Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T11:19:50.585Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Establishing prevalence of diagnosis of personality disorder across high secure forensic services using the ICD 10 and ICD 11 classification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2021

Anju Soni*
Affiliation:
South London and Maudsley NHS trust and Broadmoor Hospital
Samrat Sengupta
Affiliation:
Broadmoor Hospital
Ian Treasaden
Affiliation:
West London NHS Trust
*
*corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

There has been an increasing recognition of the lack of clinical validity of different types of ICD10 personality disorder.

The prevalence was established among patients in a high secure hospital in England of those with either a primary or secondary diagnosis of personality disorder and its recorded type according to ICD10 and then ICD11.

The new ICD11 classification increased the validity of diagnosis of personality disorder as well as its severity.

Background

ICD 11 has proposed the dropping of the classification of personality disorder based on particular types of personality disorder and instead adopting a diathesis model based on 2 dimensions: presence of personality disorder and three levels of severity (Mild, Moderate and Severe) and the option of specifying one or more prominent trait domain qualifiers (Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Disinhibition, Dissociality, and Anankastia) and also specify a Borderline Pattern qualifier.

Method

The electronic medical records were used to establish the presence and type of personality disorder using the criteria of ICD10 and ICD11.

The researchers assured reliability by rating some vignettes using the Schedule for Personality Assessment from Notes and Documents (SPAN-DOC) before rating actual cases.

Result

From a total population of 208 patients, 64(30.8%) were classified as having either a primary or secondary diagnosis of personality disorder according to the ICD 10.

30 (47%) had dissocial personality disorder (DSPD), 19(30%) emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD) and 8(13%) paranoid personality disorder. 20 (31%) had a comorbid diagnosis of mental illness and about a tenth had diagnoses of multiple personality disorders. These types of personality disorder diagnosed by the researchers using ICD 10 did not always match the types of personality disorder diagnosed by clinicians at the hospital.

All patients met the criteria of personality disorder under ICD 11 but the number with a borderline specifier was greater than those with an ICD10 diagnosis of EUPD. Using the trait domain qualifiers in ICD 11, patients with ICD 10 diagnoses of EUPD or DSPD showed dissociation and disinhibition, with those with a DSPD showing low and those with EUPD high negative affectivity.

Conclusion

The results confirm that while psychiatrists in a high secure hospital reliably diagnose the presence of a personality disorder, they are much less able to make an accurate diagnosis as to the actual type of personality disorder. The new ICD 11 classification will increase the clinical validity of the diagnosis of personality disorder and its severity.

Type
Research
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.