Robert T. London, MD

Parents, teachers, children, and adolescents are facing stress and anxiety as K-12 school districts across the country debate whether to return to in-person instruction amid the COVID-19 pandemic. As we approach the opening of schools, the stress and anxiety seem to be heightening.

alexsokolov/Thinkstock

According to Education Week, which is tracking the reopening plans of public schools across the United States, 21 of the 25 largest school districts are opting to implement remote learning only as their model. I would like to see all of those districts adopt that model until we understand more about this illness, and can prevent and treat it.

Yes, it’s true – I am a psychiatrist – not an infectious disease specialist. And I realize that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have taken nuanced positions on this issue. Their positions make it clear that it is within a child’s best interests – from an educational and social point of view – to attend school in person. Not only is the classroom experience important, but so is the socialization and the exercise. However, when I look at the science on children who have been exposed to the coronavirus, I worry.

For example, a study by Lael M. Yonker, MD, and associates on pediatric SARS-CoV-2 found that the children in days 0-2 of illness have far higher viral loads than adults who have been hospitalized for severe disease. “This study reveals that children may be a potential source of contagion in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in spite of milder disease or lack of symptoms, and immune dysregulation is implicated in severe post-infectious [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children],” Dr. Yonker and associates wrote, referring to the illness associated with COVID-19 in children. Their study was published recently in the Journal of Pediatrics (2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.037).

In my state, where positivity rates are fairly low, Gov. Andrew Cuomo admitted in an interview recently that sending children to school in New York City is a “tricky proposition.” At this point, New York City public schools are scheduled to open in mid-September using a hybrid mixture of in-person and remote learning.

And look at what happened several weeks ago in Israel, where schools reopened after the virus was beaten back. At one high school in Jerusalem, just days after the reopening, the virus spread so prolifically to students, teachers, and relatives that the schools had to be closed again. Other countries should not follow Israel’s example, Eli Weizmann, who chairs the team advising Israel’s National Security Council on the pandemic, reportedly told the New York Times. “It was a major failure.”

But I must be honest: I was worried about children returning to school before I heard about the study by Dr. Yonker and associates, Gov. Cuomo’s comments, and what happened in Israel. So far, here in the Northeast, particularly in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, we have managed to get COVID-19 under control. Perhaps, in this part of the country, opening classroom education might be feasible – with close monitoring and proper precautions.

But COVID-19 has taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans – more than 176,000 as of this writing. A new model from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation projects that COVID-19 could lead to more than 300,000 U.S. deaths by Dec. 1. Thankfully, the number of COVID-19–positive children who have died has been low. But they could still pass on the virus to adults.

To get a better understanding of COVID-19, I spoke with Sheryl L. Wulkan, MD, an internist and expert in personal protective equipment (PPE) who has consulted for numerous health care agencies about these issues. Dr. Wulkan said that, in some areas with low infection rates, school openings might be appropriate. However, she said, without proper testing and contact tracing, we are at a loss of controlling the spread.
 

What we should tell patients, family, and friends

From a psychiatric point of view, how should we advise our patients, family, and friends about sending their children back to school? Is on-site learning better than remote learning? It is. Do our children need the socialization that a school brings? Yes, they do.

Socialization and relating to peers are, indeed, important, but today’s children socialize in many ways beyond attending school – and they have peer friendships and interactions with electronic devices at their disposal.

Can remote learning cause social isolation – an isolation so profound that school is necessary not only for learning but the psyche as well? A meta-analysis of 80 studies that looked at the impact of social isolation and loneliness on adolescents and children who were previously healthy found that the young people “are probably more likely to experience high rates of depression and probably anxiety during and after enforced isolation ends. This may increase as enforced isolation continues,” wrote Maria Elizabeth Loades, PhD, and associates (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 3. S0890-8567[20]30337-3).

I am concerned about young people who experience anxiety and depression, and agree with Dr. Loades that we mental health professionals need to be ready to intervene early and provide preventive support. To do this, we should encourage parents to keep us informed about how their children are doing.

So my advice is that, in the absence of a vaccine and an effective treatment like we have for influenza – such as Tamiflu – and effective testing, such the saliva-based test developed by Yale University researchers, if I had school-aged children, I would continue to keep them home from school. Ultimately, however, parents must look at the science and make their decisions based on that. My children are adults with their own children, and only they can make informed decisions about which options are best for their families.

Interestingly, Sanjay Gupta, MD, the neurosurgeon who works as chief medical correspondent of CNN, recently discussed the thought process he and his wife used to determine whether their daughters would return to the classroom. After weighing many factors, including the viral spread in Fulton County, Ga., where they live, the Guptas decided that, at this time, the risks of allowing the girls to return to the classroom outweigh the benefits. “This was not an easy decision, but one that we believe best respects the science, decreases the risk of further spread, and follows the task force criteria,” wrote Dr. Gupta, who is affiliated with Emory University in Atlanta. “After 2 weeks, we will reassess.”

I understand that parents worry about the social and psychological costs of remote learning. And I can only imagine the difficulty of those who must balance homeschooling with working. And frankly, remote learning is not an option for all students. For those less fortunate, substantial governmental aid is important to assist these people and to keep them safe and on their feet until this pandemic is done. Also, those who were under the care of a psychiatrist should continue to receive care during the pandemic. We must be prepared to step in with interventions that can address the suffering that is inevitable, such as the use of targeted cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Public TV as an educational tool

Families with Internet access and those without it could benefit from using public television as a tool.

I would advise educators and the entertainment industry to harness the wonder of TV to develop curricula that can be used to educate children. As we know, Sesame Street proved to be an effective early childhood intervention, particularly for boys (Am Econ J: Applied Economics. 2019;11[1]:318-50). I would like to see programming that goes beyond Sesame Street. Learning from watching this kind of programming would be no substitute for engaging with teachers in real, live classrooms, however.

Children and adolescents will be changed by learning remotely. They will miss their friends, teachers, and other staff members, but their lives will not be ruined. Mental health professionals should be prepared to intervene to address depression, anxiety, and other sequelae and problematic behaviors that could result from social isolation. Schools, businesses, and the economy will again flourish after we get the virus behind us but controlling and eliminating this pandemic need to come first. Let’s keep our children home – to the extent that we can – until we move beyond this pandemic.
 

Dr. London has been a practicing psychiatrist for 4 decades and a newspaper columnist for almost as long. He has a private practice in New York and is author of “Find Freedom Fast: Short-Term Therapy That Works” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). Dr. London has no conflicts of interest.

Parents, teachers, children, and adolescents are facing stress and anxiety as K-12 school districts across the country debate whether to return to in-person instruction amid the COVID-19 pandemic. As we approach the opening of schools, the stress and anxiety seem to be heightening.

alexsokolov/Thinkstock

According to Education Week, which is tracking the reopening plans of public schools across the United States, 21 of the 25 largest school districts are opting to implement remote learning only as their model. I would like to see all of those districts adopt that model until we understand more about this illness, and can prevent and treat it.

Yes, it’s true – I am a psychiatrist – not an infectious disease specialist. And I realize that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have taken nuanced positions on this issue. Their positions make it clear that it is within a child’s best interests – from an educational and social point of view – to attend school in person. Not only is the classroom experience important, but so is the socialization and the exercise. However, when I look at the science on children who have been exposed to the coronavirus, I worry.

For example, a study by Lael M. Yonker, MD, and associates on pediatric SARS-CoV-2 found that the children in days 0-2 of illness have far higher viral loads than adults who have been hospitalized for severe disease. “This study reveals that children may be a potential source of contagion in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in spite of milder disease or lack of symptoms, and immune dysregulation is implicated in severe post-infectious [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children],” Dr. Yonker and associates wrote, referring to the illness associated with COVID-19 in children. Their study was published recently in the Journal of Pediatrics (2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.037).

In my state, where positivity rates are fairly low, Gov. Andrew Cuomo admitted in an interview recently that sending children to school in New York City is a “tricky proposition.” At this point, New York City public schools are scheduled to open in mid-September using a hybrid mixture of in-person and remote learning.

And look at what happened several weeks ago in Israel, where schools reopened after the virus was beaten back. At one high school in Jerusalem, just days after the reopening, the virus spread so prolifically to students, teachers, and relatives that the schools had to be closed again. Other countries should not follow Israel’s example, Eli Weizmann, who chairs the team advising Israel’s National Security Council on the pandemic, reportedly told the New York Times. “It was a major failure.”

But I must be honest: I was worried about children returning to school before I heard about the study by Dr. Yonker and associates, Gov. Cuomo’s comments, and what happened in Israel. So far, here in the Northeast, particularly in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, we have managed to get COVID-19 under control. Perhaps, in this part of the country, opening classroom education might be feasible – with close monitoring and proper precautions.

But COVID-19 has taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans – more than 176,000 as of this writing. A new model from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation projects that COVID-19 could lead to more than 300,000 U.S. deaths by Dec. 1. Thankfully, the number of COVID-19–positive children who have died has been low. But they could still pass on the virus to adults.

To get a better understanding of COVID-19, I spoke with Sheryl L. Wulkan, MD, an internist and expert in personal protective equipment (PPE) who has consulted for numerous health care agencies about these issues. Dr. Wulkan said that, in some areas with low infection rates, school openings might be appropriate. However, she said, without proper testing and contact tracing, we are at a loss of controlling the spread.
 

What we should tell patients, family, and friends

From a psychiatric point of view, how should we advise our patients, family, and friends about sending their children back to school? Is on-site learning better than remote learning? It is. Do our children need the socialization that a school brings? Yes, they do.

Socialization and relating to peers are, indeed, important, but today’s children socialize in many ways beyond attending school – and they have peer friendships and interactions with electronic devices at their disposal.

Can remote learning cause social isolation – an isolation so profound that school is necessary not only for learning but the psyche as well? A meta-analysis of 80 studies that looked at the impact of social isolation and loneliness on adolescents and children who were previously healthy found that the young people “are probably more likely to experience high rates of depression and probably anxiety during and after enforced isolation ends. This may increase as enforced isolation continues,” wrote Maria Elizabeth Loades, PhD, and associates (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 3. S0890-8567[20]30337-3).

I am concerned about young people who experience anxiety and depression, and agree with Dr. Loades that we mental health professionals need to be ready to intervene early and provide preventive support. To do this, we should encourage parents to keep us informed about how their children are doing.

So my advice is that, in the absence of a vaccine and an effective treatment like we have for influenza – such as Tamiflu – and effective testing, such the saliva-based test developed by Yale University researchers, if I had school-aged children, I would continue to keep them home from school. Ultimately, however, parents must look at the science and make their decisions based on that. My children are adults with their own children, and only they can make informed decisions about which options are best for their families.

Interestingly, Sanjay Gupta, MD, the neurosurgeon who works as chief medical correspondent of CNN, recently discussed the thought process he and his wife used to determine whether their daughters would return to the classroom. After weighing many factors, including the viral spread in Fulton County, Ga., where they live, the Guptas decided that, at this time, the risks of allowing the girls to return to the classroom outweigh the benefits. “This was not an easy decision, but one that we believe best respects the science, decreases the risk of further spread, and follows the task force criteria,” wrote Dr. Gupta, who is affiliated with Emory University in Atlanta. “After 2 weeks, we will reassess.”

I understand that parents worry about the social and psychological costs of remote learning. And I can only imagine the difficulty of those who must balance homeschooling with working. And frankly, remote learning is not an option for all students. For those less fortunate, substantial governmental aid is important to assist these people and to keep them safe and on their feet until this pandemic is done. Also, those who were under the care of a psychiatrist should continue to receive care during the pandemic. We must be prepared to step in with interventions that can address the suffering that is inevitable, such as the use of targeted cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Public TV as an educational tool

Families with Internet access and those without it could benefit from using public television as a tool.

I would advise educators and the entertainment industry to harness the wonder of TV to develop curricula that can be used to educate children. As we know, Sesame Street proved to be an effective early childhood intervention, particularly for boys (Am Econ J: Applied Economics. 2019;11[1]:318-50). I would like to see programming that goes beyond Sesame Street. Learning from watching this kind of programming would be no substitute for engaging with teachers in real, live classrooms, however.

Children and adolescents will be changed by learning remotely. They will miss their friends, teachers, and other staff members, but their lives will not be ruined. Mental health professionals should be prepared to intervene to address depression, anxiety, and other sequelae and problematic behaviors that could result from social isolation. Schools, businesses, and the economy will again flourish after we get the virus behind us but controlling and eliminating this pandemic need to come first. Let’s keep our children home – to the extent that we can – until we move beyond this pandemic.
 

Dr. London has been a practicing psychiatrist for 4 decades and a newspaper columnist for almost as long. He has a private practice in New York and is author of “Find Freedom Fast: Short-Term Therapy That Works” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). Dr. London has no conflicts of interest.

Parents, teachers, children, and adolescents are facing stress and anxiety as K-12 school districts across the country debate whether to return to in-person instruction amid the COVID-19 pandemic. As we approach the opening of schools, the stress and anxiety seem to be heightening.

alexsokolov/Thinkstock

According to Education Week, which is tracking the reopening plans of public schools across the United States, 21 of the 25 largest school districts are opting to implement remote learning only as their model. I would like to see all of those districts adopt that model until we understand more about this illness, and can prevent and treat it.

Yes, it’s true – I am a psychiatrist – not an infectious disease specialist. And I realize that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have taken nuanced positions on this issue. Their positions make it clear that it is within a child’s best interests – from an educational and social point of view – to attend school in person. Not only is the classroom experience important, but so is the socialization and the exercise. However, when I look at the science on children who have been exposed to the coronavirus, I worry.

For example, a study by Lael M. Yonker, MD, and associates on pediatric SARS-CoV-2 found that the children in days 0-2 of illness have far higher viral loads than adults who have been hospitalized for severe disease. “This study reveals that children may be a potential source of contagion in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in spite of milder disease or lack of symptoms, and immune dysregulation is implicated in severe post-infectious [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children],” Dr. Yonker and associates wrote, referring to the illness associated with COVID-19 in children. Their study was published recently in the Journal of Pediatrics (2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.037).

In my state, where positivity rates are fairly low, Gov. Andrew Cuomo admitted in an interview recently that sending children to school in New York City is a “tricky proposition.” At this point, New York City public schools are scheduled to open in mid-September using a hybrid mixture of in-person and remote learning.

And look at what happened several weeks ago in Israel, where schools reopened after the virus was beaten back. At one high school in Jerusalem, just days after the reopening, the virus spread so prolifically to students, teachers, and relatives that the schools had to be closed again. Other countries should not follow Israel’s example, Eli Weizmann, who chairs the team advising Israel’s National Security Council on the pandemic, reportedly told the New York Times. “It was a major failure.”

But I must be honest: I was worried about children returning to school before I heard about the study by Dr. Yonker and associates, Gov. Cuomo’s comments, and what happened in Israel. So far, here in the Northeast, particularly in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, we have managed to get COVID-19 under control. Perhaps, in this part of the country, opening classroom education might be feasible – with close monitoring and proper precautions.

But COVID-19 has taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans – more than 176,000 as of this writing. A new model from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation projects that COVID-19 could lead to more than 300,000 U.S. deaths by Dec. 1. Thankfully, the number of COVID-19–positive children who have died has been low. But they could still pass on the virus to adults.

To get a better understanding of COVID-19, I spoke with Sheryl L. Wulkan, MD, an internist and expert in personal protective equipment (PPE) who has consulted for numerous health care agencies about these issues. Dr. Wulkan said that, in some areas with low infection rates, school openings might be appropriate. However, she said, without proper testing and contact tracing, we are at a loss of controlling the spread.
 

What we should tell patients, family, and friends

From a psychiatric point of view, how should we advise our patients, family, and friends about sending their children back to school? Is on-site learning better than remote learning? It is. Do our children need the socialization that a school brings? Yes, they do.

Socialization and relating to peers are, indeed, important, but today’s children socialize in many ways beyond attending school – and they have peer friendships and interactions with electronic devices at their disposal.

Can remote learning cause social isolation – an isolation so profound that school is necessary not only for learning but the psyche as well? A meta-analysis of 80 studies that looked at the impact of social isolation and loneliness on adolescents and children who were previously healthy found that the young people “are probably more likely to experience high rates of depression and probably anxiety during and after enforced isolation ends. This may increase as enforced isolation continues,” wrote Maria Elizabeth Loades, PhD, and associates (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 3. S0890-8567[20]30337-3).

I am concerned about young people who experience anxiety and depression, and agree with Dr. Loades that we mental health professionals need to be ready to intervene early and provide preventive support. To do this, we should encourage parents to keep us informed about how their children are doing.

So my advice is that, in the absence of a vaccine and an effective treatment like we have for influenza – such as Tamiflu – and effective testing, such the saliva-based test developed by Yale University researchers, if I had school-aged children, I would continue to keep them home from school. Ultimately, however, parents must look at the science and make their decisions based on that. My children are adults with their own children, and only they can make informed decisions about which options are best for their families.

Interestingly, Sanjay Gupta, MD, the neurosurgeon who works as chief medical correspondent of CNN, recently discussed the thought process he and his wife used to determine whether their daughters would return to the classroom. After weighing many factors, including the viral spread in Fulton County, Ga., where they live, the Guptas decided that, at this time, the risks of allowing the girls to return to the classroom outweigh the benefits. “This was not an easy decision, but one that we believe best respects the science, decreases the risk of further spread, and follows the task force criteria,” wrote Dr. Gupta, who is affiliated with Emory University in Atlanta. “After 2 weeks, we will reassess.”

I understand that parents worry about the social and psychological costs of remote learning. And I can only imagine the difficulty of those who must balance homeschooling with working. And frankly, remote learning is not an option for all students. For those less fortunate, substantial governmental aid is important to assist these people and to keep them safe and on their feet until this pandemic is done. Also, those who were under the care of a psychiatrist should continue to receive care during the pandemic. We must be prepared to step in with interventions that can address the suffering that is inevitable, such as the use of targeted cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Public TV as an educational tool

Families with Internet access and those without it could benefit from using public television as a tool.

I would advise educators and the entertainment industry to harness the wonder of TV to develop curricula that can be used to educate children. As we know, Sesame Street proved to be an effective early childhood intervention, particularly for boys (Am Econ J: Applied Economics. 2019;11[1]:318-50). I would like to see programming that goes beyond Sesame Street. Learning from watching this kind of programming would be no substitute for engaging with teachers in real, live classrooms, however.

Children and adolescents will be changed by learning remotely. They will miss their friends, teachers, and other staff members, but their lives will not be ruined. Mental health professionals should be prepared to intervene to address depression, anxiety, and other sequelae and problematic behaviors that could result from social isolation. Schools, businesses, and the economy will again flourish after we get the virus behind us but controlling and eliminating this pandemic need to come first. Let’s keep our children home – to the extent that we can – until we move beyond this pandemic.
 

Dr. London has been a practicing psychiatrist for 4 decades and a newspaper columnist for almost as long. He has a private practice in New York and is author of “Find Freedom Fast: Short-Term Therapy That Works” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). Dr. London has no conflicts of interest.

We are in the midst of an epidemic and possibly pandemic of anxiety and distress. The worry that folks have about themselves, families, finances, and work is overwhelming for millions.

I speak with people who report periods of racing thoughts jumping back in time and thinking of roads not taken. They also talk about their thoughts jumping forward with life plans of what they’ll do to change their lives in the future – if they survive COVID-19.

Consider what this uncertainty is doing to people who have an underlying emotional problem that is well-controlled with care (and even without care). Those people are suffering even more. Meanwhile, people with obsessive-compulsive disorder that had been under control appear to have worsened with the added stress.

Social distancing has disrupted our everyday routines. For many, there is no work, no spending time with people we care about, no going to movies or shows, no doing discretionary shopping, no going to school. Parents with children at home report frustration about balancing working from home with completing home-schooling packets. Physicians on the front lines of this unprecedented time report not having the proper protective equipment and worrying about the possibility of exposing their families to SARS-CoV-2.

We hear stories about the illness and even deaths of some young and middle-aged people with no underlying conditions, not to mention the loss of older adults. People are bursting into tears, and becoming easily frustrated and angry. Add in nightmares, ongoing anxiety states, insomnia, and decreased concentration.

We are seeing news reports of people stocking up on guns and ammunition and a case of one taking – and dying from – nonpharmaceutical grade chloroquine in an effort to prevent COVID-19.

I spoke with Juliana Tseng, PsyD, a clinical psychologist based in New York, and she said that the hype, half-truths, and false information from some outlets in the popular media are making things worse. Dr. Tseng added that the lack of coordination among local, state, and federal governments also is increasing fear and alienation.

As I see this period in time, my first thoughts are that we are witnessing a national epidemic of trauma. Specifically, what we have here is a clinical picture of PTSD.

PTSD is defined clearly as a traumatic disorder with a real or perceived fracture with life. Isolation (which we are creating as a way to “flatten the curve” or slow the spread of COVID-19), although that strategy is in our best personal and public health interests, is both painful and stressful. Frustration, flashbacks of past life experiences plus flashbacks of being ill are reported in people I’ve spoken with. Avoidance, even though it is planned in this instance, is part of the PTSD complex.

What can we as mental health professionals do to help alleviate this suffering?

First, of course, we must listen to the scientific experts and the data – and tell people to do the same. Most experts will say that COVID-19 is a mild or moderate illness for the vast majority of people. We also must encourage people to observe precautions outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as distancing from people, hand washing, and avoiding those who are ill. Explain to people that, currently, there is no vaccine to prevent COVID-19. Treatment is mainly supportive, and some medication trials are being explored. However, we can empower people by helping them to develop skills aimed at increasing the ability to relax and focus on more positive aspects of life to break the chain of the stress and tension of anxiety as well as control the PTSD.

For more than 40 years, I have helped people master relaxation techniques and guided imagery. When taught properly, people are able to use these techniques on their own.

To begin, I teach people how to relax, using a simple three-point method:

• Get comfortable in a nice chair, and slowly count from one to three. At the count of one, do one thing: “roll your eyes up to the top of your head.”
• At the count of two, do two things, “close your lids on your eyes and take a deep breath.”
• At three, exhale slowly, relax your eyes, and concentrate on a restful feeling of floating.
• Do this for about 30 seconds to a minute.
• Count backward, from three to two to one and open your eyes.

The person will notice how nice and restful they will feel.

After that exercise, get the person to move to the graduate level and go beyond just relaxation. In the following exercise, people can go into a relaxed state by imagining a movie screen. Tell the person to do two things:

1. Look at the imagined movie screen and project on it any pleasant scene you wish; this is your screen. You will feel yourself becoming more and more relaxed. The person can do this one, two, three or whatever times a day. The exercise can last 1 minute or 5.

2. Incorporate the 1, 2, 3 relaxation described earlier, allowing yourself to float into this restful state and go to your movie screen. Now, on the screen, imagine a thick line down the center, and on the left side, project your worries and anxieties and fears. The idea is to see but not experience them. Then shift to the ride side of the screen, and again, visualize any pleasant scene you wish. Again, do this for 1 minute or 5 minutes, whatever works.

You will notice that the pleasant scene on the right will overcome the anxiety scene on the left, in that pleasantness, in most instances, overcomes anxiety. For many, these techniques have proved very useful – whether the problem is anxiety or fear – or both. In my experience, these techniques are a good beginning for controlling PTSD and successfully treating it.

We are in the midst of what could be the biggest public health crisis that America has faced since the 1918 pandemic, also known as the Spanish flu. The lockdowns, quarantines, and the myriad of other disruptions can lead to alienation. In fact, it would be strange for us not to experience strong emotions under these extreme conditions. Life will get better! In the meantime, let’s encourage people to hope, pray, and use relaxation techniques and guided imagery approaches to help control anxiety, worry, stress, and issues related to PTSD. These approaches can give our minds and bodies periods of relaxation and recovery, and ultimately, they can calm our minds.
 

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

We are in the midst of an epidemic and possibly pandemic of anxiety and distress. The worry that folks have about themselves, families, finances, and work is overwhelming for millions.

I speak with people who report periods of racing thoughts jumping back in time and thinking of roads not taken. They also talk about their thoughts jumping forward with life plans of what they’ll do to change their lives in the future – if they survive COVID-19.

Consider what this uncertainty is doing to people who have an underlying emotional problem that is well-controlled with care (and even without care). Those people are suffering even more. Meanwhile, people with obsessive-compulsive disorder that had been under control appear to have worsened with the added stress.

Social distancing has disrupted our everyday routines. For many, there is no work, no spending time with people we care about, no going to movies or shows, no doing discretionary shopping, no going to school. Parents with children at home report frustration about balancing working from home with completing home-schooling packets. Physicians on the front lines of this unprecedented time report not having the proper protective equipment and worrying about the possibility of exposing their families to SARS-CoV-2.

We hear stories about the illness and even deaths of some young and middle-aged people with no underlying conditions, not to mention the loss of older adults. People are bursting into tears, and becoming easily frustrated and angry. Add in nightmares, ongoing anxiety states, insomnia, and decreased concentration.

We are seeing news reports of people stocking up on guns and ammunition and a case of one taking – and dying from – nonpharmaceutical grade chloroquine in an effort to prevent COVID-19.

I spoke with Juliana Tseng, PsyD, a clinical psychologist based in New York, and she said that the hype, half-truths, and false information from some outlets in the popular media are making things worse. Dr. Tseng added that the lack of coordination among local, state, and federal governments also is increasing fear and alienation.

As I see this period in time, my first thoughts are that we are witnessing a national epidemic of trauma. Specifically, what we have here is a clinical picture of PTSD.

PTSD is defined clearly as a traumatic disorder with a real or perceived fracture with life. Isolation (which we are creating as a way to “flatten the curve” or slow the spread of COVID-19), although that strategy is in our best personal and public health interests, is both painful and stressful. Frustration, flashbacks of past life experiences plus flashbacks of being ill are reported in people I’ve spoken with. Avoidance, even though it is planned in this instance, is part of the PTSD complex.

What can we as mental health professionals do to help alleviate this suffering?

First, of course, we must listen to the scientific experts and the data – and tell people to do the same. Most experts will say that COVID-19 is a mild or moderate illness for the vast majority of people. We also must encourage people to observe precautions outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as distancing from people, hand washing, and avoiding those who are ill. Explain to people that, currently, there is no vaccine to prevent COVID-19. Treatment is mainly supportive, and some medication trials are being explored. However, we can empower people by helping them to develop skills aimed at increasing the ability to relax and focus on more positive aspects of life to break the chain of the stress and tension of anxiety as well as control the PTSD.

For more than 40 years, I have helped people master relaxation techniques and guided imagery. When taught properly, people are able to use these techniques on their own.

To begin, I teach people how to relax, using a simple three-point method:

• Get comfortable in a nice chair, and slowly count from one to three. At the count of one, do one thing: “roll your eyes up to the top of your head.”
• At the count of two, do two things, “close your lids on your eyes and take a deep breath.”
• At three, exhale slowly, relax your eyes, and concentrate on a restful feeling of floating.
• Do this for about 30 seconds to a minute.
• Count backward, from three to two to one and open your eyes.

The person will notice how nice and restful they will feel.

After that exercise, get the person to move to the graduate level and go beyond just relaxation. In the following exercise, people can go into a relaxed state by imagining a movie screen. Tell the person to do two things:

1. Look at the imagined movie screen and project on it any pleasant scene you wish; this is your screen. You will feel yourself becoming more and more relaxed. The person can do this one, two, three or whatever times a day. The exercise can last 1 minute or 5.

2. Incorporate the 1, 2, 3 relaxation described earlier, allowing yourself to float into this restful state and go to your movie screen. Now, on the screen, imagine a thick line down the center, and on the left side, project your worries and anxieties and fears. The idea is to see but not experience them. Then shift to the ride side of the screen, and again, visualize any pleasant scene you wish. Again, do this for 1 minute or 5 minutes, whatever works.

You will notice that the pleasant scene on the right will overcome the anxiety scene on the left, in that pleasantness, in most instances, overcomes anxiety. For many, these techniques have proved very useful – whether the problem is anxiety or fear – or both. In my experience, these techniques are a good beginning for controlling PTSD and successfully treating it.

We are in the midst of what could be the biggest public health crisis that America has faced since the 1918 pandemic, also known as the Spanish flu. The lockdowns, quarantines, and the myriad of other disruptions can lead to alienation. In fact, it would be strange for us not to experience strong emotions under these extreme conditions. Life will get better! In the meantime, let’s encourage people to hope, pray, and use relaxation techniques and guided imagery approaches to help control anxiety, worry, stress, and issues related to PTSD. These approaches can give our minds and bodies periods of relaxation and recovery, and ultimately, they can calm our minds.
 

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

We are in the midst of an epidemic and possibly pandemic of anxiety and distress. The worry that folks have about themselves, families, finances, and work is overwhelming for millions.

I speak with people who report periods of racing thoughts jumping back in time and thinking of roads not taken. They also talk about their thoughts jumping forward with life plans of what they’ll do to change their lives in the future – if they survive COVID-19.

Consider what this uncertainty is doing to people who have an underlying emotional problem that is well-controlled with care (and even without care). Those people are suffering even more. Meanwhile, people with obsessive-compulsive disorder that had been under control appear to have worsened with the added stress.

Social distancing has disrupted our everyday routines. For many, there is no work, no spending time with people we care about, no going to movies or shows, no doing discretionary shopping, no going to school. Parents with children at home report frustration about balancing working from home with completing home-schooling packets. Physicians on the front lines of this unprecedented time report not having the proper protective equipment and worrying about the possibility of exposing their families to SARS-CoV-2.

We hear stories about the illness and even deaths of some young and middle-aged people with no underlying conditions, not to mention the loss of older adults. People are bursting into tears, and becoming easily frustrated and angry. Add in nightmares, ongoing anxiety states, insomnia, and decreased concentration.

We are seeing news reports of people stocking up on guns and ammunition and a case of one taking – and dying from – nonpharmaceutical grade chloroquine in an effort to prevent COVID-19.

I spoke with Juliana Tseng, PsyD, a clinical psychologist based in New York, and she said that the hype, half-truths, and false information from some outlets in the popular media are making things worse. Dr. Tseng added that the lack of coordination among local, state, and federal governments also is increasing fear and alienation.

As I see this period in time, my first thoughts are that we are witnessing a national epidemic of trauma. Specifically, what we have here is a clinical picture of PTSD.

PTSD is defined clearly as a traumatic disorder with a real or perceived fracture with life. Isolation (which we are creating as a way to “flatten the curve” or slow the spread of COVID-19), although that strategy is in our best personal and public health interests, is both painful and stressful. Frustration, flashbacks of past life experiences plus flashbacks of being ill are reported in people I’ve spoken with. Avoidance, even though it is planned in this instance, is part of the PTSD complex.

What can we as mental health professionals do to help alleviate this suffering?

First, of course, we must listen to the scientific experts and the data – and tell people to do the same. Most experts will say that COVID-19 is a mild or moderate illness for the vast majority of people. We also must encourage people to observe precautions outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as distancing from people, hand washing, and avoiding those who are ill. Explain to people that, currently, there is no vaccine to prevent COVID-19. Treatment is mainly supportive, and some medication trials are being explored. However, we can empower people by helping them to develop skills aimed at increasing the ability to relax and focus on more positive aspects of life to break the chain of the stress and tension of anxiety as well as control the PTSD.

For more than 40 years, I have helped people master relaxation techniques and guided imagery. When taught properly, people are able to use these techniques on their own.

To begin, I teach people how to relax, using a simple three-point method:

• Get comfortable in a nice chair, and slowly count from one to three. At the count of one, do one thing: “roll your eyes up to the top of your head.”
• At the count of two, do two things, “close your lids on your eyes and take a deep breath.”
• At three, exhale slowly, relax your eyes, and concentrate on a restful feeling of floating.
• Do this for about 30 seconds to a minute.
• Count backward, from three to two to one and open your eyes.

The person will notice how nice and restful they will feel.

After that exercise, get the person to move to the graduate level and go beyond just relaxation. In the following exercise, people can go into a relaxed state by imagining a movie screen. Tell the person to do two things:

1. Look at the imagined movie screen and project on it any pleasant scene you wish; this is your screen. You will feel yourself becoming more and more relaxed. The person can do this one, two, three or whatever times a day. The exercise can last 1 minute or 5.

2. Incorporate the 1, 2, 3 relaxation described earlier, allowing yourself to float into this restful state and go to your movie screen. Now, on the screen, imagine a thick line down the center, and on the left side, project your worries and anxieties and fears. The idea is to see but not experience them. Then shift to the ride side of the screen, and again, visualize any pleasant scene you wish. Again, do this for 1 minute or 5 minutes, whatever works.

You will notice that the pleasant scene on the right will overcome the anxiety scene on the left, in that pleasantness, in most instances, overcomes anxiety. For many, these techniques have proved very useful – whether the problem is anxiety or fear – or both. In my experience, these techniques are a good beginning for controlling PTSD and successfully treating it.

We are in the midst of what could be the biggest public health crisis that America has faced since the 1918 pandemic, also known as the Spanish flu. The lockdowns, quarantines, and the myriad of other disruptions can lead to alienation. In fact, it would be strange for us not to experience strong emotions under these extreme conditions. Life will get better! In the meantime, let’s encourage people to hope, pray, and use relaxation techniques and guided imagery approaches to help control anxiety, worry, stress, and issues related to PTSD. These approaches can give our minds and bodies periods of relaxation and recovery, and ultimately, they can calm our minds.
 

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

When Elizabeth Wurtzel wrote “Prozac Nation,” an autobiographical account published in 1994 of her experience with depression and psychiatric medications, she helped shift the public dialogue about mental illness, and in doing so chipped away at the stigma that continues to haunt many of our patients.

Ms. Wurtzel, who died recently at age 52, wrote about depression passionately and matter-of-factly.

As she stated in “Prozac Nation”: “Depression was the loneliest &*%$ thing on earth. There were no halfway houses for depressives, no Depression Anonymous meetings that I knew of. Yes, of course, there were mental hospitals like McLean and Bellevue and Payne Whitney and the Menninger Clinic, but I couldn’t hope to end up in one of those places unless I made a suicide attempt serious enough to warrant oxygen or stitches or a stomach pump.

“I used to wish – to pray to God for the courage and strength – that I’d have the guts not to get better, but to slit my wrists and get a whole lot worse so I could land in some mental ward, where real help might have been possible.”

Think of where the public consciousness was in 1994. Peter D. Kramer, MD, had started the conversation on Prozac a year earlier with his book, “Listening to Prozac,” Kurt Cobain died by suicide in 1994, and 2 years later President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a law that “reformed” welfare and some say made it more difficult for low-income Americans to secure psychiatric and addiction services (Milbank Q. 2005 Mar;83[1]:65-99).

Prozac, as we know, was the first SSRI on the market in the late 1980s and was hailed as a major medication breakthrough in the treatment of depression. It lacked the side effects of the tricyclic antidepressants of previous years and did not have the potentially dangerous food restrictions associated with monoamine oxidase inhibitors.

Interestingly, the major reviews of Ms. Wurtzel’s book, mainly written by men, were negative. Those reviews focused more on the lifestyle of Ms. Wurtzel, her introspection, and how difficult life was for her, rather than the importance of the book. To me, her writing skills were exceptional, as was her willingness to put her lifestyle and suffering on the line.

The literary critics failed to recognize the book’s importance in unmasking the massive denial of mental illnesses and what Ms. Wurtzel was trying to get across. There have been many successful male writers over the years whose lives were difficult and replete with emotional pain and suffering, and their work was lauded. Regardless of the reviews’ negativity, readers found her book open and enlightening, making it a bestseller – thus paving the way for better and more-open discussion of mental disorders. It also became a touchstone in discussions of antidepressants in the psychiatric literature (Lancet. 1998 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)08418-9; Lancet. 2015 Oct 1. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[15]00430-7; and Biol Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 1;84[11]:e73-5).

However, unfortunately, the stigma still exists on many levels, often starting with the medical profession itself. In my experience over the years in teaching and supervising medical students, many of those not interested in becoming a psychiatrist all too often could not wait for their psych rotation to be over. Generally, they did not take the rotation seriously. I’ve even heard students making light of the delusions and paranoia seen in the suffering of acutely ill patients.

We can take this even further within the profession. I have had many referrals from far too many extremely competent physicians, across many medical specialties, who would refer to their patient as “sort of crazy.” Those physicians want the best for their patients, clearly, in making the referral, but they need to change their thinking and, therefore, their vocabulary about mental disorders. I’d like to see these physicians be more respectful of our patients – just as I would be if I were referring a patient complaining of fatigue and joint pain to a general internist or rheumatologist.

I once knew a brilliant orthopedic surgeon who, when he made a referral, would sit down with the patient and clearly explain why they were not crazy but had an anxiety or a mood problem that he didn’t treat but had a person to refer to who could help. Likewise, I know an ophthalmologist who tells his patients with some emotional symptoms that they are experiencing a difficult situation and would benefit from help that he is not able to provide but could be resolved with another type of specialist who works with their “difficulties.” We clearly need more docs like this who go out of their specialty to explain what patients might need – despite the administrative burden exacted by EMRs on doctors’ time and energy.

As we grow more tolerant in our culture and eliminate distasteful words about people and groups, maybe we should try and avoid the word crazy – even in our general vocabulary. Furthermore, in social situations, while out to dinner with friends, at the gym, or even while in the workplace, just as we may refer to our primary care doc as the best or report we have the best cardiologist or dermatologist, we rarely hear someone being open about the best psychiatrist, psychologist, or therapist in the same manner.

“If ‘Prozac Nation’ has any particular purpose,” she wrote in the afterword, “it would be to come out and say that clinical depression is a real problem, that it ruins lives, that it ends lives, that it very nearly ended my life, that it afflicts many, many people, many very bright and worthy and thoughtful and caring people, people who could probably save the world or at the very least do it some real good.” Those people are our patients, and medicine should take the lead in working further to destigmatize mental illness.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

When Elizabeth Wurtzel wrote “Prozac Nation,” an autobiographical account published in 1994 of her experience with depression and psychiatric medications, she helped shift the public dialogue about mental illness, and in doing so chipped away at the stigma that continues to haunt many of our patients.

Ms. Wurtzel, who died recently at age 52, wrote about depression passionately and matter-of-factly.

As she stated in “Prozac Nation”: “Depression was the loneliest &*%$ thing on earth. There were no halfway houses for depressives, no Depression Anonymous meetings that I knew of. Yes, of course, there were mental hospitals like McLean and Bellevue and Payne Whitney and the Menninger Clinic, but I couldn’t hope to end up in one of those places unless I made a suicide attempt serious enough to warrant oxygen or stitches or a stomach pump.

“I used to wish – to pray to God for the courage and strength – that I’d have the guts not to get better, but to slit my wrists and get a whole lot worse so I could land in some mental ward, where real help might have been possible.”

Think of where the public consciousness was in 1994. Peter D. Kramer, MD, had started the conversation on Prozac a year earlier with his book, “Listening to Prozac,” Kurt Cobain died by suicide in 1994, and 2 years later President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a law that “reformed” welfare and some say made it more difficult for low-income Americans to secure psychiatric and addiction services (Milbank Q. 2005 Mar;83[1]:65-99).

Prozac, as we know, was the first SSRI on the market in the late 1980s and was hailed as a major medication breakthrough in the treatment of depression. It lacked the side effects of the tricyclic antidepressants of previous years and did not have the potentially dangerous food restrictions associated with monoamine oxidase inhibitors.

Interestingly, the major reviews of Ms. Wurtzel’s book, mainly written by men, were negative. Those reviews focused more on the lifestyle of Ms. Wurtzel, her introspection, and how difficult life was for her, rather than the importance of the book. To me, her writing skills were exceptional, as was her willingness to put her lifestyle and suffering on the line.

The literary critics failed to recognize the book’s importance in unmasking the massive denial of mental illnesses and what Ms. Wurtzel was trying to get across. There have been many successful male writers over the years whose lives were difficult and replete with emotional pain and suffering, and their work was lauded. Regardless of the reviews’ negativity, readers found her book open and enlightening, making it a bestseller – thus paving the way for better and more-open discussion of mental disorders. It also became a touchstone in discussions of antidepressants in the psychiatric literature (Lancet. 1998 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)08418-9; Lancet. 2015 Oct 1. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[15]00430-7; and Biol Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 1;84[11]:e73-5).

However, unfortunately, the stigma still exists on many levels, often starting with the medical profession itself. In my experience over the years in teaching and supervising medical students, many of those not interested in becoming a psychiatrist all too often could not wait for their psych rotation to be over. Generally, they did not take the rotation seriously. I’ve even heard students making light of the delusions and paranoia seen in the suffering of acutely ill patients.

We can take this even further within the profession. I have had many referrals from far too many extremely competent physicians, across many medical specialties, who would refer to their patient as “sort of crazy.” Those physicians want the best for their patients, clearly, in making the referral, but they need to change their thinking and, therefore, their vocabulary about mental disorders. I’d like to see these physicians be more respectful of our patients – just as I would be if I were referring a patient complaining of fatigue and joint pain to a general internist or rheumatologist.

I once knew a brilliant orthopedic surgeon who, when he made a referral, would sit down with the patient and clearly explain why they were not crazy but had an anxiety or a mood problem that he didn’t treat but had a person to refer to who could help. Likewise, I know an ophthalmologist who tells his patients with some emotional symptoms that they are experiencing a difficult situation and would benefit from help that he is not able to provide but could be resolved with another type of specialist who works with their “difficulties.” We clearly need more docs like this who go out of their specialty to explain what patients might need – despite the administrative burden exacted by EMRs on doctors’ time and energy.

As we grow more tolerant in our culture and eliminate distasteful words about people and groups, maybe we should try and avoid the word crazy – even in our general vocabulary. Furthermore, in social situations, while out to dinner with friends, at the gym, or even while in the workplace, just as we may refer to our primary care doc as the best or report we have the best cardiologist or dermatologist, we rarely hear someone being open about the best psychiatrist, psychologist, or therapist in the same manner.

“If ‘Prozac Nation’ has any particular purpose,” she wrote in the afterword, “it would be to come out and say that clinical depression is a real problem, that it ruins lives, that it ends lives, that it very nearly ended my life, that it afflicts many, many people, many very bright and worthy and thoughtful and caring people, people who could probably save the world or at the very least do it some real good.” Those people are our patients, and medicine should take the lead in working further to destigmatize mental illness.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

When Elizabeth Wurtzel wrote “Prozac Nation,” an autobiographical account published in 1994 of her experience with depression and psychiatric medications, she helped shift the public dialogue about mental illness, and in doing so chipped away at the stigma that continues to haunt many of our patients.

Ms. Wurtzel, who died recently at age 52, wrote about depression passionately and matter-of-factly.

As she stated in “Prozac Nation”: “Depression was the loneliest &*%$ thing on earth. There were no halfway houses for depressives, no Depression Anonymous meetings that I knew of. Yes, of course, there were mental hospitals like McLean and Bellevue and Payne Whitney and the Menninger Clinic, but I couldn’t hope to end up in one of those places unless I made a suicide attempt serious enough to warrant oxygen or stitches or a stomach pump.

“I used to wish – to pray to God for the courage and strength – that I’d have the guts not to get better, but to slit my wrists and get a whole lot worse so I could land in some mental ward, where real help might have been possible.”

Think of where the public consciousness was in 1994. Peter D. Kramer, MD, had started the conversation on Prozac a year earlier with his book, “Listening to Prozac,” Kurt Cobain died by suicide in 1994, and 2 years later President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a law that “reformed” welfare and some say made it more difficult for low-income Americans to secure psychiatric and addiction services (Milbank Q. 2005 Mar;83[1]:65-99).

Prozac, as we know, was the first SSRI on the market in the late 1980s and was hailed as a major medication breakthrough in the treatment of depression. It lacked the side effects of the tricyclic antidepressants of previous years and did not have the potentially dangerous food restrictions associated with monoamine oxidase inhibitors.

Interestingly, the major reviews of Ms. Wurtzel’s book, mainly written by men, were negative. Those reviews focused more on the lifestyle of Ms. Wurtzel, her introspection, and how difficult life was for her, rather than the importance of the book. To me, her writing skills were exceptional, as was her willingness to put her lifestyle and suffering on the line.

The literary critics failed to recognize the book’s importance in unmasking the massive denial of mental illnesses and what Ms. Wurtzel was trying to get across. There have been many successful male writers over the years whose lives were difficult and replete with emotional pain and suffering, and their work was lauded. Regardless of the reviews’ negativity, readers found her book open and enlightening, making it a bestseller – thus paving the way for better and more-open discussion of mental disorders. It also became a touchstone in discussions of antidepressants in the psychiatric literature (Lancet. 1998 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)08418-9; Lancet. 2015 Oct 1. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[15]00430-7; and Biol Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 1;84[11]:e73-5).

However, unfortunately, the stigma still exists on many levels, often starting with the medical profession itself. In my experience over the years in teaching and supervising medical students, many of those not interested in becoming a psychiatrist all too often could not wait for their psych rotation to be over. Generally, they did not take the rotation seriously. I’ve even heard students making light of the delusions and paranoia seen in the suffering of acutely ill patients.

We can take this even further within the profession. I have had many referrals from far too many extremely competent physicians, across many medical specialties, who would refer to their patient as “sort of crazy.” Those physicians want the best for their patients, clearly, in making the referral, but they need to change their thinking and, therefore, their vocabulary about mental disorders. I’d like to see these physicians be more respectful of our patients – just as I would be if I were referring a patient complaining of fatigue and joint pain to a general internist or rheumatologist.

I once knew a brilliant orthopedic surgeon who, when he made a referral, would sit down with the patient and clearly explain why they were not crazy but had an anxiety or a mood problem that he didn’t treat but had a person to refer to who could help. Likewise, I know an ophthalmologist who tells his patients with some emotional symptoms that they are experiencing a difficult situation and would benefit from help that he is not able to provide but could be resolved with another type of specialist who works with their “difficulties.” We clearly need more docs like this who go out of their specialty to explain what patients might need – despite the administrative burden exacted by EMRs on doctors’ time and energy.

As we grow more tolerant in our culture and eliminate distasteful words about people and groups, maybe we should try and avoid the word crazy – even in our general vocabulary. Furthermore, in social situations, while out to dinner with friends, at the gym, or even while in the workplace, just as we may refer to our primary care doc as the best or report we have the best cardiologist or dermatologist, we rarely hear someone being open about the best psychiatrist, psychologist, or therapist in the same manner.

“If ‘Prozac Nation’ has any particular purpose,” she wrote in the afterword, “it would be to come out and say that clinical depression is a real problem, that it ruins lives, that it ends lives, that it very nearly ended my life, that it afflicts many, many people, many very bright and worthy and thoughtful and caring people, people who could probably save the world or at the very least do it some real good.” Those people are our patients, and medicine should take the lead in working further to destigmatize mental illness.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

Back in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association dropped the word “neurosis” from the DSM-III, so that if you had been neurotic, after 1980, you were neurotic no longer.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

At the time, I discussed this on my daily radio show. For those folks who were nervous, worried, fearful, and full of anxieties about themselves, their families, welfare, health, and the environment around them, a new set of labels was introduced to more specifically describe one or more problems related to anxiety.

For codification, and at times, a clearer understanding of a specific problem, the change was made to be helpful. Certainly, for insurers and pharmacologic treatments, it worked. However, it’s interesting that the word and concept, neurosis, which still is used by some psychiatrists and psychologists – although not scientific – does offer a clear overall picture of a suffering, anxiety-ridden person who might have a combination of an anxiety disorder, panic attacks, somatic symptoms, and endless worry. This overlapping picture often is seen in clinical practice more than the multiple one-dimensional labels that are currently used. So be it.

This all leads me to what I’ve recently learned about the Neuroscience-based Nomenclature (NbN) Project. According to a recent article in the APA’s Psychiatric News, the group’s board of trustees has endorsed a proposal that would change or revise the names of psychiatric medications so that the names reflect their mechanism of action – a move seemingly focused on a pure biological model.

For example, according to the article, the medication perphenazine would be renamed a “D2 receptor antagonist” rather than an antipsychotic. For depression, we might have a serotonergic reuptake inhibitor, according to the report, and of course, the list of changes would go on – based on current knowledge of biological activity. It’s true that in general medicine, there are examples where mode of action is discussed. For example, in cardiology we have beta-blockers and alpha-blockers, which are descriptive of their actions. As doctors who have trained for years and know the mechanism of action of various medications, we will understand all this. But in patient care, both doctors and their patients often understand and feel comfortable using descriptive terms indicating the treatment modality, such as antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, anti-inflammatory medications, as well as anti-itching, antiaging, and antispasmodic drugs.

So, I am concerned about these proposed changes. In an era focused on patient-centered care, where we seek to make it simpler for the patient/health care consumer, we might make it harder for the patient to grasp what’s going on.

It’s very important to keep in mind that we as physicians know the ins and outs of medications, and that even the most educated and bright patients who are not in medicine do not know what our education has taught us. For example, regardless of specialty, we all know the difference between left-sided and right-sided heart failure. Those outside of medicine, however, rarely know the difference. They understand heart disease as a rule. People in general might understand some general concepts, such as RBC, WBC, and platelets. A patient will speak of taking a blood thinner but rarely know or understand the differences between antiplatelets and anticoagulants. And why should they know this? How many of us know how or understand how to prepare a legal document or determine what type of steel is used in bridge construction?

The point here is that I believe good patient care is keeping it simple and taking the time to explain what’s being treated, aiming to inform patients using down-to-earth, accessible language rather than the language of biochemistry.

It’s true that in psychiatry, wider use of certain medications than originally indicated has grown tremendously as well as off-label use. In light of that, the NbN idea is laudable. However, it would seem more practical to leave the traditional modes of action in place and expand our discussions with patients as to why we are using a specific medication. I have found a very simple and even rewarding way to explain to patients, for example, that yes, this is an antiseizure medication but it is now used in psychiatry as a mood stabilizer.

Another important point is the question of whether using nomenclature that describes the exact location of the problem is all that accurate. Currently, we know we still have a lot to learn about brain chemistry and neuronal transmission in mental disorders, just as in many medical disorders, there are gaps in our understanding of many illnesses and subsequent molecular changes.

Just as the DSM-III left behind the all-encompassing and descriptive word neurosis and the APA has changed labels in the DSM-IV and DSM-5, so the NbN project would change the nomenclature of current psychotropic medications. The intentions are good, but the idea that those changes will foster better patient understanding defies common sense. A better idea might be to continue use of both scientific names and names of commonly used actions of the medications, leaving both in place and letting clinicians decide what nomenclature best suits each patient.

It will be a sad day when psychiatrists become so medically and “scientifically” driven that we cannot explain to a patient, “I’m prescribing this antidepressant because it’s now used to treat anxiety,” or “Yes, this medicine is labeled ‘antipsychotic,’ but you’re not psychotic. It may help your mood swings and may even help you sleep better.” Now, is that hard? Is talking to a person and explaining the treatment no longer part of care? The take-home messages from the recent APA/Institute of Psychiatric Services meeting I attended seemed to suggest that human attention and care have great value. My father, a surgeon, always said that you learn a lot by simply talking to patients – and they learn from you.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019).

Back in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association dropped the word “neurosis” from the DSM-III, so that if you had been neurotic, after 1980, you were neurotic no longer.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

At the time, I discussed this on my daily radio show. For those folks who were nervous, worried, fearful, and full of anxieties about themselves, their families, welfare, health, and the environment around them, a new set of labels was introduced to more specifically describe one or more problems related to anxiety.

For codification, and at times, a clearer understanding of a specific problem, the change was made to be helpful. Certainly, for insurers and pharmacologic treatments, it worked. However, it’s interesting that the word and concept, neurosis, which still is used by some psychiatrists and psychologists – although not scientific – does offer a clear overall picture of a suffering, anxiety-ridden person who might have a combination of an anxiety disorder, panic attacks, somatic symptoms, and endless worry. This overlapping picture often is seen in clinical practice more than the multiple one-dimensional labels that are currently used. So be it.

This all leads me to what I’ve recently learned about the Neuroscience-based Nomenclature (NbN) Project. According to a recent article in the APA’s Psychiatric News, the group’s board of trustees has endorsed a proposal that would change or revise the names of psychiatric medications so that the names reflect their mechanism of action – a move seemingly focused on a pure biological model.

For example, according to the article, the medication perphenazine would be renamed a “D2 receptor antagonist” rather than an antipsychotic. For depression, we might have a serotonergic reuptake inhibitor, according to the report, and of course, the list of changes would go on – based on current knowledge of biological activity. It’s true that in general medicine, there are examples where mode of action is discussed. For example, in cardiology we have beta-blockers and alpha-blockers, which are descriptive of their actions. As doctors who have trained for years and know the mechanism of action of various medications, we will understand all this. But in patient care, both doctors and their patients often understand and feel comfortable using descriptive terms indicating the treatment modality, such as antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, anti-inflammatory medications, as well as anti-itching, antiaging, and antispasmodic drugs.

So, I am concerned about these proposed changes. In an era focused on patient-centered care, where we seek to make it simpler for the patient/health care consumer, we might make it harder for the patient to grasp what’s going on.

It’s very important to keep in mind that we as physicians know the ins and outs of medications, and that even the most educated and bright patients who are not in medicine do not know what our education has taught us. For example, regardless of specialty, we all know the difference between left-sided and right-sided heart failure. Those outside of medicine, however, rarely know the difference. They understand heart disease as a rule. People in general might understand some general concepts, such as RBC, WBC, and platelets. A patient will speak of taking a blood thinner but rarely know or understand the differences between antiplatelets and anticoagulants. And why should they know this? How many of us know how or understand how to prepare a legal document or determine what type of steel is used in bridge construction?

The point here is that I believe good patient care is keeping it simple and taking the time to explain what’s being treated, aiming to inform patients using down-to-earth, accessible language rather than the language of biochemistry.

It’s true that in psychiatry, wider use of certain medications than originally indicated has grown tremendously as well as off-label use. In light of that, the NbN idea is laudable. However, it would seem more practical to leave the traditional modes of action in place and expand our discussions with patients as to why we are using a specific medication. I have found a very simple and even rewarding way to explain to patients, for example, that yes, this is an antiseizure medication but it is now used in psychiatry as a mood stabilizer.

Another important point is the question of whether using nomenclature that describes the exact location of the problem is all that accurate. Currently, we know we still have a lot to learn about brain chemistry and neuronal transmission in mental disorders, just as in many medical disorders, there are gaps in our understanding of many illnesses and subsequent molecular changes.

Just as the DSM-III left behind the all-encompassing and descriptive word neurosis and the APA has changed labels in the DSM-IV and DSM-5, so the NbN project would change the nomenclature of current psychotropic medications. The intentions are good, but the idea that those changes will foster better patient understanding defies common sense. A better idea might be to continue use of both scientific names and names of commonly used actions of the medications, leaving both in place and letting clinicians decide what nomenclature best suits each patient.

It will be a sad day when psychiatrists become so medically and “scientifically” driven that we cannot explain to a patient, “I’m prescribing this antidepressant because it’s now used to treat anxiety,” or “Yes, this medicine is labeled ‘antipsychotic,’ but you’re not psychotic. It may help your mood swings and may even help you sleep better.” Now, is that hard? Is talking to a person and explaining the treatment no longer part of care? The take-home messages from the recent APA/Institute of Psychiatric Services meeting I attended seemed to suggest that human attention and care have great value. My father, a surgeon, always said that you learn a lot by simply talking to patients – and they learn from you.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019).

Back in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association dropped the word “neurosis” from the DSM-III, so that if you had been neurotic, after 1980, you were neurotic no longer.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

At the time, I discussed this on my daily radio show. For those folks who were nervous, worried, fearful, and full of anxieties about themselves, their families, welfare, health, and the environment around them, a new set of labels was introduced to more specifically describe one or more problems related to anxiety.

For codification, and at times, a clearer understanding of a specific problem, the change was made to be helpful. Certainly, for insurers and pharmacologic treatments, it worked. However, it’s interesting that the word and concept, neurosis, which still is used by some psychiatrists and psychologists – although not scientific – does offer a clear overall picture of a suffering, anxiety-ridden person who might have a combination of an anxiety disorder, panic attacks, somatic symptoms, and endless worry. This overlapping picture often is seen in clinical practice more than the multiple one-dimensional labels that are currently used. So be it.

This all leads me to what I’ve recently learned about the Neuroscience-based Nomenclature (NbN) Project. According to a recent article in the APA’s Psychiatric News, the group’s board of trustees has endorsed a proposal that would change or revise the names of psychiatric medications so that the names reflect their mechanism of action – a move seemingly focused on a pure biological model.

For example, according to the article, the medication perphenazine would be renamed a “D2 receptor antagonist” rather than an antipsychotic. For depression, we might have a serotonergic reuptake inhibitor, according to the report, and of course, the list of changes would go on – based on current knowledge of biological activity. It’s true that in general medicine, there are examples where mode of action is discussed. For example, in cardiology we have beta-blockers and alpha-blockers, which are descriptive of their actions. As doctors who have trained for years and know the mechanism of action of various medications, we will understand all this. But in patient care, both doctors and their patients often understand and feel comfortable using descriptive terms indicating the treatment modality, such as antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, anti-inflammatory medications, as well as anti-itching, antiaging, and antispasmodic drugs.

So, I am concerned about these proposed changes. In an era focused on patient-centered care, where we seek to make it simpler for the patient/health care consumer, we might make it harder for the patient to grasp what’s going on.

It’s very important to keep in mind that we as physicians know the ins and outs of medications, and that even the most educated and bright patients who are not in medicine do not know what our education has taught us. For example, regardless of specialty, we all know the difference between left-sided and right-sided heart failure. Those outside of medicine, however, rarely know the difference. They understand heart disease as a rule. People in general might understand some general concepts, such as RBC, WBC, and platelets. A patient will speak of taking a blood thinner but rarely know or understand the differences between antiplatelets and anticoagulants. And why should they know this? How many of us know how or understand how to prepare a legal document or determine what type of steel is used in bridge construction?

The point here is that I believe good patient care is keeping it simple and taking the time to explain what’s being treated, aiming to inform patients using down-to-earth, accessible language rather than the language of biochemistry.

It’s true that in psychiatry, wider use of certain medications than originally indicated has grown tremendously as well as off-label use. In light of that, the NbN idea is laudable. However, it would seem more practical to leave the traditional modes of action in place and expand our discussions with patients as to why we are using a specific medication. I have found a very simple and even rewarding way to explain to patients, for example, that yes, this is an antiseizure medication but it is now used in psychiatry as a mood stabilizer.

Another important point is the question of whether using nomenclature that describes the exact location of the problem is all that accurate. Currently, we know we still have a lot to learn about brain chemistry and neuronal transmission in mental disorders, just as in many medical disorders, there are gaps in our understanding of many illnesses and subsequent molecular changes.

Just as the DSM-III left behind the all-encompassing and descriptive word neurosis and the APA has changed labels in the DSM-IV and DSM-5, so the NbN project would change the nomenclature of current psychotropic medications. The intentions are good, but the idea that those changes will foster better patient understanding defies common sense. A better idea might be to continue use of both scientific names and names of commonly used actions of the medications, leaving both in place and letting clinicians decide what nomenclature best suits each patient.

It will be a sad day when psychiatrists become so medically and “scientifically” driven that we cannot explain to a patient, “I’m prescribing this antidepressant because it’s now used to treat anxiety,” or “Yes, this medicine is labeled ‘antipsychotic,’ but you’re not psychotic. It may help your mood swings and may even help you sleep better.” Now, is that hard? Is talking to a person and explaining the treatment no longer part of care? The take-home messages from the recent APA/Institute of Psychiatric Services meeting I attended seemed to suggest that human attention and care have great value. My father, a surgeon, always said that you learn a lot by simply talking to patients – and they learn from you.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019).

On June 10, 2019, a rainy, foggy day, there was a news flash that a plane had crashed into a building in the middle of New York City. I first saw this notification on my iPhone and my immediate thought was: Could this be a redo of Sept. 11?

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers file photo

I was especially concerned because I knew the area fairly well, in that a clinic I had worked in for more than 10 years was only a few blocks away. However, my memory bank brought me back to that day almost 18 years ago when, from a hospital window, many of us doctors, nurses, social workers, and patients saw the fire in the north tower and then saw the second plane crash into the south tower of the World Trade Center. Once we all knew what happened, we spent that night at the hospital awaiting the arrival of people in need of care. Unfortunately, very few arrived.

On this past June day, before anyone really knew the facts, what we heard and saw on TV was buildings being evacuated in midtown Manhattan, people running and moving in all directions with police officers directing people and diverting traffic, firemen entering the building, and EMT first responders in place. What mayhem!

Gov. Andrew Cuomo got to the scene very quickly and assured us that the incident did not appear to be a terrorist attack. Furthermore, he thoughtfully pointed out, we in New York City all seem to have a version or a form of posttraumatic stress disorder taking us back to Sept. 11, 2001. From my point of view, Gov. Cuomo could not have been more correct in his short, televised talk to a nervous public. The incident, and the governor’s reaction to it, started me thinking about how easily triggered the memories and flashbacks of PTSD can be.

It became clear very soon that a pilot had lost control of the helicopter on that foggy, rainy June day and had tried to make an emergency landing on the roof of a Manhattan high-rise. The roof landing did not go well; the helicopter crashed on the roof; and the lone pilot died.

As it turned out, mental health care workers treated many PTSD sufferers at the Bellevue and Mount Sinai hospital programs set up after Sept. 11, including those who were part of the rescue as well as the clean-up. In addition, it appears that many who witnessed the disaster also were vulnerable to PTSD and were additionally treated in various programs. I have seen and interviewed many of those people over the last 10 years.

PTSD is defined mainly in terms of experiencing a traumatic event during a man-made or natural disaster: torture, assaults, the tragedies of war, or any event that causes physical or psychological injury. According to research, it can occur right after the event or years later. Besides those major traumatic events, I’ve seen PTSD occur from much lesser traumas; much depends on how individuals process what is happening around them. For example, in some people, I’ve seen PTSD occur after job loss, where identity and persona are lost and the brain experiences the psychological shock consistent with more dangerously threatening aspects of PTSD. I’ve seen dog bites, auto accidents, even “fender benders” and emotional break-ups bring out the symptoms of PTSD (J Adv Nurs. 2005 Oct;52[1]:22-30). Luckily, in most of those cases, treatment or time itself can heal the problems.

Going back to that June day, for a few brief moments, my memory was jogged back to Sept. 11. A few people I spoke with about the event last month also reported being taken back to that fateful day (Am Psychol. 2011 Sep;66[6]:429-46).

For some experiencing PTSD, flashbacks to the physically threatening or psychologically shocking event occur as opposed to memory alone. During a flashback, the person actually relives the experience as if it were in the present. Flashbacks are quite different from recall alone. In my experience, the flashback is not unlike age regression, where an individual actually relives an event as opposed to having a memory of an event.

PTSD is a serious emotional problem, and I believe that much of it is undiagnosed in society – partly because we tend to look for the disorder after major traumatic events, such as physical and psychological effects of war or disaster, man-made and natural disasters, as well as assaults and torture. As we know in medicine and mental health care, there are certain vulnerabilities to some disorders. I believe that, whether through education, environment, or genetics, we have vulnerabilities to PTSD (Brain Behav Immun. 2013 May;30:12-21); (Clin Psychol Rev. 2012 Nov;32[7]:630-41), not only from major disastrous physical and psychological shocks but less obvious events in life that might create the same clinical picture we see in more traditional cases of PTSD.

Some PTSD survivors will improve and get better with time. Others do well after getting treatments with interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and prolonged exposure therapy, both of which are fairly short term in many instances. Medication management might be helpful for some, but I believe it should be combined with CBT or exposure therapy – or at least some form of talk therapy. An ongoing relationship with a supportive therapist or friends and family is extremely important, in order to keep PTSD survivors from isolating and endlessly “living in their heads” as they relive the experience and face the multiple symptom complexes of PTSD.
 

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including CBT and guided imagery. He recently published a book called “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2018).

On June 10, 2019, a rainy, foggy day, there was a news flash that a plane had crashed into a building in the middle of New York City. I first saw this notification on my iPhone and my immediate thought was: Could this be a redo of Sept. 11?

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers file photo

I was especially concerned because I knew the area fairly well, in that a clinic I had worked in for more than 10 years was only a few blocks away. However, my memory bank brought me back to that day almost 18 years ago when, from a hospital window, many of us doctors, nurses, social workers, and patients saw the fire in the north tower and then saw the second plane crash into the south tower of the World Trade Center. Once we all knew what happened, we spent that night at the hospital awaiting the arrival of people in need of care. Unfortunately, very few arrived.

On this past June day, before anyone really knew the facts, what we heard and saw on TV was buildings being evacuated in midtown Manhattan, people running and moving in all directions with police officers directing people and diverting traffic, firemen entering the building, and EMT first responders in place. What mayhem!

Gov. Andrew Cuomo got to the scene very quickly and assured us that the incident did not appear to be a terrorist attack. Furthermore, he thoughtfully pointed out, we in New York City all seem to have a version or a form of posttraumatic stress disorder taking us back to Sept. 11, 2001. From my point of view, Gov. Cuomo could not have been more correct in his short, televised talk to a nervous public. The incident, and the governor’s reaction to it, started me thinking about how easily triggered the memories and flashbacks of PTSD can be.

It became clear very soon that a pilot had lost control of the helicopter on that foggy, rainy June day and had tried to make an emergency landing on the roof of a Manhattan high-rise. The roof landing did not go well; the helicopter crashed on the roof; and the lone pilot died.

As it turned out, mental health care workers treated many PTSD sufferers at the Bellevue and Mount Sinai hospital programs set up after Sept. 11, including those who were part of the rescue as well as the clean-up. In addition, it appears that many who witnessed the disaster also were vulnerable to PTSD and were additionally treated in various programs. I have seen and interviewed many of those people over the last 10 years.

PTSD is defined mainly in terms of experiencing a traumatic event during a man-made or natural disaster: torture, assaults, the tragedies of war, or any event that causes physical or psychological injury. According to research, it can occur right after the event or years later. Besides those major traumatic events, I’ve seen PTSD occur from much lesser traumas; much depends on how individuals process what is happening around them. For example, in some people, I’ve seen PTSD occur after job loss, where identity and persona are lost and the brain experiences the psychological shock consistent with more dangerously threatening aspects of PTSD. I’ve seen dog bites, auto accidents, even “fender benders” and emotional break-ups bring out the symptoms of PTSD (J Adv Nurs. 2005 Oct;52[1]:22-30). Luckily, in most of those cases, treatment or time itself can heal the problems.

Going back to that June day, for a few brief moments, my memory was jogged back to Sept. 11. A few people I spoke with about the event last month also reported being taken back to that fateful day (Am Psychol. 2011 Sep;66[6]:429-46).

For some experiencing PTSD, flashbacks to the physically threatening or psychologically shocking event occur as opposed to memory alone. During a flashback, the person actually relives the experience as if it were in the present. Flashbacks are quite different from recall alone. In my experience, the flashback is not unlike age regression, where an individual actually relives an event as opposed to having a memory of an event.

PTSD is a serious emotional problem, and I believe that much of it is undiagnosed in society – partly because we tend to look for the disorder after major traumatic events, such as physical and psychological effects of war or disaster, man-made and natural disasters, as well as assaults and torture. As we know in medicine and mental health care, there are certain vulnerabilities to some disorders. I believe that, whether through education, environment, or genetics, we have vulnerabilities to PTSD (Brain Behav Immun. 2013 May;30:12-21); (Clin Psychol Rev. 2012 Nov;32[7]:630-41), not only from major disastrous physical and psychological shocks but less obvious events in life that might create the same clinical picture we see in more traditional cases of PTSD.

Some PTSD survivors will improve and get better with time. Others do well after getting treatments with interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and prolonged exposure therapy, both of which are fairly short term in many instances. Medication management might be helpful for some, but I believe it should be combined with CBT or exposure therapy – or at least some form of talk therapy. An ongoing relationship with a supportive therapist or friends and family is extremely important, in order to keep PTSD survivors from isolating and endlessly “living in their heads” as they relive the experience and face the multiple symptom complexes of PTSD.
 

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including CBT and guided imagery. He recently published a book called “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2018).

On June 10, 2019, a rainy, foggy day, there was a news flash that a plane had crashed into a building in the middle of New York City. I first saw this notification on my iPhone and my immediate thought was: Could this be a redo of Sept. 11?

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers file photo

I was especially concerned because I knew the area fairly well, in that a clinic I had worked in for more than 10 years was only a few blocks away. However, my memory bank brought me back to that day almost 18 years ago when, from a hospital window, many of us doctors, nurses, social workers, and patients saw the fire in the north tower and then saw the second plane crash into the south tower of the World Trade Center. Once we all knew what happened, we spent that night at the hospital awaiting the arrival of people in need of care. Unfortunately, very few arrived.

On this past June day, before anyone really knew the facts, what we heard and saw on TV was buildings being evacuated in midtown Manhattan, people running and moving in all directions with police officers directing people and diverting traffic, firemen entering the building, and EMT first responders in place. What mayhem!

Gov. Andrew Cuomo got to the scene very quickly and assured us that the incident did not appear to be a terrorist attack. Furthermore, he thoughtfully pointed out, we in New York City all seem to have a version or a form of posttraumatic stress disorder taking us back to Sept. 11, 2001. From my point of view, Gov. Cuomo could not have been more correct in his short, televised talk to a nervous public. The incident, and the governor’s reaction to it, started me thinking about how easily triggered the memories and flashbacks of PTSD can be.

It became clear very soon that a pilot had lost control of the helicopter on that foggy, rainy June day and had tried to make an emergency landing on the roof of a Manhattan high-rise. The roof landing did not go well; the helicopter crashed on the roof; and the lone pilot died.

As it turned out, mental health care workers treated many PTSD sufferers at the Bellevue and Mount Sinai hospital programs set up after Sept. 11, including those who were part of the rescue as well as the clean-up. In addition, it appears that many who witnessed the disaster also were vulnerable to PTSD and were additionally treated in various programs. I have seen and interviewed many of those people over the last 10 years.

PTSD is defined mainly in terms of experiencing a traumatic event during a man-made or natural disaster: torture, assaults, the tragedies of war, or any event that causes physical or psychological injury. According to research, it can occur right after the event or years later. Besides those major traumatic events, I’ve seen PTSD occur from much lesser traumas; much depends on how individuals process what is happening around them. For example, in some people, I’ve seen PTSD occur after job loss, where identity and persona are lost and the brain experiences the psychological shock consistent with more dangerously threatening aspects of PTSD. I’ve seen dog bites, auto accidents, even “fender benders” and emotional break-ups bring out the symptoms of PTSD (J Adv Nurs. 2005 Oct;52[1]:22-30). Luckily, in most of those cases, treatment or time itself can heal the problems.

Going back to that June day, for a few brief moments, my memory was jogged back to Sept. 11. A few people I spoke with about the event last month also reported being taken back to that fateful day (Am Psychol. 2011 Sep;66[6]:429-46).

For some experiencing PTSD, flashbacks to the physically threatening or psychologically shocking event occur as opposed to memory alone. During a flashback, the person actually relives the experience as if it were in the present. Flashbacks are quite different from recall alone. In my experience, the flashback is not unlike age regression, where an individual actually relives an event as opposed to having a memory of an event.

PTSD is a serious emotional problem, and I believe that much of it is undiagnosed in society – partly because we tend to look for the disorder after major traumatic events, such as physical and psychological effects of war or disaster, man-made and natural disasters, as well as assaults and torture. As we know in medicine and mental health care, there are certain vulnerabilities to some disorders. I believe that, whether through education, environment, or genetics, we have vulnerabilities to PTSD (Brain Behav Immun. 2013 May;30:12-21); (Clin Psychol Rev. 2012 Nov;32[7]:630-41), not only from major disastrous physical and psychological shocks but less obvious events in life that might create the same clinical picture we see in more traditional cases of PTSD.

Some PTSD survivors will improve and get better with time. Others do well after getting treatments with interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and prolonged exposure therapy, both of which are fairly short term in many instances. Medication management might be helpful for some, but I believe it should be combined with CBT or exposure therapy – or at least some form of talk therapy. An ongoing relationship with a supportive therapist or friends and family is extremely important, in order to keep PTSD survivors from isolating and endlessly “living in their heads” as they relive the experience and face the multiple symptom complexes of PTSD.
 

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including CBT and guided imagery. He recently published a book called “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2018).

Rising waters forced hundreds of people, mainly in the Carolinas, to call for emergency rescues, and some people were forced to abandon their cars because of flooding. One man reportedly died by electrocution while trying to hook up a generator. Another man died after going out to check the status of hunting dogs, according to media reports. And in one of the most heart-wrenching tragedies, a mother and her infant were killed when a tree fell on their home.

Watching the TV reports and listening to the news of Hurricane Florence’s devastating impact on so many millions of people has been shocking. The death toll from this catastrophic weather event as of this writing stands at 39. Besides the current and future physical problems and illnesses left in Florence’s wake, the extent of property damage and loss must be overwhelming for the survivors.

I worry about the extent of the emotional toll left behind by Florence, just as Hurricane Maria did last year in Puerto Rico. The storm and its subsequent damage to the individual psyche – including the loss of identity and the fracturing of social structures and networks – almost certainly will lead to posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and utter despair for many survivors.

While monitoring Florence’s impact, I thought about Hurricane Sandy, which upended me personally when it hit New York in 2012. As I’ve written previously, Sandy’s impact left me without power, running water, or toilet facilities. Almost 3 days of this uncertainty shook me from my comfort zone and truly affected my emotions. Before day 3, I left my home and drove (yes, I could still use my car; the roads were clear and my garage was not flooded) to my older son’s home – where I had a great support system and was able to continue to live a relatively normal life while watching the storm’s developments on TV. To this day, many areas of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut that were hit by Sandy have not fully recovered.

Back to the human tragedy still unfolding for the survivors of Florence: I believe – and the data suggest – that early intervention and treatment of PTSD leads to better outcomes and should be addressed sooner than later. There is no specific medicinal “magic bullet” for PTSD, although some medications may help as well as treat a depressive component of the disorder and other medications may assist in improving sleep and disruptive sleep patterns. It’s been shown, time and again, that cognitive-behavioral therapy, various types of prolonged exposure therapy, and eye movement desensitization therapies work best. The most updated federal guidelines from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense, coauthored by Lori L. Davis, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reinforce those treatments.

I also believe that, in situations in which masses of people are affected or potentially affected by PTSD, another first line of care that should be added is supportive, educational, interactive group therapy. In other words, it is possible that a cognitive-behavioral group therapy (CBGT) approach would reach many more people, make psychiatric intervention acceptable, and help the survivors of Florence. A recent study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Boston that examined the role of “decentering” as part of CBGT for patients with specific anxiety disorders, for example, social anxiety disorder, might provide some hints. Decentering involves learning to observe thoughts and feelings as objective events in the mind rather than identifying with them personally. Aaron T. Beck, MD, and others hypothesized decentering as a mechanism of change in CBT.

In the UMass study, researchers recruited 81 people with a principal diagnosis of social anxiety disorder based on the Anxiety Disorders Interview Scheduled for DSM-IV. Other inclusion criteria for the study included stability on medications for 3 months or 1 month on benzodiazepines (Behav Ther. 2018 Sep;49[5]:809-12). Sixty-three of participants had 12 sessions of CBGT. The researchers found that people who received the CBGT experienced an increase in decentering. An increase in decentering, in turn, predicted improvement on most outcome measures.

Just as primary care physicians and surgeons know how to address serious physical health issues related natural and man-made disasters, psychiatrists must quickly know how to address the mental health aspects of care. Group therapy has the greatest potential to help more people and perhaps treat – and even prevent not only PTSD but many anxiety disorders as well.
 

Dr. London, a psychiatrist who practices in New York, developed and ran a short-term psychotherapy program for 20 years at NYU Langone Medical Center and has been writing columns for 35 years. His new book about helping people feel better fast is expected to be published in fall 2018. He has no disclosures.

Rising waters forced hundreds of people, mainly in the Carolinas, to call for emergency rescues, and some people were forced to abandon their cars because of flooding. One man reportedly died by electrocution while trying to hook up a generator. Another man died after going out to check the status of hunting dogs, according to media reports. And in one of the most heart-wrenching tragedies, a mother and her infant were killed when a tree fell on their home.

Watching the TV reports and listening to the news of Hurricane Florence’s devastating impact on so many millions of people has been shocking. The death toll from this catastrophic weather event as of this writing stands at 39. Besides the current and future physical problems and illnesses left in Florence’s wake, the extent of property damage and loss must be overwhelming for the survivors.

I worry about the extent of the emotional toll left behind by Florence, just as Hurricane Maria did last year in Puerto Rico. The storm and its subsequent damage to the individual psyche – including the loss of identity and the fracturing of social structures and networks – almost certainly will lead to posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and utter despair for many survivors.

While monitoring Florence’s impact, I thought about Hurricane Sandy, which upended me personally when it hit New York in 2012. As I’ve written previously, Sandy’s impact left me without power, running water, or toilet facilities. Almost 3 days of this uncertainty shook me from my comfort zone and truly affected my emotions. Before day 3, I left my home and drove (yes, I could still use my car; the roads were clear and my garage was not flooded) to my older son’s home – where I had a great support system and was able to continue to live a relatively normal life while watching the storm’s developments on TV. To this day, many areas of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut that were hit by Sandy have not fully recovered.

Back to the human tragedy still unfolding for the survivors of Florence: I believe – and the data suggest – that early intervention and treatment of PTSD leads to better outcomes and should be addressed sooner than later. There is no specific medicinal “magic bullet” for PTSD, although some medications may help as well as treat a depressive component of the disorder and other medications may assist in improving sleep and disruptive sleep patterns. It’s been shown, time and again, that cognitive-behavioral therapy, various types of prolonged exposure therapy, and eye movement desensitization therapies work best. The most updated federal guidelines from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense, coauthored by Lori L. Davis, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reinforce those treatments.

I also believe that, in situations in which masses of people are affected or potentially affected by PTSD, another first line of care that should be added is supportive, educational, interactive group therapy. In other words, it is possible that a cognitive-behavioral group therapy (CBGT) approach would reach many more people, make psychiatric intervention acceptable, and help the survivors of Florence. A recent study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Boston that examined the role of “decentering” as part of CBGT for patients with specific anxiety disorders, for example, social anxiety disorder, might provide some hints. Decentering involves learning to observe thoughts and feelings as objective events in the mind rather than identifying with them personally. Aaron T. Beck, MD, and others hypothesized decentering as a mechanism of change in CBT.

In the UMass study, researchers recruited 81 people with a principal diagnosis of social anxiety disorder based on the Anxiety Disorders Interview Scheduled for DSM-IV. Other inclusion criteria for the study included stability on medications for 3 months or 1 month on benzodiazepines (Behav Ther. 2018 Sep;49[5]:809-12). Sixty-three of participants had 12 sessions of CBGT. The researchers found that people who received the CBGT experienced an increase in decentering. An increase in decentering, in turn, predicted improvement on most outcome measures.

Just as primary care physicians and surgeons know how to address serious physical health issues related natural and man-made disasters, psychiatrists must quickly know how to address the mental health aspects of care. Group therapy has the greatest potential to help more people and perhaps treat – and even prevent not only PTSD but many anxiety disorders as well.
 

Dr. London, a psychiatrist who practices in New York, developed and ran a short-term psychotherapy program for 20 years at NYU Langone Medical Center and has been writing columns for 35 years. His new book about helping people feel better fast is expected to be published in fall 2018. He has no disclosures.

Rising waters forced hundreds of people, mainly in the Carolinas, to call for emergency rescues, and some people were forced to abandon their cars because of flooding. One man reportedly died by electrocution while trying to hook up a generator. Another man died after going out to check the status of hunting dogs, according to media reports. And in one of the most heart-wrenching tragedies, a mother and her infant were killed when a tree fell on their home.

Watching the TV reports and listening to the news of Hurricane Florence’s devastating impact on so many millions of people has been shocking. The death toll from this catastrophic weather event as of this writing stands at 39. Besides the current and future physical problems and illnesses left in Florence’s wake, the extent of property damage and loss must be overwhelming for the survivors.

I worry about the extent of the emotional toll left behind by Florence, just as Hurricane Maria did last year in Puerto Rico. The storm and its subsequent damage to the individual psyche – including the loss of identity and the fracturing of social structures and networks – almost certainly will lead to posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and utter despair for many survivors.

While monitoring Florence’s impact, I thought about Hurricane Sandy, which upended me personally when it hit New York in 2012. As I’ve written previously, Sandy’s impact left me without power, running water, or toilet facilities. Almost 3 days of this uncertainty shook me from my comfort zone and truly affected my emotions. Before day 3, I left my home and drove (yes, I could still use my car; the roads were clear and my garage was not flooded) to my older son’s home – where I had a great support system and was able to continue to live a relatively normal life while watching the storm’s developments on TV. To this day, many areas of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut that were hit by Sandy have not fully recovered.

Back to the human tragedy still unfolding for the survivors of Florence: I believe – and the data suggest – that early intervention and treatment of PTSD leads to better outcomes and should be addressed sooner than later. There is no specific medicinal “magic bullet” for PTSD, although some medications may help as well as treat a depressive component of the disorder and other medications may assist in improving sleep and disruptive sleep patterns. It’s been shown, time and again, that cognitive-behavioral therapy, various types of prolonged exposure therapy, and eye movement desensitization therapies work best. The most updated federal guidelines from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense, coauthored by Lori L. Davis, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reinforce those treatments.

I also believe that, in situations in which masses of people are affected or potentially affected by PTSD, another first line of care that should be added is supportive, educational, interactive group therapy. In other words, it is possible that a cognitive-behavioral group therapy (CBGT) approach would reach many more people, make psychiatric intervention acceptable, and help the survivors of Florence. A recent study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Boston that examined the role of “decentering” as part of CBGT for patients with specific anxiety disorders, for example, social anxiety disorder, might provide some hints. Decentering involves learning to observe thoughts and feelings as objective events in the mind rather than identifying with them personally. Aaron T. Beck, MD, and others hypothesized decentering as a mechanism of change in CBT.

In the UMass study, researchers recruited 81 people with a principal diagnosis of social anxiety disorder based on the Anxiety Disorders Interview Scheduled for DSM-IV. Other inclusion criteria for the study included stability on medications for 3 months or 1 month on benzodiazepines (Behav Ther. 2018 Sep;49[5]:809-12). Sixty-three of participants had 12 sessions of CBGT. The researchers found that people who received the CBGT experienced an increase in decentering. An increase in decentering, in turn, predicted improvement on most outcome measures.

Just as primary care physicians and surgeons know how to address serious physical health issues related natural and man-made disasters, psychiatrists must quickly know how to address the mental health aspects of care. Group therapy has the greatest potential to help more people and perhaps treat – and even prevent not only PTSD but many anxiety disorders as well.
 

Dr. London, a psychiatrist who practices in New York, developed and ran a short-term psychotherapy program for 20 years at NYU Langone Medical Center and has been writing columns for 35 years. His new book about helping people feel better fast is expected to be published in fall 2018. He has no disclosures.

So often in clinical practice, guidelines and directives about psychiatric treatments lag behind the results we see every day in our offices. Such is the case with cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Earlier this summer, the departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense deemed trauma-focused psychotherapies, such as CBT, as first-line treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder over medication management. Was I surprised by these findings? Absolutely not. Likewise, last year, the American College of Physicians released a guideline recommending CBT as first-line treatment for chronic insomnia disorder in adults. Surprising? Again, not in the least.

copyright Andrea Danti/Thinkstock

Dr. London, a psychiatrist who practices in New York, developed and ran a short-term psychotherapy program for 20 years at NYU Langone Medical Center and has been writing columns for 35 years. His new book about helping people feel better fast is expected to be published in fall 2017. He has no disclosures.
 

So often in clinical practice, guidelines and directives about psychiatric treatments lag behind the results we see every day in our offices. Such is the case with cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Earlier this summer, the departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense deemed trauma-focused psychotherapies, such as CBT, as first-line treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder over medication management. Was I surprised by these findings? Absolutely not. Likewise, last year, the American College of Physicians released a guideline recommending CBT as first-line treatment for chronic insomnia disorder in adults. Surprising? Again, not in the least.

copyright Andrea Danti/Thinkstock

Dr. London, a psychiatrist who practices in New York, developed and ran a short-term psychotherapy program for 20 years at NYU Langone Medical Center and has been writing columns for 35 years. His new book about helping people feel better fast is expected to be published in fall 2017. He has no disclosures.
 

So often in clinical practice, guidelines and directives about psychiatric treatments lag behind the results we see every day in our offices. Such is the case with cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Earlier this summer, the departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense deemed trauma-focused psychotherapies, such as CBT, as first-line treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder over medication management. Was I surprised by these findings? Absolutely not. Likewise, last year, the American College of Physicians released a guideline recommending CBT as first-line treatment for chronic insomnia disorder in adults. Surprising? Again, not in the least.

copyright Andrea Danti/Thinkstock

Dr. London, a psychiatrist who practices in New York, developed and ran a short-term psychotherapy program for 20 years at NYU Langone Medical Center and has been writing columns for 35 years. His new book about helping people feel better fast is expected to be published in fall 2017. He has no disclosures.