Psychiatric case notes: symptoms of mental illness and their attribution at the Maudsley Hospital, 1924–35

Abstract

Case notes of patients treated at the Maudsley Hospital during the interwar period provided data about diagnosis, symptoms and beliefs about mental illness. In the absence of effective treatments, patients were investigated in detail in the hope that connections between disease processes might be revealed. We analysed a randomly-selected sample of 700 patients taken equally from 1924, 1928, 1931 and 1935. Eight groups (three representing psychosis and five indicating psychological disorders) were identified on the basis of symptom clusters. Formal diagnosis did not correlate with clusters. Although there was a measure of agreement between patients and doctors about the cause of mental illness, stigma may have inhibited discussion of some themes. Psychiatric diagnosis was informed by symptoms but not determined by them. In an era before classification systems were tested for reliability, diagnosis was fluid, reflecting changing hypotheses about causation, pathology and treatment. Attributions were associated with diagnosis rather than symptoms.

Effect of newly synthesized 1,2,4-triazino[5,6-b]indole-3-thione derivatives on olfactory bulbectomy induced depression in rats

“…Depressive illness is associated with mental illness and physical changes. Mental illness is characterized by symptoms like feeling of intense sadness, despair, mental slowing, loss of concentration, and variable agitation [5] . Physical changes are characterized by insomnia, hypersomnia, altered eating pattern, weight loss/over eating, and disruption of normal circadian and ultradian rhythms and alteration in body temperature and many endocrine functions [6,7] .…”

Digitally enabled patients, professionals and providers: making the case for an electronic health record in mental health services

“…5 A standardised set of records for psychiatric in-patients was being used in the Maudsley Hospital in the 1920s, with the secondary purpose of helping to train junior doctors and informing research. 6 The standardisation of records was unpopular among clinicians in the 1920s, as they felt that they should decide what should be included in the written record, in a fluid and organic manner, akin to the process of the actual examination of the patient. 5 More recently, the UK's Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AoMRC) released a set of standards for the structure of the clinical record.…”