Understanding variations in knowledge and attitudes of psychiatrists to psilocybin therapy is important for the collective discourse about the potential impact on clinical practice and public health in Ireland.

A 28-item questionnaire was designed based on previous studies and distributed to psychiatrists in Ireland via online mailing lists and at in-person academic events.

151 psychiatrists completed the questionnaire (73.3% were under 40 years of age, 76.0% were trainees, and 49.0% were female). In the total sample, 81.5% agreed that psilocybin therapy shows promise in the treatment of psychiatric disorders and 86.8% supported funding research, 86.8% would be willing to refer a patient if it was licensed and indicated, and 78.1% would consider the treatment for themselves, if indicated. Conversely, 6.6% agreed that psilocybin therapy was unsafe even under medical supervision, and 21.9% thought it was potentially addictive. 15.9% of the total sample reported at least one concern including, lack of robust evidence, long-term effectiveness, superiority to current interventions, potential harmful effects, cost and accessibility, and impartiality. Less than half of respondents felt knowledgeable (40.0%) and 9.9% felt adequately prepared to participate in psilocybin therapy. Consultant psychiatrists trended towards less optimism for a potential role in bipolar depression and emotionally unstable personality disorder compared to trainee psychiatrists.

Overall psychiatrists in Ireland held positive attitudes towards psilocybin therapy. However, there was a lack of knowledge evident. Addressing the knowledge gap and aligning with the best available evidence will be key if psychedelic therapy is to prevail in a clinical setting.

Diagnosis of autism falls under the remit of psychiatry. Recognition that psychiatrists could be autistic is recent. Psychiatrists are the second largest specialty group in Autistic Doctors International, a peer support group for autistic doctors.

To explore the experiences of autistic psychiatrists in relation to recognising themselves and others as autistic.

This was a qualitative study using loosely structured interviews and an interpretive phenomenological analysis.

Eight autistic senior psychiatrists based in the UK participated. One had a childhood diagnosis, two had been diagnosed in adulthood and the remainder self-identified as autistic as adults. Recognition of autism followed diagnosis of their children or encounters with autistic patients. Barriers to self-recognition included lack of autism training, the deficit-based diagnostic criteria and stereotypical views of autism. Recognising that they were autistic led to the realisation that many colleagues were also likely to be autistic, particularly in neurodevelopmental psychiatry. All participants reported the ability to quickly recognise autistic patients and to develop a good rapport easily, once they were aware of their own autistic identity. Difficulties recognising patients as autistic occurred before self-recognition when they shared autistic characteristics and experiences. ‘If we don't recognise ourselves as autistic how on earth can we diagnose patients accurately?’

Autistic psychiatrists face multiple barriers to recognising that they are autistic. Lack of self-recognition may impede diagnostic accuracy with autistic patients. Self-recognition and disclosure by autistic psychiatrists may be facilitated by reframing the traditional deficit-based view of autism towards a neurodiversity-affirmative approach, with consequent benefits for autistic patients.

This study aimed to explore the experiences and support requirements of psychiatrists undergoing investigations within their mental health organisation. An anonymous online survey was distributed to all non-training psychiatrists registered as members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Of the 815 psychiatrists who responded to the survey, 287 (35%) had been investigated. The majority (76%) were unaware of the concerns before being notified, 36% lacked understanding and 62% experienced timeline deviations. Furthermore, 34% had concerns over conflicts of interest, with 52% perceiving the investigation as unfair, 62% were not informed of their rights. Many respondents reported feeling isolated and lacking support and experienced significant psychological distress, such as symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Suggestions for improvement included better communication, transparency, impartiality, adherence to timelines, proactive support and oversight, and opportunities for learning and reparation post-investigation.

Mental health service providers should recognise the multifaceted nature of complaints and provide comprehensive support and guidance to psychiatrists undergoing investigations.

It is widely acknowledged that personal therapy positively contributes to the continued personal well-being and ongoing professional development of mental health professionals, including psychiatrists. As a result, most training bodies continue to recommend personal therapy to their trainees. Given its reported value and benefits, one might hypothesize that a high proportion of psychiatrists avail of personal therapy. This systematic review seeks to investigate whether this is the case.

To identify and evaluate the findings derived from all available survey-based studies reporting quantitative data regarding psychiatrists’ and psychiatry trainees’ engagement in personal therapy.

A systematic search for survey-based studies about the use of personal therapy by psychiatric practitioners was conducted in four databases and platforms (PubMed, Scopus, Embase and EbscoHost) from inception to May 2022 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were assessed for quality using the quality assessment checklist for survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) and findings summarized using narrative synthesis.

The proportion of trainees who engaged in personal therapy ranged from a low of 13.4% in a recent UK based study to a high of 65.3% among Israeli residents. The proportion of fully qualified psychiatrists who engaged in personal therapy varied from 32.1% in South Korea to 89% in New Zealand.

This review represents the first known attempt to collect and synthesize data aimed at providing insights into the past and current trends in psychiatrists’ use of personal therapy across different geographic regions and career stages.

Informed by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Indian government replaced the 1987 Mental Health Act with the transformative “Indian Mental Healthcare Act, 2017” (IMHCA 2017), which gained presidential approval on April 7, 2017. While the new act aligns with CRPD guidelines, emphasizing the promotion, protection and realization of complete and equitable human rights, legal capacity, equality and dignity for persons with mental illness, it has faced diverse criticism from various stakeholders, particularly psychiatrists. This study systematically explores the critiques and apprehensions expressed by psychiatrists regarding the IMHCA 2017 using available published resources and assesses these criticisms within the context of CRPD guidelines.

We conducted a scoping review of the literature, using two search engines like PubMed and Scopus. The review covered academic publications, reports and documents from both national and international sources, authored by psychiatrists and psychiatric organizations, related to the IMHCA 2017. The primary search term “IMHCA 2017” was used without temporal restrictions. Publications authored by mental health professionals from India and around the world were included in the final analysis. Through qualitative analysis, key themes reflecting psychiatrists’ viewpoints were identified. These themes, marked by substantial criticism, were then assessed in accordance with the guiding principles of the CRPD, including its optional protocol and general comments.

The study analyzed 33 manuscripts discussing criticisms and concerns about IMHCA 2017. Manuscript types included opinion papers (60.6%), original research articles (21.21%), review articles (9.09%), editorials (6.06%) and comments (3.03%). All but one article were authored by psychiatrists, with five by non-Indian authors and the rest by Indian psychiatrists. Most articles were published in the Indian Journal of Psychiatry (75.76%), with some in other journals. About 54.55% critically scrutinized act provisions, while 45.45% highlighted positive aspects. The analysis identified seven prominent criticism themes: clinical apprehensions, lack of clarity and comprehensiveness, feasibility challenges, neglect of caregivers, mistrust toward psychiatrists, crises in general hospital psychiatry units and ideological reservations.

Each theme was critically assessed in the context of CRPD guidelines, and corresponding recommendations were formulated.

No significant relationships.

Many people think that people with mental disorders might be dangerous or unpredictable. These patients face various sources of disadvantages and experience discrimination in job interviews, in education, and housing. Mental health-related stigma occurs not only within the public community, it is a growing issue among professionals as well. Our study is the first that investigates the stigmatising attitude of psychiatrists across Europe.

We designed a cross-sectional, observational, multi-centre, international study of 33 European countries to investigate the attitude towards patients among medical specialists and trainees in the field of general adult and child and adolescent psychiatry.

An internet-based, anonymous survey will measure the stigmatising attitude by using the local version of the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers. Data gathering started in July this year and will continue until December 2020.

This study will be the first to describe the stigmatising attitude of psychiatric practitioners across Europe from their perspectives.

The study will contribute to knowledge of gaps in stigmatising attitude towards people with mental health problems and will provide with new directions in anti-stigma interventions.

No significant relationships.

In the United Kingdom, the move from trainee to consultant psychiatrist can be both exciting and daunting. Trainee psychiatrists have access to support and weekly supervision that is not available to consultants. Having an organised meeting for new consultants could help bridge this gap with peer-led support.

Improving support and guidance to new consultants Networking with peers Promoting wellbeing, good clinical practice and career development

We identified a group of 85 consultants in their first five years of practice. Meetings were held online using videoconference. Senior leaders presented at each meeting, with a group discussion at the end. We surveyed attendees using an online platform.

We had excellent attendance rates from the group, with 30 to 45 consultants attending each webinar. Over 60% of attendees had been a consultant for less than a year. For 90%, this was their first experience of a new consultant forum. Attendees gave excellent feedback (Table). Being able to meet consultants from different specialties, hearing career stories from senior leaders and how they have managed the COVID-19 pandemic were cited as benefits.

The forum was popular and the feedback was excellent. Using an online format worked well and made it easier to organise and plan sessions. There is potential to implement similar fora for other senior psychiatrists across Europe.

COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. The WHO on March 11, 2020, has declared the novel coronavirus outbreak a global pandemic. Several studies found an association between the COVID-19 pandemic and psychiatric symptoms, such as distress, anxiety, fear of infection, depression and insomnia in the general population. Therefore, psychiatrists have been professionally overloaded, trying to manage the psychosocial impact of the pandemic and suffering its effects in person.

To evaluate the disease perceptions, distress and burnout among psychiatrists from the Department of Mental Health and Addictions of Pavia in three different times, which correspond to the three main phases of the pandemic management in Italy: T0 is the first peak of the infections and the lock-down, from March to June; T1 is the reduction of the infections and the reopening, from June to October; T2 is the second wave of infections with a new progressive closure, the current one.

We used three questionnaires: the BIPQ (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), the PSS-10 (Perceived Stress Scale-10), the PED (Profile of emotional distress). We also used a survey (6 items) in T0, T1 and T2 to evaluate exposure, perception, quality of life and burnout.

table 1,2,3. BIPQ: no one was exposed.

The increase of individual, who seeking help for mental health, impact on the perception of stress and on the emotional distress, even though psychiatrists have an adequate perception of COVID-19.

Psychiatry is a fascinating medical specialty. Many reasons may motivate early career doctors to choose this field. However, this experience could have a different impact on their quality of life and social functioning.

we aimed to assess the impact of psychiatry as a medical career, on the psychiatrist’s quality of life, and to evaluate their feedback on their experience and how it effects their life.

This is a cross-sectional descriptive study of 68 psychiatrists. An E-questionnaire has been sent via a psychiatrist’s closed groups on social media. We collected sociodemographic data, we also used the stress perceived scale, and we explored the quality of life using the SF-12 questionnaire.

The participants were mostly females with a mean age of 32 years (range25-65). Only 10% of psychiatrists had psychiatric history mostly depression. Concerning substance use, 15% were smokers, 17% used alcohol, 10% smoked occasionally cannabis and 23 % used different psychotropic drugs. 73% our sample were interested in psychiatry during their studies. 60% of our population considered the role of psychiatrists ambiguous among other colleagues. A very high perceived stress was noted in 90 % of our sample. Physical health status was in the average of standard deviation wether mental health status was below average among psychiatrists. The most frustrating situation mentioned was the absence of intermediate structures to receive psychotic patients.

Tunisians psychiatrists are facing many obstacles during the practice of their job, that would transform their passion into demotivation and a desire to leave the country.

Over half of patients with mental disorders are seen by primary care physicians. However, as for patients with somatic problems, referral to psychiatrists seems to be sometimes necessary.

The present study aimed to identify reasons and difficulties perceived by general practitioners (GP) in mental health referrals.

A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted between August 22 and September 23, 2020, so that 47 responses of GP were included.

The mean age of respondents was 37.3 years. Their seniority as doctors was 8 years on average. Among them, only 17% attended a post-university psychiatric training. The participants reported that they refer on average 32.5% of patients with mental disorders to psychiatrist: 85.1% to psychiatric hospital, 40.4% to liberal psychiatrists and 21.3% to clinical psychologists. Regarding the reasons for referral to mental healthcare structures, 70.2% of doctors justified their doing so by their insufficient training in mental healthcare; 66% by a need for hospitalization, 57.4% by the presence of delusions, while in 27.7 % of cases, the transfer was carried out at the request of the patient or his family. The difficulties mentioned by GP were patient refusal to consult a psychiatrist (70.2%) and difficulties related to the management delay (44.7%).

Patient and health system factors, as well as physicians experience seem to have important influences on mental health referral. Open communication and ease of consultation with psychiatrists can make the care of patients with mental health problems even more rewarding to the primary care physician.

To investigate the frequency, characteristics and impact of death threats by patients towards psychiatrists.

A cross-sectional survey of psychiatrists (n = 60) was undertaken to investigate the frequency, characteristics and impact of death threats by patients in one Irish healthcare region serving a mixed urban–rural population of 470,000.

Forty-nine responses (82%) were received. Thirty-one per cent of respondents experienced death threats by patients during their careers. Victims were more likely to be male and in a consultant role. Patients making the threats were more likely to be males aged 30–60 with a history of violence and diagnosis of personality disorder and/or substance misuse. A majority of threats occurred in outpatient settings and identified a specific method of killing, usually by stabbing. Prosecution of the perpetrator was uncommon. Of the victimised psychiatrists, 53% reported that such threats affected their personal lives, and 67% believed their professional lives were impacted. In half of the incidents, there were adverse incidents subsequent to the threats, involving either the patient or the clinician.

Death threats by patients have significant psychological and professional impacts on psychiatrists. Early liaison with employers and police and transferring the care of the patient to another clinician may be useful measures.