A retrospective study of expert opinions of a psychosomatic-psychotherapeutic university hospital for public and private customers over a period of 12 years

Abstract

In a retrospective study design, 285 expert opinions of a psychosomatic-psychotherapeutic university hospital stemming from consecutive, unselected random sampling over a 12-year time period (1990-2011) were analyzed using a predefined list of criteria. Besides client data, the study also noted the type and the objectives of the expertise, the sociodemographic data of the subjects, the biographic data of the subjects, the size of records, the particular psychopathological findings including conflict and structural diagnostics via the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnostics (OPD-2, Research Group 2006), syndromic diagnostics according to ICD-10 (WHO) including the related Impairment Scale Score (ISS, Schepank 1995), and the Global Assessment of Functioning-Scale (GAF, Heuft 2016). 54% of the subjects were men. All subjects were 46 years old at the time of examination; on average symptomatology had existed for 7 years, which made assessment of causality difficult. Most assignments referred to the effects of diseases or accidents in private contexts, followed by pension reports. Among the expert opinions related to possible implications of acts of violence, 95% were women. In 43.2% (n = 123) of the cases, the assessment had occurred in the context of legal action. In 65 cases at least one party had requested a supplemental written report during further procedure. In 17.8% (n = 22) of the cases sought by the courts, the expert witness was requested by at least one party to present the assessment verbally. It should be emphasized that OPD conflict and structural diagnostics appear indispensable also for assessing mental health prior to an external event (accident or assault). The use of the two severity ratings (ISS, GAF) is discussed. It is proposed that expert witnesses be requested to name all their clients fromthe last 5 years at the beginning or end of the expert opinion, so that their independence from possible conflicts of interest can be established.