Abstract
Catatonia is a psychomotor abnormality caused by neurological, medical or severe psychiatric disorders and substances. Its prevalence ranges from less than 10% to just above 60%. Diagnosis may be influenced by the screening tools used. Screening of new admissions to a mental health unit for catatonia was undertaken using three instruments to determine prevalence of catatonia. Participants ranged from age 16 years and over. Recruitment took place from September 2020 to August 2021. The setting was a mental health unit within a general hospital in Nelson Mandela Metro, South Africa. Five assessors were trained by the principal investigator to apply the Bush Francis Screening Instrument (BFCSI), the Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS), and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5 (DSM-5), to assess participants. Clinical and demographic data were collected using a specially designed datasheet. Data analysis was performed to identify significant associations between presence or absence of catatonia and clinical and demographic data. Up to 241 participants were screened and 44 (18.3%) had catatonia. All 44 cases were identified through the BFCSI while the DSM-5 identified only 16 (6.6%%) of the 44 cases even though the remaining 28 (63.6%) participants still required treatment for catatonic symptoms. The DSM-5 diagnostic criteria excluded staring, which was the commonest sign of catatonia identified through the BFCSI [n = 33 (75%)]. Close to half (21; 47.7%) of those with catatonia on the BFCSI had schizophrenia. The rest had bipolar disorder (12; 27.3%), substance-induced psychotic disorder (7; 15.9%) and no specified diagnosis in one (1; 2.6%). The BFCSI was very effective at identifying catatonia while the DSM-5 was inadequate, missing close to 64% (28 of 44) of cases. Predictors of catatonia in this sample were a younger age and being male. A prevalence of 18.3%, indicates that assessment for catatonia should be routinely conducted in this and similar settings.
Highlights
We provide data from a descriptive prevalence study in acute mental health unit, utilising the Bush Francis Catatonia Screening Instrument (BFCSI), Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5 (DSM-5) as screening and assessment tools for catatonia
We aimed to investigate the prevalence of catatonia using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5 (DSM-5) and Bush Francis Screening Instrument (BFCSI) to screen for catatonia from September 2020 to August 2021, and to collect descriptive data on the clinical and demographic profile of patients who presented with catatonia
Training for the five assessors on the use of the BFCSI/BFCRS and DSM-5 to assess catatonia was conducted by the principal investigator, focusing on description and definition of terms used in the tools, how to elicit the signs and how to capture the collected data on the data sheet
Summary
Consenting participants were recruited from all new admissions by the lead researcher and five research assistants during the study period. We used the same definitions for catatonia as the screening tools i.e., two or more symptoms in the BFCSI and presence of three or more. The BFCRS was used to assess for severity in those who screened positive for catatonia. Training for the five assessors on the use of the BFCSI/BFCRS and DSM-5 to assess catatonia was conducted by the principal investigator, focusing on description and definition of terms used in the tools, how to elicit the signs and how to capture the collected data on the data sheet. The research team alerted the treating doctor if there were any participants where catatonia was possibly missed. Any additional information collected during the assessment was shared with the treating team to enable review of the patient’s diagnosis and treatment
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
