPD (Qian et al. 2022).
If the risk of aggression is substantial or if violence appears to be imminent, a higher level of care or hospitalization may be needed to provide more intensive evaluation and observation, to help the patient regain control, and to adjust the treatment plan to reduce risk. Whenever an individual has aggressive or homicidal ideas or behaviors, it is important to identify any intended targets of aggression. If a specific target is identified, the clinician should use clinical judgment to decide whether the patient requires a more supervised setting of care (to provide protection for the identified target and more intensive treatment for the patient), whether the identified target should be warned of the potential for harm, or both. Case law and statutes that address the Tarasoff duty to protect vary considerably by state (Soulier et al. 2010), and clinicians should become familiar with the requirements of their local jurisdiction.
Monitoring and Reassessing the Patient’s Clinical Status and Treatment Plan
As treatment proceeds, iterative reevaluation of treatment effectiveness is essential. Although discussions with the patient, family members, and others typically occur as part of the initial assessment (see Statement 1), additional input is helpful as treatment proceeds and the treatment plan is updated. Discussion with parents or other involved caregivers is particularly important when treating adolescents and emerging adults.
Often, the course of treatment is uneven, and setbacks may occur (e.g., at times of heightened stress). Such setbacks do not necessarily indicate that the treatment is ineffective. Rather, therapeutic efforts may facilitate coping strategies to address such situational precipitants. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect an overall trend toward improvement.
Features of BPD are heterogeneous. For example, some patients display prominent affective instability, whereas others exhibit marked impulsivity or antisocial traits. Because of this heterogeneity, and because of each patient’s unique history, the treatment plan needs to be flexible and adapted to the needs of the individual patient. Flexibility is also needed to respond to the changing characteristics of patients over time (e.g., at one point, the treatment focus may be on safety, whereas at another, it may be on improving relationships and functioning at work). Similarly, the clinician may need to use different treatment modalities or refer the patient for additional treatments (e.g., behavioral, supportive, or psychodynamic psychotherapy) at different times during the treatment or if prior treatments have not been associated with a sufficient clinical response.
If improvement is not occurring or if there are significant changes in presenting issues or symptoms, the diagnosis and treatment plan should be reassessed and a change in the approach to treatment should be considered. When changes to the treatment plan are made, attention should be paid to careful and adequate documentation, including the decision-making process, communication with other clinicians, and the rationale for the treatment change, including aspects related to risk of suicidal or aggressive behaviors. Consultation with a colleague can also be useful when a patient is not improving, for unusually high-risk patients (e.g., when suicide risk is very high), or when it is unclear what the best treatment approach might be. When a consultation has occurred, it is important to document the colleague’s recommendations, whether those recommendations were followed or not, and, if the clinician made a different treatment decision, why the recommendations were not followed.
Addressing Co-occurring Psychiatric Disorders
Patients with BPD often have other co-occurring psychiatric disorders, such as mood disorders, PTSD, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, ADHD, SUDs, and other personality disorders (Choi-Kain et al. 2022; Friborg et al. 2014; Geluk Rouwhorst et al. 2023; Grant et al. 2016; Gunderson et al. 2014; Keuroghlian et al. 2015; Leichsenring et al. 2011; Lenzenweger et al. 2007; McDermid et al. 2015; McGlashan et al. 2000; Miller et al. 2022; Momen et al. 2022; Santo et al. 2022; Tate et al. 2022; Trull et al. 2018; Zanarini et al. 2004a, 2010, 2019; Zimmerman et al. 2017). When the presence of co-occurring disorders has been studied in adolescents with BPD, similar increases in the frequency of internalizing and externalizing disorders have been found (Fonagy et al. 2015; Ha et al. 2014; Sharp and Fonagy 2015). These disorders can complicate the clinical picture and need to be addressed in treatment. Furthermore, when a co-occurring disorder is present, the clinical presentation may be more severe, and symptom remission is often more difficult to achieve in the co-occurring disorder (Ceresa et al. 2021; Geluk Rouwhorst et al. 2023; Gunderson et al. 2014; Keuroghlian et al. 2015).
Mood Disorders
BPD is common among patients with bipolar disorder, affecting about one in five bipolar patients overall and an even greater proportion of those with bipolar II disorder (Fornaro et al. 2016). In patients with MDD, estimates suggest that about 15% have BPD (Friborg et al. 2014). Conversely, almost all individuals with BPD will have at least one episode of MDD in their lifetime (Gunderson et al. 2008), and depressive episodes are often recurrent and/or persistent (Gunderson et al. 2008; Skodol et al. 2011).
In patients with BPD, it can be challenging to distinguish mood episodes of bipolar disorder or MDD from mood-related symptoms and affective instability due to BPD. Prior to considering specific treatments for symptoms of depression or affective instability, it is important to establish whether MDD or bipolar disorder is present. This will usually require a detailed longitudinal history of symptoms, treatments, and treatment responses, as well as specific information about associated symptoms and patterns of symptoms, family history of mood disorders, and history from collateral informants. For example, individuals can experience suicidal ideas and hopelessness as elements of depressive episodes or BPD; however, neurovegetative symptoms are more commonly seen with MDD, whereas fears of abandonment, feelings of emptiness, self-destructive behaviors, and NSSI are more consistent with a diagnosis of BPD (American Psychiatric Association 2022a). The presence of psychotic symptoms and a family history of bipolar disorder are also more likely in individuals with bipolar disorder as compared with those who have BPD alone (Durdurak et al. 2022). When compared with individuals with mood disorders alone, individuals with BPD and co-occurring mood disorder are more likely to have atypical features of depression (Gremaud-Heitz et al. 2014), aggressive features (Tong et al. 2021), and suicidal behaviors (Söderholm et al. 2020).
If concomitant bipolar disorder is present in a patient with BPD, there is limited evidence on the optimal approach to treatment (Frankenburg and Zanarini 2002; Gartlehner et al. 2021). Although lamotrigine appears to have efficacy in patients with bipolar depressive episodes (Yildiz et al. 2023), a large randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients with BPD alone showed no significant clinical effect on BPD (Crawford et al. 2018). Information on treatment with valproic acid or lithium in individuals with bipolar disorder and BPD is even more limited. Lithium treatment is effective in the treatment and prevention of manic episodes (Fountoulakis et al. 2022) and is associated with a decrease in long-term risk of suicide in patients with bipolar disorder in most (Chen et al. 2023; Wilkinson et al. 2023) but not all (Wortzel et al. 2023) studies. Nevertheless, its narrow therapeutic index and toxicity in overdose are important to keep in mind (Barroilhet and Ghaemi 2020; Wortzel et al. 2023) for patients with BPD and bipolar disorder who have significant impulsivity and risk for suicide.
When MDD and BPD co-occur, some data suggest that patients may be less likely to respond to treatments for depression than patients with MDD alone. Nevertheless, many such patients will respond to evidence-based treatments for MDD (Ceresa et al. 2021), and the initial choice of an antidepressant should follow guideline-based recommendations (American Psychiatric Association 2010; Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense 2022). In addition, treatment of BPD may improve the chance of depression response (Ceresa et al. 2021). Several small studies of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) showed benefits in patients with MDD and BPD (Ceresa et al. 2021). Because of their frequent use in the treatment of MDD alone, SSRIs tend to be used most often in patients with co-occurring MDD and BPD (Ceresa et al. 2021; Pascual et al. 2023). Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have not been well studied in patients with BPD and MDD. Several small studies in the older literature suggested that monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) may be more beneficial than tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) in individuals with BPD (Cowdry and Gardner 1988; Parsons et al. 1989), particularly if atypical depressive symptoms are present. Although MAOIs can be an option in individuals with MDD whose depressive symptoms have not responded to other antidepressive treatments (Van den Eynde et al. 2022a), they are rarely used in patients with MDD and BPD. If considered, factors such as impulsivity, concomitant substance use, and suicidal behaviors should be weighed carefully because of the potential for drug-drug and drug-diet interactions (Van den Eynde et al. 2022a, 2022b) with MAOI treatment.
Because patients with BPD can have significant suicide risk and repeated suicidal attempts or hospitalizations for suicidal ideation, they are sometimes referred for ECT on this basis. As noted earlier, before considering treatment such as ECT, it is important to establish whether mood-related symptoms, including suicide-related risks, are related to a concomitant mood disorder rather than attributable to BPD. As with other antidepressant treatments in individuals with BPD, most of the available evidence suggests that patients with concomitant BPD and mood disorder can respond to ECT (Feske et al. 2004; Hein et al. 2022a, 2022b; Kaster et al. 2018; Rasmussen 2015). Despite this, when BPD and MDD co-occur, response to ECT may be slower, remission and response rates may be less robust, and relapse may be more frequent after ECT treatment is stopped than in depressed patients without BPD (Feske et al. 2004; Hein et al. 2022a, 2022b; Kaster et al. 2018; Rasmussen 2015). These factors should be weighed along with the other potential benefits and risks of ECT before making specific treatment recommendations. Although data on benefits of TMS are more limited than data on ECT in patients with concomitant MDD and BPD, there is less potential risk, particularly in terms of cognitive side effects (Cailhol et al. 2014; Chiappini et al. 2022; Feffer et al. 2022; Konstantinou et al. 2021; Reyes-López et al. 2018). In addition, one study suggested that response to TMS in patients with BPD is comparable with that in patients without BPD (Ward et al. 2021).
Even less is known about the use of ketamine to treat depressive episodes in patients with BPD who have co-occurring bipolar disorder or MDD. In patients with BPD, a small RCT of a single infusion of ketamine, as compared with midazolam, showed no effects on the primary outcome of suicidal ideation or secondary outcomes of anxiety, depression, or BPD symptoms, although socio-occupational functioning was better with ketamine at 14 days (Fineberg et al. 2023). In terms of potential adverse effects, one case report suggested that intravenous ketamine might be associated with worsening symptoms of BPD (Vanicek et al. 2022). The occurrence of dissociative symptoms in other studies of ketamine treatment (Fineberg et al. 2023; McIntyre et al. 2021; Rhee et al. 2022; Williamson et al. 2023) also suggests that caution and careful monitoring should be used if ketamine is prescribed to treat depressive episodes in an individual with BPD.
Anxiety Disorders
Anxiety disorders, like mood disorders, are common in individuals with BPD (Ansell et al. 2011; Leichsenring et al. 2023; McGlashan et al. 2000; Qadeer Shah et al. 2023; Zanarini et al. 1998, 2004a; Zimmerman and Mattia 1999) and may represent an initial reason for patient assessment (Zimmerman and Becker 2023). Reported rates of anxiety disorders vary with the sampling method and setting of care in clinical samples; however, rates of panic disorder and social phobia are high in individuals with BPD, occurring in one-fifth to almost one-half of some samples (McGlashan et al. 2000; Qadeer Shah et al. 2023; Zanarini et al. 1998, 2004a; Zimmerman and Mattia 1999). Simple phobias are reported in about one-quarter of individuals with BPD, whereas generalized anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) occur in one-sixth to one-fifth of the samples (McGlashan et al. 2000; Qadeer Shah et al. 2023; Zanarini et al. 1998, 2004a; Zimmerman and Mattia 1999). Information on the course of co-occurring anxiety disorders in BPD is limited because many of the available studies enrolled inpatients. Nevertheless, when assessed longitudinally, the prevalence of anxiety disorders in patients with BPD appears to fluctuate as symptoms remit and recur and as some individuals develop a new anxiety disorder diagnosis (Silverman et al. 2012; Zanarini et al. 2004a). In addition, the overall proportion of anxiety diagnoses appears to decrease somewhat with time, although it remains elevated relative to individuals with other personality disorders (Silverman et al. 2012; Zanarini et al. 2004a) or rates of anxiety disorders in general community samples (Kessler et al. 1994).
In terms of anxiety disorder treatment, few studies have assessed specific treatment approaches in patients with co-occurring BPD (Harned and Valenstein 2013; Pascual et al. 2023). Consequently, treatment approaches typically include the addition of anxiety-focused elements to psychotherapy or the use of antidepressants, if appropriate, for treatment of the co-occurring anxiety disorder. Use of benzodiazepines is not generally recommended because of the potential for greater impulsivity or disinhibition, as well as the potential for misuse or the development of dependence (Leichsenring et al. 2023; Lieslehto et al. 2023; Pascual et al. 2023).
Eating Disorders
The co-occurrence of BPD and eating disorders varies with the specific eating disorder and its subtype. Rates of BPD are greatest among individuals with bulimia nervosa and the binge-purge subtype of anorexia nervosa as compared with the restrictive subtype (Reas et al. 2013; Sansone et al. 2005; Skodol et al. 1993).
Among clinical samples of patients with BPD, eating disorder diagnoses were frequent, with greater rates among inpatient than outpatient samples (Chen et al. 2009; Martinussen et al. 2017; Zanarini et al. 2021). Symptoms related to eating are also common in patients with BPD even when full criteria for an eating disorder are not met (Marino and Zanarini 2001). Notably, most studies on BPD and eating disorder co-occurrence have been done in women with either anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa; limited information is available on individuals of other genders or those with binge-eating disorder.
As in BPD, in adults, the primary treatment for anorexia nervosa or for binge-eating disorder is an evidence-based psychotherapy, either alone or in combination with an SSRI (e.g., fluoxetine) recommended for bulimia nervosa (American Psychiatric Association 2023). In adolescents and emerging adults who have an involved caregiver, an eating disorder–focused family-based treatment is recommended for treatment of anorexia nervosa and suggested for that of bulimia nervosa (American Psychiatric Association 2023). Consequently, for individuals with a co-occurring diagnosis of BPD and an eating disorder, psychotherapy may be able to address both conditions simultaneously. In other circumstances, with medical instability or significant nutritional compromise, stabilization of the eating disorder may be needed (American Psychiatric Association 2023) prior to initiating treatment for BPD.
Substance Use Disorders
SUDs, including AUD, are also common in patients with BPD (Carpenter et al. 2016; Grant et al. 2016; Santo et al. 2022; Trull et al. 2018). Patients with BPD and co-occurring SUDs often have poorer outcomes than those with BPD alone, and the risks are greater for morbidity and mortality related to injuries or suicidal behaviors (Doyle et al. 2016; Heath et al. 2018a; Kjær et al. 2020). Substance use may heighten risks of being victimized (Seid et al. 2022; Victor and Hedden-Clayton 2023) and can also increase impulsivity and lower the threshold for acting on self-injurious behaviors. Consequently, inquiring about substance use is an important aspect of history taking. It is also helpful to provide patients with education on the risks of substance use in the context of BPD. When substance use is present, motivational interviewing and brief interventions can be used as initial steps. For individuals with an SUD, concomitant treatment or referral for treatment is essential. Depending on the severity of the SUD, stabilization may be needed before initiating BPD treatment, and inpatient treatment may be needed for withdrawal management or more intensive interventions. For some patients, participation in a community-based peer support group such as a 12-step program can be helpful, although there is a paucity of research on these modalities (Ferri et al. 2006). Nevertheless, the focus and structure of groups can vary considerably, and, in some instances, emotional distress or harm can occur in relation to issues such as boundary management. For these reasons, community-based peer support programs cannot substitute for formal medical treatment in the management of SUDs.
Evidence-based pharmacotherapy (e.g., opioid agonist or antagonist treatment for opioid use disorder, acamprosate or naltrexone for AUD) should also be recommended when appropriate to the patient’s clinical condition. In addition to the benefits of oral and LAI naltrexone in AUD (Bahji et al. 2022; Kedia et al. 2023; Murphy et al. 2022), oral naltrexone has been noted to reduce self-injurious behavior in open-label studies (Roth et al. 1996), retrospective analyses (Timäus et al. 2021), and case reports (Griengl et al. 2001; McGee 1997). However, clinical observations suggest that, in some patients treated with naltrexone, self-injurious behavior may escalate in frequency or severity rather than decline. If patients are receiving medication treatment through an SUD treatment program or primary care clinician, ongoing communication and coordination of care is important as described earlier in the section “Coordinating the Treatment Effort.”
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
In comparison with the general population or comparison groups with other psychiatric disorders, individuals with BPD have higher rates of having experienced childhood adversity or traumatic experiences as an adult (de Aquino Ferreira et al. 2018; Hailes et al. 2019; Porter et al. 2020; Solmi et al. 2021). Individuals may also have experienced trauma related to discrimination, such as that related to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or sex/gender (Maharaj et al. 2021; Spengler et al. 2016; Sue et al. 2007). Among individuals with BPD, there is an increased incidence of PTSD (Scheiderer et al. 2015) and concomitant symptoms of PTSD can occur without meeting full criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD (American Psychiatric Association 2022a). Notably, individuals with both disorders have greater rates of exposure to multiple and interpersonal trauma than individuals with either disorder alone (Jowett et al. 2020a). Although there can be some overlap of BPD with the features of complex PTSD, these two conditions appear to be conceptually and clinically distinct (Ford and Courtois 2021; Giourou et al. 2018; Jowett et al. 2020b; Maercker et al. 2022).
In terms of treatment for PTSD, individuals who have concomitant BPD typically require a phased approach to treatment in which exposure-based treatment is begun only after solidifying the therapeutic alliance and stabilizing BPD symptoms, including significant suicide risk. Although meta-analyses have not shown an increase in adverse effects when exposure-based treatments are used to treat PTSD in patients with BPD, the available studies have typically used a phased approach and excluded patients with significant suicide risk (Slotema et al. 2020; Zeifman et al. 2021). DBT has been used to treat PTSD; results of one RCT showed benefit with DBT as compared with a wait-list control group (Bohus et al. 2013). Notably, in the subgroup of patients with co-occurring PTSD and BPD, the reduction in PTSD symptoms was comparable with that seen in patients with PTSD only (Bohus et al. 2013), whereas BPD symptoms were less responsive to DBT when PTSD was present as compared with BPD alone (Barnicot and Priebe 2013). In comparative effectiveness studies in patients with PTSD, comparable outcomes were found with DBT and cognitive processing therapy (CPT) (Bohus et al. 2020). Another comparison of DBT and GPM for PTSD showed that both treatments were associated with comparable improvement in PTSD symptoms, but patients with co-occurring PTSD began and ended with more symptoms than those with BPD alone (Boritz et al. 2016).
Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is another treatment approach that has been studied in PTSD (Cuijpers et al. 2020; Hudays et al. 2022; Mavranezouli et al. 2020) and suggested or recommended as a PTSD treatment in several practice guidelines (Courtois et al. 2017; Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense 2023; Martin et al. 2021). Most research suggests that the effects of EMDR are comparable with those of CBT; however, many of these studies have significant biases. When meta-analyses have focused on studies with a low risk of bias, benefits of EMDR appear less robust (Cuijpers et al. 2020; Hudays et al. 2022; Mavranezouli et al. 2020). In patients with BPD and PTSD, only pilot data are available, which is insufficient to support EMDR use in this context (Wilhelmus et al. 2023).
Some individuals with BPD may experience auditory hallucinations, dissociative symptoms, or both; each of these symptoms may be more common in individuals with BPD who have experienced trauma. When auditory hallucinations are present, they are often related to stress. In contrast to hallucinations in schizophrenia, individuals with BPD who experience hallucinations will not typically have formal thought disorder, flat or blunted affect, or negative symptoms (Beatson et al. 2019; Niemantsverdriet et al. 2017; Slotema et al. 2018). Although psychotic symptoms are mild and transient in most patients with BPD, the presence of more severe or persistent psychosis should prompt additional evaluation for a concomitant psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia.
Dissociative symptoms, including depersonalization and derealization, can be transient but can also be severe or frequent and interfere with treatment and with psychosocial functioning (Bohus et al. 2021; Krause-Utz 2022; Shah et al. 2020). Dissociative identity disorder can also co-occur with BPD (Al-Shamali et al. 2022; Brand and Lanius 2014; Scalabrini et al. 2017). In a transdiagnostic sample, dissociative symptoms were associated with an increased risk of self-harm and suicide attempts (Sommer et al. 2021), whereas in studies of DBT, more severe dissociative symptoms were associated with poorer treatment outcomes (Kleindienst et al. 2011).
Autism Spectrum Disorder
Information on individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and BPD is limited. Current evidence does not suggest that rates of BPD are increased in individuals with ASD or that rates of ASD are increased in individuals with BPD. However, there has been increasing recognition that distinguishing between BPD and ASD can be difficult because symptoms such as emotional dysregulation, relationship disruptions, and self-injurious behavior can occur in either diagnosis (Cheney et al. 2023; May et al. 2021). In addition, when both disorders are present, features of ASD can make it more difficult for patients to engage in psychotherapy for BPD (Cheney et al. 2023; May et al. 2021).
Treating Patients During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period
Individuals with childbearing potential and who may become pregnant should be assisted in obtaining effective contraception if pregnancy is not desired. For patients who are planning to become pregnant, are pregnant, or are in the postpartum period, collaborative discussion of treatment options is essential. In addition to the patient, such discussions typically include the obstetrician-gynecologist or other obstetrical practitioner, the infant’s pediatrician for individuals who are breastfeeding, and, if involved, a partner or other people in the patient’s support network. The overall goal is to develop a plan of care aimed at optimizing outcomes for both the patient and the infant. Untreated or inadequately treated maternal psychiatric illness can result in poor adherence to prenatal care, inadequate nutrition, increased alcohol or tobacco use, and disruptions to the family environment and mother-infant bonding (ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics 2008; American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetrician-Gynecologists 2017; Tosato et al. 2017). In addition, during pregnancy and the postpartum period, frequent reassessment will be needed to determine if any modifications to the treatment plan are indicated. As with all individuals who are pregnant, regular prenatal care is essential to ensuring optimal outcomes (American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetrician-Gynecologists 2017; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2018).
In patients with BPD, psychotherapy is the primary focus of treatment, and it may be possible to avoid the use of or to discontinue medications prior to conception, during pregnancy, or while breastfeeding. All psychotropic medications studied to date cross the placenta, are present in amniotic fluid, and enter human breast milk (American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetrician-Gynecologists 2017). If an individual becomes pregnant while taking a psychotropic medication, consideration should be given to consulting an obstetrician-gynecologist or maternal/fetal medicine subspecialist in addition to discussion with the prescribing clinician to determine whether the risks of stopping the medication outweigh any possible fetal risks (American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetrician-Gynecologists 2017; U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2011). For many patients, the period of greatest teratogenic risk (i.e., through the eighth week of gestation) will already have passed before prenatal care begins, and stopping psychotropic medication will not avoid or reduce teratogenic risk (American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetrician-Gynecologists 2017). If medications are continued during pregnancy, physiological alterations of pregnancy affect the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination of medications, and adjustments in medication dosages may be needed (ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics 2008; Chisolm and Payne 2016).
Individuals who are taking medications and who wish to breastfeed their infants should review the potential benefits of breastfeeding as well as potential risks in the context of shared decision-making (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Obstetric Practice and Breastfeeding Expert Work Group 2016; Sachs and Committee On Drugs 2013), with associated monitoring of growth and development by the infant’s pediatrician (Sachs and Committee On Drugs 2013).
Addressing Needs of Patients in Correctional Settings
Rates of psychiatric illness, including BPD, are higher in correctional settings (e.g., prisons, jails, police lockups, detention facilities) than in the general population (Al-Rousan et al. 2017; Bebbington et al. 2017; Black et al. 2007; Nakic et al. 2022; Steadman et al. 2009; Wetterborg et al. 2015). Among individuals with BPD, criminal justice involvement may be especially likely in those with concomitant SUDs or antisocial personality disorder (Howard et al. 2021; Mir et al. 2015). Careful assessment and treatment planning are essential when individuals with a psychiatric condition are in correctional settings. Although some aspects of treatment may need to be adjusted to conform with unique aspects of correctional settings (Tamburello et al. 2018), many individuals experience gaps in care during incarceration (Epshteyn and Mahmoud 2021; Fries et al. 2013; Reingle Gonzalez and Connell 2014; Wilper et al. 2009). Access to treatment should be preserved, including treatment for concomitant SUDs (American Psychiatric Association 2007). Suicidal behavior and NSSI are particular risks in the correctional system (Barker et al. 2014; Casiano et al. 2013; Young et al. 2006). In this regard, patients with BPD may also ingest objects or insert them into their body while incarcerated (Frei-Lanter et al. 2012; Mannarino et al. 2017; Masood 2021; Rada and James 1982; Reisner et al. 2013).
While in the correctional system, individuals with BPD may engage in disruptive behavior that results in disciplinary infractions (Yasmeen et al. 2022) and/or placement in a locked-down segregated setting in which inmates typically spend an average of 23 hours/day in a cell, have limited human interaction, and have minimal or no access to programs (American Psychiatric Association 2017, 2018; American Public Health Association 2013; National Commission on Correctional Health Care 2016; Semenza and Grosholz 2019). Such settings offer little support or access to treatment due to security concerns and are likely to exacerbate rather than reduce disruptive behaviors (American College of Correctional Physicians 2013; American Psychiatric Association 2016b, 2017; American Public Health Association 2013; National Commission on Correctional Health Care 2016). Notably, rates of self-injury and suicide appear to be higher in such settings than elsewhere in the correctional system (Baillargeon et al. 2009b; Favril et al. 2020; Glowa-Kollisch et al. 2016; Kaba et al. 2014; Way et al. 2005), which is of particular concern in patients with BPD. Group treatment with Systems Training for Emotional Predictability and Problem Solving (STEPPS) has been studied in a correctional population and is associated with reductions in suicidal behaviors and disciplinary infractions, although attrition rates were significant (Black et al. 2013, 2018).
Continuity of care is also important upon release from a correctional setting. This is particularly true for individuals who have been incarcerated for significant periods of time who will likely need assistance with domains such as housing, treatment needs, and financial support, including Medicaid benefits (American Psychiatric Association 2009; Baillargeon et al. 2009a, 2010; Draine et al. 2010; Wenzlow et al. 2011).

Statement 4 – Discussion of Diagnosis and Treatment

APA recommends (1C) that a patient with borderline personality disorder be engaged in a collaborative discussion about their diagnosis and treatment, which includes psychoeducation related to the disorder.

Implementation

Once a diagnosis of BPD has been established, it is important to discuss the diagnosis with the patient in a collaborative fashion that allows them to ask questions and share their experiences and perspectives. When treating an adolescent, parents or other involved caregivers should also be engaged in the discussion of the diagnostic impression. Clinicians are sometimes reluctant to document a diagnosis of BPD or to share the diagnosis with patients out of concern for upsetting the patient, disrupting the therapeutic relationship, or contributing to discrimination toward the patient because of stigma against individuals with BPD or those with psychiatric conditions more generally (Lequesne and Hersh 2004; Proctor et al. 2021; Sims et al. 2022; Sisti et al. 2016; Sulzer et al. 2016). However, disclosure and discussion of a BPD diagnosis is preferred by patients (Proctor et al. 2021; Sulzer et al. 2016), does not adversely affect patient satisfaction (Zimmerman et al. 2018), is crucial on ethical grounds (American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics 2023b), and is part of good clinical practice. In addition, with the passing of the 21st Century Cures Act (Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology 2020), clinical notes are required to be shared with patients except under very limited circumstances, and proactively disclosing and discussing the diagnosis of BPD will aid patients in understanding these notes. For many patients, having access to notes and understanding the information that they contain fosters greater engagement in their own care (DesRoches et al. 2020).
Disclosing a diagnosis of BPD is also an initial step in discussing treatment options as well as in providing psychoeducation about BPD to patients. When psychoeducation is provided in a compassionate, nonjudgmental fashion, it can provide context and validation for the patient’s experiences (e.g., in relationships, sense of self, emotional response). It is also important to ask about and understand the patient’s beliefs about BPD and its features because patients may have internalized stigma or received misinformation related to the diagnosis (Koivisto et al. 2022; Masland et al. 2023). Typically, topics reviewed as part of psychoeducation include symptoms and behaviors that are often a part of the disorder and the expected types and courses of treatment (American Psychiatric Association 2016a). For patients with BPD, it is particularly important to emphasize that treatment is effective (Ng et al. 2016, 2019a, 2019b). Many patients with BPD benefit from ongoing education about self-care (e.g., safe sex, potential legal problems, balanced diet) as well as education about crisis or safety plans. For patients who also have other concomitant disorders, these can be discussed in terms of their features and treatments in the context of BPD. In addition to psychoeducation provided by the clinician, it can be helpful to share criteria from DSM-5-TR (American Psychiatric Association 2022a), internet resources (Emotions Matter 2023a; Gunderson and Berkowitz 1991; National Education Alliance for Borderline Personality Disorder 2023c; National Institute of Mental Health 2023; New York Presbyterian Hospital 2023), or books on personality traits (Oldham and Morris 1995) or BPD (National Education Alliance for Borderline Personality Disorder 2023a) written for laypersons. More extensive psychoeducational intervention, consisting of workshops, lectures, seminars, or web-based programs may also be helpful.
Family members and other caregivers will often be a key part of the patient’s support network and care team, and this is particularly true when treating an adolescent. For this reason, family members and others in the support network will often benefit from receiving educational materials about BPD or being directed to organizations that offer education and support (Emotions Matter 2023a; Mental Health America 2023; National Alliance on Mental Illness 2023; National Education Alliance for Borderline Personality Disorder 2023b; New York Presbyterian Hospital 2023). In addition to providing emotional support, such individuals may also be providing material support such as housing, financial assistance, insurance, transportation, childcare, or other assistance. They may be able to share observations about the patient’s symptoms or behaviors, help the patient develop a safety plan, provide opinions about specific treatment approaches, or identify practical barriers to the patient’s ability to participate in treatment, such as limitations on insight, geographical issues, lack of transportation, childcare or caregiving responsibilities, financial or insurance coverage constraints, insufficient access to recommended treatment, or other systemic barriers to care. Psychoeducation for families should be distinguished from family therapy, which is sometimes a desirable part of the treatment plan and sometimes not, depending on the patient’s history and status of current relationships.

Psychosocial Interventions

Statement 5 – Psychotherapy

APA recommends (1B) that a patient with borderline personality disorder be treated with a structured approach to psychotherapy that has support in the literature and targets the core features of the disorder.

Implementation

Psychotherapy is at the core of treatment for BPD for adolescents and adults. A structured approach that has support in the literature is recommended. The specific psychotherapeutic approach selected should target the core features of the disorder.
With all psychotherapeutic modalities, it is important to foster a positive, trusting therapeutic alliance, convey a validating and nonjudgmental attitude, and balance active support with an impetus to change and develop self-efficacy. Setting a framework for treatment is also crucial (see the “Implementation” section for Statement 3), although aspects of the therapeutic framework will depend on the type of structured psychotherapy for BPD being used. Teaching of skills and development of crisis plans are elements of treatment that are shared by many psychotherapies for BPD, whereas other psychotherapies have a basis in psychodynamic principles and focus on helping patients use the therapeutic relationship to address problematic defensive patterns and understand their own and others’ mental states (Bohus et al. 2021; Leichsenring et al. 2023). In adolescents and young adults, psychotherapy will typically need to address developmental issues (Sharp and Wall 2018) and to incorporate family members or other caregivers as part of psychotherapy. For adults, family members and others in the patient’s support network may also be involved in treatment. Developmental tasks may also warrant exploration at other points in the individual’s life.
Comparison of characteristics of psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder (BPD)
CharacteristicDialectical behavior therapy (DBT)Dynamic deconstructive psychotherapy (DDP)Mentalization-based treatment (MBT)Schema-focused therapy (SFT)Systems Training for Emotional Predictability and Problem Solving (STEPPS)Transference-focused psychotherapy (TFP)Good psychiatric management (GPM)
Typical treatment duration
6–12 months
12–18 months
12–18 months
Depends on format
20 weeks
12–18 months
12 months
Individual therapy
1 hour/week
1 hour/week
1 hour/week
2 hours/week for 3 years
Not part of treatment
Two 45- to 50-minute sessions/week
Once weekly as needed
Group therapy
1.5 hour/week
Not part of treatment
75–90 minutes/week
90 minutes/week for 8 months
2 hours/week
Used as indicated
Encouraged
Family therapy/involvement
Multifamily group for adolescents
Not part of the treatment
MBT-Family
Not part of treatment
1 hour session
Used as indicated
Family psychoeducation
 
Family groups for adults
 
MBT-Family Group Therapy
    
Crisis management
Minimize emergency department (ED) use
Exploration in session
On-call mentalizing team or ED after hours
Individualized plans
Use skills in group with referral to ED or individual therapist, as needed
Minimize ED use, and use only when absolutely necessary
Crisis plan or algorithm regarding inter-session contact
 
Focus on use of skills and skills coaching
      
 
Between-session availability
      
Manual available for treatment in adolescents
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Comments
DBT skills training can be used independently from other DBT components
  
Delivered in an individual or group format but not both
Supplements other treatment
  
Multiple structured approaches to psychotherapy are available and have been studied in patients with BPD (see Appendix C, Statement 5, and Appendix D); characteristics of these approaches are summarized in Table 3. Structured psychotherapies for BPD have an associated manual or protocol and typically incorporate ongoing supervision. These factors build on initial training and supervision in the use of a specific psychotherapy and help support delivery of treatment with a high degree of fidelity.
Although a number of structured approaches to psychotherapy that target BPD are superior to treatment-as-usual or wait-list control conditions, there is no clear evidence that any specific structured approaches to psychotherapy of BPD have significantly superior outcomes to other BPD-focused structured psychotherapeutic modalities in either adults or adolescents (Storebø et al. 2020; see Statement 5 in Appendix C). In addition, limited information is available on treatment of men, gender minorities, or non-White individuals or those with Hispanic ethnicity (Storebø et al. 2020; see Statement 5 in Appendix C). In most studies that compare two active treatments, both types of psychotherapy are associated with clinical improvement, even when the outcomes of the therapies do not differ with respect to one another (see Appendices C and D). As such, selection of a treatment approach will depend on factors such as patient preferences for treatment, the availability of specific treatments, and the resource requirements of a treatment (Bohus et al. 2021; Choi-Kain et al. 2016, 2017). Under some circumstances, a patient may be unable or prefer not to access a structured form of psychotherapy for BPD (e.g., due to availability, insurance coverage, affordability of a specific psychotherapy, other reasons related to logistics or patient preference). In this situation, less structured supportive psychotherapy may still produce clinical improvements via ongoing treatment engagement, including building a therapeutic alliance and providing psychoeducation (see Statement 3).
In terms of the optimal duration of psychotherapy for BPD, evidence is also limited in terms of the time needed to resolve interpersonal problems and to attain and maintain lasting improvements in personality-related dysfunction and overall functioning. Most studies of structured psychotherapies for BPD have ranged in duration from 6 months to 18 months (Storebø et al. 2020; see Appendix D). In one longitudinal study, a majority of patients continued in some form of outpatient treatment for much of a 6-year period of follow-up (Zanarini et al. 2004b). Although other treatment trials have been of shorter duration, study participants often continue to receive other treatment, including psychotherapy for BPD, after completion of the research trials. In addition, a significant number of patients with BPD do not fully respond to initial treatment (Woodbridge et al. 2022) and may require longer periods of treatment. It is also unclear whether the optimal treatment duration varies with specific BPD features, overall severity, or with treatment intensity. For example, in an inpatient sample of individuals with BPD, many with co-occurring disorders, an intensive multimodal therapeutic approach that incorporated a mentalization-based therapeutic model was associated with a significant degree of benefit on multiple outcomes with an average length of stay of 6 weeks (Fowler et al. 2018).
DBT is a multicomponent approach that has efficacy in treating adolescents and adults with BPD but may also be useful in treating patients with other diagnoses who are at significant risk for suicide (Linehan 1993a, 1993b; Linehan et al. 2015). A key focus of DBT is to help patients develop a proactive problem-solving approach and to learn to tolerate stress, regulate emotions, improve interpersonal effectiveness, and develop mindfulness (i.e., an ability to focus awareness on the present moment) as a way to address emotional dysregulation. At the core of the therapy is a philosophical dialectic between self-acceptance and strategies aimed at change. Skills worksheets and a specific protocol for addressing suicidal thoughts and behaviors are incorporated in the therapy. DBT is administered by a team of clinicians and is time intensive for clinical teams as well as for patients. It typically includes 6–12 months of treatment with 1 hour of individual therapy and 90 minutes of group skills training weekly. Treatment team members are also available by cellphone for skills coaching between sessions. Weekly therapist consultation is an integral part of the treatment.
DBT skills training has also been studied as a standalone treatment and showed comparable effects to the full multicomponent approach to DBT when individual therapy was replaced with a case management intervention (Linehan et al. 2015). As a less intensive intervention, DBT skills training may be more accessible than multicomponent DBT. Manual-assisted CBT, a 10-session intervention, can also be considered as a less intensive approach in the treatment of individuals with BPD (Davidson et al. 2014; Tyrer et al. 2004; Weinberg et al. 2006).
As the name implies, MBT focuses on mentalization, the ability to reflect on one’s thoughts and feelings as well as those of others. Without such an ability, it is challenging to have a realistic emotional perspective on interpersonal events, particularly under stress. In MBT, the therapist guides the patient in learning to assess the emotional aspects of stressful interpersonal situations, such as those related to attachment, and then adopt a more realistic behavioral response (Bateman and Fonagy 2004, 2009; Jørgensen et al. 2013). The therapeutic relationship can also provide examples for working through these steps, although transference interpretations are not used. MBT typically includes 12–18 months of treatment with 50 minutes of weekly individual therapy and 75–90 minutes of group therapy. In adolescents, family therapy is incorporated in the treatment instead of group therapy. A weekly team meeting is also part of the treatment protocol.
TFP is a manualized, psychodynamically oriented psychotherapy that uses the transference relationship to help address intense emotional states and difficulties in interpersonal relationships (Caligor et al. 2018; Clarkin et al. 2007; Doering et al. 2010; Giesen-Bloo et al. 2006; Yeomans et al. 2015). A core principle of TFP is the belief that internal images of the self in relation to others, based on developmental experiences, exist in the mind of all people. These mental images of self in relation to others are connected by strong emotions. In BPD, the internal mental images are extreme, intense, and polarized due to biological and developmental influences. Transference is the activation of these internal images in interactions with people. In the structured setting of therapy, this activation of the internal images of the self in relation to others can be observed and understood as they are experienced in relation to the therapist. This treatment model engages reflection on the emotions being experienced in the moment, along with reflection on the reasons that the images are extreme and polarized. This joint reflection on internal states helps the patient to modulate affects better and to experience both the self and relations with others in a more complex and realistic way. TFP typically includes 12–18 months of individual therapy delivered for 50 minutes twice weekly. TFP concepts and techniques can also be incorporated into other settings (Hersh et al. 2017). Supervision is recommended for clinicians who treat patients with TFP.
DDP is a manualized individual psychotherapy (Gregory 2022; Gregory and Remen 2008), derived from psychodynamic psychotherapy, that uses the philosophical concept of deconstruction as a framework for treatment. Links to neurobiology and object relations are also part of the theoretical foundation of DDP. Therapeutic interventions focus on approaches such as alliance building, reflective listening, describing affect-laden experiences as simple narratives, recognizing and addressing polarized attributions, learning to assess oneself from an external perspective, and facilitating mourning of the limitations of oneself and others (Gregory 2022). Recent interpersonal experiences serve as primary examples for discussion, although dream exploration, artwork, or creative writing can also be used. DDP typically includes 12–18 months of treatment delivered weekly in 45- to 50-minute sessions. Other interventions such as interpersonally focused group therapy, art therapy, or 12-step programs can supplement DDP.
SFT is based on the concept that individuals view themselves and others in terms of cognitive “schemas” that are an outgrowth of developmental experiences and that manifest themselves in persistent patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving, although they are often outside of conscious awareness (Arntz and van Genderen 2021; Farrell et al. 2009; Giesen-Bloo et al. 2006; Young et al. 2003). In BPD, dysfunctional “schema modes” are seen as strongly held and controlling a person’s life through recurring and rapidly shifting constellations of intense emotions, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. These dysfunctional schema modes are addressed by fostering attachment between the patient and therapist as well as by applying behavioral, cognitive, and experiential techniques (including homework assignments). SFT also incorporates emotional awareness training and psychoeducation and employs individualized plans for managing distress. In clinical trials, SFT has been delivered in individual 50-minute twice weekly sessions for 3 years (Giesen-Bloo et al. 2006) or in weekly 90-minute group sessions for 8 months (Farrell et al. 2009).
STEPPS is designed as a supplement to other treatment approaches and is delivered in a seminar format using detailed lesson plans (Bartels and Crotty 1992; Blum et al. 2008; STEPPS 2022). STEPPS consists of weekly 2-hour groups for 20 weeks as well as a single 2-hour session for families. It incorporates psychoeducation and skills training in emotional and behavioral management, viewed from the context of social and family systems. Participants are asked to monitor their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors over the course of the program to increase their awareness and identify improvements.
GPM uses a multimodal case management model in which BPD is understood as a reflection of interpersonal hypersensitivity (Gunderson et al. 2018; Links 2014; McMain et al. 2009). As originally studied (McMain et al. 2009), GPM was developed using psychodynamic principles. Treatment uses a generalist model that emphasizes improvements in vocational and social functioning and incorporates psychoeducation about BPD, as well as psychopharmacological management when clinically appropriate (Gunderson et al. 2018; Links 2014). The therapy uses a here-and-now approach in which the therapist shows interest in the patient’s experiences and the interpersonal context and thoughts that precede their feelings and behaviors. It also focuses on the therapeutic alliance, including attention to signs that a negative transference may be developing. GPM is typically delivered in once-weekly sessions with weekly therapist supervision. An advantage of GPM is that it is relatively easy for clinicians to learn and apply (Bernanke and McCommon 2018; Hong 2016; Links et al. 2015). It has also been adapted for use with adolescents (Ilagan and Choi-Kain 2021). In addition, training in GPM may improve clinician attitudes about treating patients with BPD (Keuroghlian et al. 2016; Klein et al. 2022b; Masland et al. 2018).

Pharmacotherapy

Statement 6 – Clinical Review Before Medication Initiation

APA recommends (1C) that a patient with borderline personality disorder have a review of co-occurring disorders, prior psychotherapies, other nonpharmacological treatments, past medication trials, and current medications before initiating any new medication.

Implementation

Psychotherapy is the primary modality recommended for use in the treatment of BPD. As such, it is important to learn about a patient’s past and current psychotherapies, including the types, the clinician’s fidelity to treatment principles, the treatment intensity and duration, and the patient’s experience with therapy if this information was not already obtained as part of the initial evaluations (see Statement 1). Such information is helpful in determining whether a current psychotherapy can be optimized before adding medication or whether a change in the psychotherapeutic approach may be needed.
Similarly, it is important to obtain information about prior medication trials, including the dosages, durations, effectiveness, and associated adverse effects if this information was not already obtained as part of the initial evaluations (see Statement 1). A review of current medications is also important to determine whether the patient has been able to obtain, adhere to, and tolerate the medication. If the medication has been ineffective or if the response has been insufficient, it may be possible to increase the dosage of the medication in an effort to achieve therapeutic benefit. Alternatively, if response has been minimal, it may be preferable to discontinue the medication and reassess the need for pharmacotherapy.
Half or more of BPD patients receive polypharmacy (Bridler et al. 2015; Gartlehner et al. 2021; Paris 2015; Romanowicz et al. 2020; Shapiro-Thompson and Fineberg 2022; Soler et al. 2022; Starcevic and Janca 2018), and drug-drug interactions may affect efficacy and tolerability by increasing or decreasing serum medication levels. Consequently, the medication regimen should be examined as a whole, rather than only assessing the value of single medications as a part of the treatment plan.
In addition to reviewing past and current treatments, including other nonpharmacological treatments (e.g., ECT, TMS, light therapy), it is important to determine whether the patient has co-occurring psychiatric symptoms or disorders that warrant medication treatment (see the subsection “Addressing Co-occurring Psychiatric Disorders” in Statement 3). Although patients with BPD often have co-occurring psychiatric disorders, such as mood disorders, PTSD, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, ADHD, SUDs, and other personality disorders (Choi-Kain et al. 2022; Friborg et al. 2014; Geluk Rouwhorst et al. 2023; Grant et al. 2016; Gunderson et al. 2014; Keuroghlian et al. 2015; Leichsenring et al. 2011; Lenzenweger et al. 2007; McDermid et al. 2015; McGlashan et al. 2000; Miller et al. 2022; Momen et al. 2022; Santo et al. 2022; Tate et al. 2022; Trull et al. 2018; Zanarini et al. 2004a, 2010, 2019; Zimmerman et al. 2017), they also may exhibit symptoms such as impulsivity or mood dysregulation that are a reflection of BPD and not indicative of a co-occurring disorder. A careful history, including a family history of psychiatric illness and a longitudinal history of psychiatric symptoms or episodes, will facilitate appropriate diagnosis of co-occurring conditions when they are present without overdiagnosing (and overtreating) co-occurring conditions when they are not present.

Statement 7 – Pharmacotherapy Principles

APA suggests (2C) that any psychotropic medication treatment of borderline personality disorder be time-limited, aimed at addressing a specific measurable target symptom, and adjunctive to psychotherapy.

Implementation

Despite the lack of evidence in support of medication treatment from clinical trials (see Appendix C, Statement 7, and Appendix D; Gartlehner et al. 2021; Stoffers-Winterling et al. 2022), there may be circumstances in which treatment with a medication may be considered on clinical grounds. For example, medication to address co-occurring disorders will generally be appropriate to use (see the subsection “Addressing Co-occurring Psychiatric Disorders” in Statement 3). In other circumstances, pharmacotherapy may be used on a time-limited basis as an adjunct to psychotherapy for BPD and may help diminish symptoms such as affective instability, impulsivity, or psychotic-like symptoms in individual patients, helping them to remain engaged in treatment or reducing short-term risks of self-harm.
Selection of a medication, if one appears to be appropriate, will depend on the BPD symptom or symptoms being targeted or on the typical recommended treatments for a co-occurring condition. For example, in a patient with co-occurring MDD or OCD, SSRIs may be appropriate to use. A low dosage of a second-generation antipsychotic medication may be used for treatment of BPD symptoms in patients with psychosis, high levels of impulsivity, or agitation (Bohus et al. 2021). For extremely ill hospitalized patients with BPD (with or without psychotic symptoms), clozapine may be considered based on case reports, naturalistic data, and a small clinical trial (Chengappa et al. 1999; Crawford et al. 2022; Rohde et al. 2018). Anticonvulsant mood-stabilizing medications are sometimes used but have limited evidence of efficacy in individuals with BPD without co-occurring mood disorders (Gartlehner et al. 2021; Crawford et al. 2018). Use of benzodiazepines is not generally recommended because of the potential for greater impulsivity or disinhibition as well as the potential for misuse or the development of dependence (Leichsenring et al. 2023; Lieslehto et al. 2023; Pascual et al. 2023). Decisions about medication should also consider potential risks of toxicity in overdose or potential for misuse, particularly in individuals with a co-occurring SUD. In addition, before treating a co-occurring disorder, a thorough assessment is needed to establish the diagnosis and to determine the target symptoms for ongoing monitoring.
Prior to prescribing a medication, it is important to educate patients about the adjunctive nature of the medication in treating BPD symptoms and its potential benefits and adverse effects. In particular, medications would not be expected to affect the core features of BPD. Also, the response of co-occurring conditions to medications may be less in individuals who also have BPD. Overreliance on medication can send the erroneous message that emotional responses can be addressed by pharmacotherapy. Frequent dosage escalation or medication changes in response to crises or transient mood states are also problematic and rarely effective. Potential adverse effects of specific medications should be reviewed prior to treatment initiation. Examples include risk of metabolic syndrome, weight gain, extrapyramidal side effects, or tardive dyskinesia with antipsychotic agents; risk of neural tube defects with divalproex use early in pregnancy; risk of polycystic ovary disease with divalproex in individuals with ovaries; risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome with lamotrigine; and cognitive effects with topiramate. In adolescents, clinical trials of medications to treat BPD have not been conducted, and side effects of medications may be more problematic.
If a medication is started, the duration of treatment should be time limited, with tapering and discontinuation of the medication, if possible, once symptoms have stabilized. While treatment is occurring, however, patients should receive any monitoring that is necessary for the specific medication (e.g., serum levels for some anticonvulsants, metabolic monitoring for antipsychotics).
Communication with other members of the treatment team is an essential aspect of decision-making about medications. Treatment team members and other collateral sources of information (e.g., family members) can provide ongoing observations about symptom response, in addition to direct observation and feedback from the patient. It is also important to communicate with other health professionals, such as primary care clinicians, who may be unaware of the complexities of prescribing medications to individuals with BPD and may inadvertently prescribe unwarranted medications.

Statement 8 – Pharmacotherapy Review

APA recommends (1C) that a patient with borderline personality disorder receive a review and reconciliation of their medications at least every 6 months to assess the effectiveness of treatment and identify medications that warrant tapering or discontinuation.

Implementation

Appropriate use of pharmacotherapy for BPD includes prescribing as few medications as possible, using medication as an adjunct to treatment with psychotherapy, and selecting medications based on their ability to target specific and prominent symptom clusters (Gartlehner et al. 2021; Yadav 2020). Continuous review and reconciliation of medications is critical for avoiding or mitigating prolonged and unnecessary exposure to pharmacotherapy as well as inappropriate polypharmacy (Bridler et al. 2015; Gartlehner et al. 2021; Paris 2015; Romanowicz et al. 2020; Shapiro-Thompson and Fineberg 2022; Soler et al. 2022; Starcevic and Janca 2018). Medication reconciliation is a recommended best practice in hospital as well as outpatient settings (Institute for Safe Medication Practice 2023; The Joint Commission 2022).
Medication review has been suggested as an important part of optimizing therapeutic benefit for patients with BPD and should involve a structured, critical assessment of all medications prescribed, including among patients also participating in psychotherapy (Kadra-Scalzo et al. 2021). It is especially useful following stabilization of an acute crisis because this is often a precipitating event that prompts medication initiation, and once resolved, might preclude the need for continued pharmacotherapy (Starcevic and Janca 2018). Medication monitoring and review is an important strategy for early identification of drug-drug interactions and adverse reactions, the latter of which could lead to symptom exacerbation (e.g., use of benzodiazepines to reduce anxiety may exacerbate disinhibition and cognitive deficits) (Fineberg et al. 2019). Medication review is also necessary given the natural course of BPD, wherein symptoms fluctuate in intensity and frequency and may remit rapidly (Fineberg et al. 2019; Videler et al. 2019). In addition, patients may improve with psychotherapy and no longer require the same medications or medication dosages. Thus, patients taking medication need to be monitored carefully and routinely to determine treatment response and taper or discontinue as needed (Fineberg et al. 2019). Ongoing reevaluation of the risks and benefits of a patient’s current medication should continue throughout treatment, especially given that some symptoms may resolve spontaneously (Ripoll 2013).
Appropriate use of pharmacotherapy for patients with BPD should also include a plan for deprescribing, such as tapering strategies and ongoing monitoring for changes in clinical presentation and adverse reactions (Fineberg et al. 2019; Shapiro-Thompson and Fineberg 2022). An effective plan for deprescribing includes making a list of medications—such as dosage, route of administration, duration, expected benefits, adverse reactions, and potential for withdrawal symptoms with discontinuation—and working collaboratively with the patient to weigh the risks and benefits of tapering or discontinuing the medication (Chanen and Thompson 2016; Fineberg et al. 2019).

Footnote

1Although this discussion of rating scales uses the words “reliability” and “validity” as applying to a scale, as is common in the literature, it should be noted that it is only possible to assess the reliability of test scores (not the test itself) and to assess the validity of interpretations that are made from scale scores (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council for Measurement in Education 2014).

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of                 Patients With Borderline Personality Disorder
The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Borderline Personality Disorder
November 2024
©American Psychiatric Association Publishing

Authors

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share