Common
Problems in Time-limited Psychotherapy
There are
no clear guidelines to determine the optimal next step for patients who fail to
respond or do not respond fully to an initial course of psychotherapy. In the
case of nonresponse to a given treatment, which may be defined as failure to
achieve at least a 25% decrease in baseline symptoms over a 6- to 8-week time
period (Nierenberg and DeCecco, 2001), the usual approach would be to stop the
unhelpful therapy and consider alternatives. Patients who show no benefit from
a TLP should be evaluated for the typical sources of treatment failure such as
misdiagno-sis, the presence of a comorbid psychiatric disorder, or comorbid
general medical conditions (Kornstein and Schneider, 2001), and referred for
appropriate treatment. If the TLP psychotherapist is also a physician, it would
be reasonable at this point to consider pharmacotherapy. If the clinician
decides that it is in the best in-terest of the patient to abandon a course of
TLP, it is importantthat the therapist help the patient understand that the
“fault” lies with the TLP rather than the patient. The therapist should be
cer-tain to offer the patient support during the transition to an alter-nate
treatment, instilling hope that the new treatment will offer relief and making
sure that continuity of care is preserved.
In most
cases of partial response to a TLP, clinicians choose to add medication as
their first strategy. Unless the thera-pist suspects that psychotherapy may
have worsened the patient’s condition, continuing psychotherapy usually makes
sense. The preexisting therapeutic relationship can provide a supportive
holding environment for the patient while medication is initiated that may help
the patient tolerate initial medication side effects and the delayed onset of
action associated with antidepressant medication. Among depressed patients who
fail to respond to an initial course of pharmacotherapy, response rates to a
second antidepressant hover around 50% (Marangell, 2001). By contrast, in a
sample of depressed women, the addition of an SSRI to IPT among those who
failed to respond to IPT alone brought about remission in almost 80% of
subjects (Frank et al., 2000). Thus,
depressed patients who do not remit with psychotherapy alone may be excellent
candidates for combination treatment with psy-chotherapy and medication.
If a
patient refuses medications or prefers a trial of a differ-ent psychotherapy,
it may be reasonable to change TLP modalities or consider an open-ended
treatment. Issues to consider include whether it makes sense to switch
therapists, the qualifications of the therapist to administer multiple types of
psychotherapy, and the availability of alternate treatments in the patient’s
geo-graphic area. Whereas psychopharmacologists can easily change prescriptions
and proceed with a consistent therapeutic approach, a psychotherapist who
suddenly begins acting differently may confuse an already uncomfortable
patient.
In IPT,
we make every effort to blame the treatment rather than the patient when
symptoms persist beyond termination. Depressed patients are inclined to blame
themselves, so it is important for therapists to maintain their objective
stance, pointing out treat-ment successes (there are usually some) and
underscoring the fact that not all patients respond to any single treatment.
Patients with histories of chronic or recurrent depression who respond to an
acute course of IPT are generally considered candidates for continuation and/or
maintenance of IPT sessions (usually admin-istered at a reduced frequency) to
help achieve a full remission and prevent relapse and/or recurrence (Frank,
1991; Markowitz, 1998).
During
the course of any psychotherapy, unanticipated crises may occur in the
patient’s life, temporarily derailing treatment. For instance, if the patient
suddenly developed new, life-threatening symptoms such as active suicidal
ideation or frank psychosis, the case formulation would be abandoned in order
to attend to patient safety. Alternately, if the patient experienced an
unexpected life crisis mid-treatment (i.e., the death of an important person,
sig-nificant changes in socioeconomic status, etc.), it would be rea-sonable to
reevaluate the treatment focus in order to attend to the patient’s pressing needs.
Regardless
of treatment modality, patient safety super-sedes the treatment paradigm. In
TLP, it is desirable to address the crisis as quickly as possible in order to
return to the treat-ment focus and complete the treatment within the specified
timeframe. If the therapist can address the crisis rapidly and resume the prior
focus, it may be possible to regain the original treatment trajectory. If
multiple sessions are required to address the crisis, the therapist must ask,
“Is this TLP salvageable?” and “Can we meet our treatment goals within the
remaining allotted time?” If not, the therapist should consider altering the
treatment fo-cus or abandoning the current treatment approach entirely. As we
have emphasized throughout, changes in treatment approach should be handled
carefully, reassuring the patient that they are not to blame and providing
support as the patient shifts to a new intervention.
Related Topics
Privacy Policy, Terms and Conditions, DMCA Policy and Compliant
Copyright © 2018-2024 BrainKart.com; All Rights Reserved. Developed by Therithal info, Chennai.