Executive Summary

These Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults mark a transition in the American Psychiatric Association’s Practice Guidelines. Since the publication of the Institute of Medicine (2011) report, “Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust,” there has been an increasing focus on using clearly defined, transparent processes for rating the quality of evidence and the strength of the overall body of evidence in systematic reviews of the scientific literature. These guidelines were developed using a process intended to be consistent with the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine (2011), the Principles for the Development of Specialty Society Clinical Guidelines of the Council of Medical Specialty Societies (2012), and the requirements of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for inclusion of a guideline in the National Guideline Clearinghouse. Parameters used for the guidelines’ systematic review are included with the full text of the guidelines; the development process is fully described in a document available on the APA Web site: http://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Practice/APA-Guideline-Development-Process--updated-2011-.pdf. To supplement the expertise of members of the guideline work group, we used a “snowball” survey methodology to identify experts on psychiatric evaluation and solicit their input on aspects of the psychiatric evaluation that they saw as likely to improve specific patient outcomes (Yager et al. 2014). Results of this expert survey are included with the full text of the practice guideline.

The new guideline recommendations are rated using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), an approach adopted by multiple professional organizations around the world to develop practice guideline recommendations (Guyatt et al. 2008, 2013). With the GRADE approach, the strength of a guideline statement reflects the level of confidence that potential benefits of an intervention outweigh the potential harms (Andrews et al. 2013). This level of confidence is informed by available evidence, which includes evidence from clinical trials as well as expert opinion and patient values and preferences. Evidence for the benefit of a particular intervention within a specific clinical context is identified through systematic review and is then balanced against the evidence for harms. In this regard, harms are broadly defined and might include direct and indirect costs of the intervention (including opportunity costs) as well as potential for adverse effects from the intervention. Whenever possible, we have followed the admonition to current guideline development groups to avoid using words such as “might” or “consider” in drafting these recommendations because they can be difficult for clinicians to interpret (Shiffman et al. 2005).

As described under “Guideline Development Process,” each final rating is a consensus judgment of the authors of the guidelines and is endorsed by the APA Board of Trustees. A “recommendation” (denoted by the numeral 1 after the guideline statement) indicates confidence that the benefits of the intervention clearly outweigh harms. A “suggestion” (denoted by the numeral 2 after the guideline statement) indicates uncertainty (i.e., the balance of benefits and harms is difficult to judge, or either the benefits or the harms are unclear). Each guideline statement also has an associated rating for the “strength of supporting research evidence.” Three ratings are used: high, moderate, or low (denoted by the letters A, B and C, respectively) and reflect the level of confidence that the evidence reflects a true effect based on consistency of findings across studies, directness of the effect on a specific health outcome, and precision of the estimate of effect and risk of bias in available studies (AHRQ 2014; Balshem et al. 2011; Guyatt et al. 2006).

It is well recognized that there are guideline topics and clinical circumstances for which high-quality evidence from clinical trials is not possible or is unethical to obtain (Council of Medical Specialty Societies 2012). For example, it would not be ethical to randomly assign only half of patients with depression to be asked about suicidal ideas. Many questions need to be asked as part of the assessment, and inquiring about a particular symptom or element of the history cannot be separated out for study as a discrete intervention. It would also be impossible to separate changes in outcome due to assessment from changes in outcomes due to ensuing treatment. Research on psychiatric assessment is also complicated by multiple confounding factors, such as the interaction between the clinician and the patient or the patient’s unique circumstances and experiences. For these and other reasons, the vast majority of topics covered in these guidelines on psychiatric evaluation have relied on forms of evidence such as consensus opinions of experienced clinicians or indirect findings from observational studies rather than being based on research from randomized trials. The GRADE working group and guidelines developed by other professional organizations have noted that a strong recommendation may be appropriate even in the absence of research evidence when sensible alternatives do not exist (Andrews et al. 2013; Brito et al. 2013; Djulbegovic et al. 2009; Hazlehurst et al. 2013).

Despite the difficulties in obtaining quantitative evidence from randomized trials for practice guidelines such as psychiatric evaluation, guidance to clinicians can still be beneficial in enhancing care to patients. Thus, in the context of an initial psychiatric evaluation, a major goal of these guidelines is to improve the identification of psychiatric signs and symptoms, psychiatric disorders (including substance use disorders), other medical conditions (that could affect the accuracy of a psychiatric diagnosis), and patients who are at increased risk for suicidal or aggressive behaviors. Additional goals relate to identifying factors that could influence the therapeutic alliance, enhance clinical decision making, enable safe and appropriate treatment planning, and promote better treatment outcomes. Finally, the psychiatric evaluation is the start of a dialog with patients about many factors, including diagnosis and treatment options. Further goals of these guidelines are to improve collaborative decision making between patients and clinicians about treatment-related decisions as well as to increase coordination of psychiatric treatment with other clinicians who may be involved in the patient’s care.

It is essential to note that these guidelines are not intended to be comprehensive in scope. Many critical aspects of the psychiatric evaluation are not addressed by these guidelines. For example, it is assumed that initial psychiatric or other medical assessments will need to identify the reason that the patient is presenting for evaluation. It is similarly important to understand the patient’s background, relationships, life circumstances, strengths, and vulnerabilities.

Furthermore, depending on the context, recommended areas of inquiry may need to be postponed until later visits, and recommended questions will not always be indicated for a specific patient. The findings of the expert survey reiterate that experts vary in the extent to which particular elements of the initial psychiatric evaluation are assessed. This also highlights the importance of clinical judgment in tailoring the psychiatric evaluation to the unique circumstances of the patient and in determining which questions are most important to ask as part of an initial assessment.

The APA Practice Guidelines are not intended to serve or be construed as a “standard of medical care.” Judgments concerning clinical care depend on the clinical circumstances and data available for an individual patient and are subject to change as scientific knowledge and technology advance and practice patterns evolve. These guideline statements were determined on the basis of the relative balance of potential benefits and harms of a specific assessment, intervention, or other approach to care. As such, it is not possible to draw conclusions about the effects of omitting a particular recommendation, either in general or for a specific patient. Furthermore, adherence to these guidelines will not ensure a successful outcome for every individual, nor should these guidelines be interpreted as including all proper methods of evaluation and care or excluding other acceptable methods of evaluation and care aimed at the same results. The ultimate recommendation regarding a particular assessment, clinical procedure, or treatment plan must be made by the psychiatrist in light of the psychiatric evaluation, other clinical data, and the diagnostic and treatment options available. Such recommendations should be made in collaboration with the patient and family, whenever possible, and incorporate the patient’s personal and sociocultural preferences and values in order to enhance the therapeutic alliance, adherence to treatment, and treatment outcomes.

As part of aligning the practice guidelines’ development process with national standards, we have transitioned to a new guideline format. Each set of Practice Guidelines will consist of multiple discrete topics of relevance to an overall subject area. In the Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults, these topics consist of Review of Psychiatric Symptoms, Trauma History, and Psychiatric Treatment History; Substance Use Assessment; Assessment of Suicide Risk; Assessment of Risk for Aggressive Behaviors; Assessment of Cultural Factors; Assessment of Medical Health; Quantitative Assessment; Involvement of the Patient in Treatment Decision Making; and Documentation of the Psychiatric Evaluation. For each topic, guideline statements will be followed by a discussion of the rationale, potential benefits and harms, and approaches to implementing the guideline statements. This portion of the Practice Guidelines is expected have the greatest utility for clinicians. A second section of the Practice Guidelines provides a detailed review of the evidence for guideline statements in accord with national guideline development standards. This review of research evidence and data from the expert survey is followed by a discussion of quality measurement considerations, including their appropriateness for each topic.

The following represents a summary of the recommendations and suggestions compiled from all Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults, with some statements being a part of more than one of these guidelines. In the context of these guideline statements, it is important to note that assessment is not limited to direct examination of the patient. Rather, it is defined as “[t]he process of obtaining information about a patient through any of a variety of methods, including face-to-face interview, review of medical records, physical examination (by the psychiatrist, another physician, or a medically trained clinician), diagnostic testing, or history-taking from collateral sources.” The evaluation may also require several meetings, with the patient, family, or others, before it can be completed. The amount of time spent depends on the complexity of the problem, the clinical setting, and the patient’s ability and willingness to cooperate with the assessment.

This summary is organized according to common headings of an evaluation note. As noted above, the guidelines are not intended to be comprehensive, and many aspects of the psychiatric evaluation are not addressed by these recommendations and suggestions. Recommendations for the initial psychiatric evaluation of a patient appear in bold font, whereas suggestions appear in italic font. The strength of supporting research evidence for these recommendations and suggestions is given rating C (low) because of the difficulties in studying psychiatric assessment approaches in controlled studies as described above. References to the specific guideline in which the recommendation or suggestion is found are denoted by the following footnotes:

• 1Guideline I. Review of Psychiatric Symptoms, Trauma History, and Psychiatric Treatment History

• 2 Guideline II. Substance Use Assessment

• 3 Guideline III. Assessment of Suicide Risk

• 4 Guideline IV. Assessment of Risk for Aggressive Behaviors

• 5 Guideline V. Assessment of Cultural Factors

• 6 Guideline VI. Assessment of Medical Health

• 7 Guideline VII. Quantitative Assessment

• 8 Guideline VIII. Involvement of the Patient in Treatment Decision Making

• 9 Guideline IX. Documentation of the Psychiatric Evaluation

• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. AHRQ Publ No 10(14)-EHC063-EF. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. January 2014. Chapters available at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov.
• Andrews JC, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, et al: GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation’s direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol 66(7):726–735, 2013
• Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al: GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64(4):401–406, 2011
• Brito JP, Domecq JP, Murad MH, et al: The Endocrine Society guidelines: when the confidence cart goes before the evidence horse. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 98(8):3246–3252, 2013
• Council of Medical Specialty Societies (CMSS): Principles for the Development of Specialty Society Clinical Guidelines. Chicago, IL, CMSS, 2012
• Djulbegovic B, Trikalinos TA, Roback J, et al: Impact of quality of evidence on the strength of recommendations: an empirical study. BMC Health Serv Res 9:120, 2009
• Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, et al: Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: report from an american college of chest physicians task force. Chest 129(1):174–181, 2006
• Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al; GRADE Working Group: Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ 336(7652):1049–1051, 2008
• Guyatt G, Eikelboom JW, Akl EA, et al: A guide to GRADE guidelines for the readers of JTH. J Thromb Haemost 11(8):1603–1608, 2013
• Hazlehurst JM, Armstrong MJ, Sherlock M, et al: A comparative quality assessment of evidence-based clinical guidelines in endocrinology. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 78(2):183–190, 2013
• Institute of Medicine (IOM): Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC, The National Academies Press, 2011
• Shiffman RN, Dixon J, Brandt C, et al: The GuideLine Implementability Appraisal (GLIA): development of an instrument to identify obstacles to guideline implementation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 5:23, 2005
• Yager J, Kunkle R, Fochtmann LJ, et al: Who’s your expert? Use of an expert opinion survey to inform development of American Psychiatric Association practice guidelines. Acad Psychiatry 38(3):376–382, 2014