Psychiatric Classification Systems: A Critical Outcome Analysis

This report critically analyzes psychiatric diagnostic classification systems, focusing on their potential to lead to suboptimal patient outcomes. It begins with an introduction to the importance of mental health and the role of diagnostic systems in categorizing mental disorders. The main body explores arguments for and against the use of such systems, examining the perspectives of various experts and the limitations of classification. It discusses the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), highlighting their roles in diagnosis and treatment, while also acknowledging the risks of over-diagnosis and the loss of the unique human element. The report concludes that while diagnostic systems have their uses, they may not always lead to optimal outcomes, emphasizing the importance of understanding the structure of each disease for effective treatment.

Critical Review

Table of Contents
Topic: Psychiatric diagnostic classification systems lead to suboptimal outcomes for patients. ...1
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5

Topic: Psychiatric diagnostic classification systems lead to suboptimal
outcomes for patients.
INTRODUCTION
The human body is a complex machine based on different organs which have their own
functioning. Mental health is significant in the whole body as it controls the activities that a
person do. It should be promoted and individuals should be made aware about taking care of
mental health so that stability can be there (Miracle and Senkov, 2017). However, there are
certain criteria provided as psychiatric diagnostic classification systems which categorised the
patients on these basis. This report has been prepared by critically analysing and evaluating the
statement which is about psychiatric diagnostic classification systems. Furthermore, it includes
the arguments, justification and support together with counter argument.
MAIN BODY
Psychiatric classifications are a product of different psychologists and philosophers to
define particular criteria for defining a person suffering from mental problems. These define the
boundaries and measurements by outlining syndromes and other disease which might affect the
health. The essence of categorization is the study of nosology which is about the nature of
medical conditions and the principles and rules of their classification. Furthermore, in psychiatry
it is necessary to distinguish which is important before proceeding for any treatment.
Psychiatric diagnostic classification systems are different for every disease or mental
issues. These are formed to conduct research and diagnosis the problems to assess the behaviour
so as to prepare planning. It provides evidence for the disease on the basis of which the treatment
procedure works. The system for classification has been transformed with the time but in most of
the cases, psychiatric experts rely on the original classification system. Changes made in these
are the outcome of number of increment in mental disorders. It helps in bringing standardisation
and uniformity by following which accurate result can be obtained (Bikas, Stavropoulos and
Chryssolouris, 2016).
In the words of E. Kraepelin, “it is necessary to turn away from arranging illnesses in
orderly well-defined groups and to set ourselves the undoubtedly higher and more satisfying
goals of understanding their essential structure.” This statement contains the arguments that
classification is not significant and should be considered secondary. The primary task is to find
1

out the mental disorder on the basis of symptoms and diagnosis. When a particular illness is
restricted to a particular group, the professionals also limit their vision and treatment to that and
this can be an issue. There is clearly denial of categorising the mental disorders as they should be
looked in detail for finding the structure to track the origin of the same. For successful treatment
and cure, the finding the root cause is important only then a problem can be removed otherwise it
can repeat in future. This perspective of the author can be appreciated as grouping is not always
useful and may increase the complexity level. In such a situation, it becomes important to
determine the elements which have contributed to the development of such illness.
However, according to Scadding, every kind of disease is identified is identified through
diagnostic process in which symptoms and signs along with their pattern are assessed to uncover
the level of complexity. It is important to find the underlying causes for improving the health of a
person (Holkar and et. al., 2016). From this statement, it can be concluded classification is
necessary for proper treatment. Without any classification, there are high chances that disease
may not be cured. Furthermore, it provides specific information about the mental disorder falling
under one of the category. This is opposite to the definition and perception provided above. This
statement is given on the basis of pros of using classification which has assisted in easy
determination of risk factor. This
There is positive outlook to classification as it allows to find inter-correlations among
symptoms and syndromes. This is helpful in knowing the factors for providing the right
treatment in psychiatry. There are systems like Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM) is a used by clinicians and psychiatrists to diagnose psychiatric illnesses. It is
capable in explaining the symptoms on the basis of gender and other basis for finding the
suitable treatment. Many versions in this have taken place till now to meet different criteria.
Also, with the use of this accurate information can be gathered regarding mental disorder (An,
Q., Zhang and et. al., 2016).
Apart from this, there is one more system which is called International Classification for
Diseases (ICD), it is designed for health care classification system which contains codes for
distinguishing the diseases by considering signs, symptoms, findings, complaints and other
situations. It uses elements of digital health and it similar to DSM to a great extent. With the use
of these systems accurate results can be obtained which can help the professionals in providing
2

the best possible treatment. There are continuous emergence of new disease which leads to
further transformation.
The utilisations of these systems for grouping the disease is crucial for creating the
validity and find out the level of danger present in this. However, there are certain limitations
according to which concept of classification may be failed. The used of above-mentioned
systems may not always provide the result expected by professionals. There is always a risk of
over-diagnosis which is problematic and cause unnecessary issues leading to more critical
condition. There are certain activities and actions which are treated appropriate as per the society
and also taken as a base for judging the behaviour of a person. These are termed as standard and
if there is any variance in the behaviour and attitude of an individual, then concerned person is
labelled as mentality ill (Bernerth and Aguinis, 2016). Furthermore, there are people who
criticises the grouping as it results in losing of unique human element. Also, it can be a sensitive
issue which may hurt the feelings of a patients, therefore experts avoid providing labels. This is
not considered in the matter of insurance due to which diagnosis is imperative.
It can be said that, the mental conditions may not necessarily exist for a long time. There
can be some symptoms which may occur only for a limited time. When these kinds of situations
arise, it is not at all appropriate to categorise the illness into some specific group. Also, a person
can be fine at some moments or at different intervals which also makes it difficult to find a
specific category. Apart from this, every issue is different in its own way and cannot be put in
one category. Hence, this is a big issue which shows the limitation of classification. Moreover,
there are many other opinions to this which should be considered by the professionals for using
these system for grouping.
In the given statement, it is mentioned that psychiatric diagnostic classification system
may not always lead to suboptimal outcomes. In other words, on determining the issues related
to mental conditions there should be accuracy and reality of the condition which may not
achieved by this. There are limitations of classification which cannot be avoided. Hence, the
final outcome is below the standard in most of the time. This shows the inefficiency of such
grouping. This may create more problems for the patients resulting in increased deterioration of
health. Therefore, the root of the disease should be found out according to which the whole
process will be carried by professional (Azeredo and et. al., 2017 )(Aditiya and et. al., 2016).
3

CONCLUSION
From the above matter, it can be said that mental disorder is a serious issue which should
be diagnosed as early as possible to cure it. It is a matter of psychiatry which provides two
popular systems such as Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and
International Classification for Diseases (ICD) which can be used by those professionals who
believe that grouping is appropriate. However, the limitations of classification may overlap the
advantages of other way to find the illness. It is necessary to find and understand the structure of
each disease for proper treatment.
4

REFERENCES
Books & Journals:
Miracle, D. B. and Senkov, O. N., 2017. A critical review of high entropy alloys and related
concepts. Acta Materialia, 122, pp.448-511.
Bikas, H., Stavropoulos, P. and Chryssolouris, G., 2016. Additive manufacturing methods and
modelling approaches: a critical review. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 83(1-4), pp.389-405.
Holkar and et. al., 2016. A critical review on textile wastewater treatments: possible
approaches. Journal of environmental management, 182, pp.351-366.
An, Q., Zhang and et. al., 2016. Versatile ternary organic solar cells: a critical review. Energy &
Environmental Science, 9(2), pp.281-322.
Bernerth, J. B. and Aguinis, H., 2016. A critical review and best‐practice recommendations for
control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), pp.229-283.
Azeredo and et. al., 2017. Critical review on biofilm methods. Critical reviews in
microbiology, 43(3), pp.313-351.
Aditiya and et. al., 2016. Second generation bioethanol production: A critical
review. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 66, pp.631-653.
5

6