Medicare claims are frequently used to study Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) epidemiology. However, they lack specimen collection and diagnosis dates to assign location of onset. Algorithms to classify CDI onset location using claims data have been published, but the degree of misclassification is unknown.

We linked patients with laboratory-confirmed CDI reported to four Emerging Infections Program (EIP) sites from 2016–2021 to Medicare beneficiaries with fee-for-service Part A/B coverage. We calculated sensitivity of ICD-10-CM codes in claims within ±28 days of EIP specimen collection. CDI was categorized as hospital, long-term care facility, or community-onset using three different Medicare claims-based algorithms based on claim type, ICD-10-CM code position, duration of hospitalization, and ICD-10-CM diagnosis code presence-on-admission indicators. We assessed concordance of EIP case classifications, based on chart review and specimen collection date, with claims case classifications using Cohen’s kappa statistic.

Of 12,671 CDI cases eligible for linkage, 9,032 (71%) were linked to a single, unique Medicare beneficiary. Compared to EIP, sensitivity of CDI ICD-10-CM codes was 81%; codes were more likely to be present for hospitalized patients (93.0%) than those who were not (56.2%). Concordance between EIP and Medicare claims algorithms ranged from 68% to 75%, depending on the algorithm used (κ = 0.56–0.66).

ICD-10-CM codes in Medicare claims data had high sensitivity compared to laboratory-confirmed CDI reported to EIP. Claims-based epidemiologic classification algorithms had moderate concordance with EIP classification of onset location. Misclassification of CDI onset location using Medicare algorithms may bias findings of claims-based CDI studies.

Accurate diagnosis of bipolar disorder (BPD) is difficult in clinical practice, with an average delay between symptom onset and diagnosis of about 7 years. A depressive episode often precedes the first manic episode, making it difficult to distinguish BPD from unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD).

We use genome-wide association analyses (GWAS) to identify differential genetic factors and to develop predictors based on polygenic risk scores (PRS) that may aid early differential diagnosis.

Based on individual genotypes from case–control cohorts of BPD and MDD shared through the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, we compile case–case–control cohorts, applying a careful quality control procedure. In a resulting cohort of 51 149 individuals (15 532 BPD patients, 12 920 MDD patients and 22 697 controls), we perform a variety of GWAS and PRS analyses.

Although our GWAS is not well powered to identify genome-wide significant loci, we find significant chip heritability and demonstrate the ability of the resulting PRS to distinguish BPD from MDD, including BPD cases with depressive onset (BPD-D). We replicate our PRS findings in an independent Danish cohort (iPSYCH 2015, N = 25 966). We observe strong genetic correlation between our case–case GWAS and that of case–control BPD.

We find that MDD and BPD, including BPD-D are genetically distinct. Our findings support that controls, MDD and BPD patients primarily lie on a continuum of genetic risk. Future studies with larger and richer samples will likely yield a better understanding of these findings and enable the development of better genetic predictors distinguishing BPD and, importantly, BPD-D from MDD.

Psychiatrists depend on their patients for clinical information and are obligated to regard them as trustworthy, except in special circumstances. Nevertheless, some critics of psychiatry have argued that psychiatrists frequently perpetrate epistemic injustice against patients. Epistemic injustice is a moral wrong that involves unfairly discriminating against a person with respect to their ability to know things because of personal characteristics like gender or psychiatric diagnosis.

We review the concept of epistemic injustice and several claims that psychiatric practice is epistemically unjust.

While acknowledging the risk of epistemic injustice in psychiatry and other medical fields, we argue that most concerns that psychiatric practice is epistemically unjust are unfounded.

The concept of epistemic injustice does not add significantly to existing standards of good clinical practice, and that it could produce changes in practice that would be deleterious. Psychiatrists should resist calls for changes to clinical practice based on this type of criticism.

To explore the effect of hindsight bias on retrospective reviews of clinical decision making prior to adverse incidents to inform future approaches to incident investigations.

We have undertaken focus groups with doctors of varying grades across the North West of England and North Wales. A vignette based on a real-life case from the publicly available NHS England Homicide Independent Investigation report database was presented to each group in one of three versions which differed in terms of the ending of the vignettes (i.e. suicide, homicide, no adverse incident). Using a semi-structured interview approach, the group participants were encouraged by the facilitators to reflect on issues relating to risk and risk management. All groups were provided with the same vignette which initially made no reference to the outcome and asked to comment on matters of risk and risk management. Halfway through the discussion, one of the three outcomes was disclosed, and further group discussion was held. The recorded interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis was undertaken using an adapted Framework Method.

Preliminary results (n = 10) indicate that participants identified the potential for significant harm, particularly to others, and identified evidence of key psychopathological and historical correlates to support assertive management of risk and admission to hospital.

Whilst knowledge of the outcome did not lead to participants changing their favoured management plans, it did alter how they appraised the case and led to participants constructing “narrative” explanations for the outcome given. The level of conviction participants held for their management plan reduced when their expectations about the outcome were confounded.

Participants presented with the suicide outcome vignette described their difficulties appraising risk to others and their over-sensitivity to that risk. Participants faced with the ‘no adverse outcome’ vignette perceived the original management plan far more favourably in hindsight. The groups that were presented with the homicide outcome vignette initially focused on both risks to self and others as well as the perceived need for further information. Following knowledge of the outcome, there was a tendency to highlight parts of the letter pertaining to risk to others which they previously had not given as much attention.

The initial analysis of our data confirms the findings from previous studies that hindsight colours the appraisal of adverse events. However, this study is novel in that it describes the nature of the thought processes underpinning the influence of hindsight on appraisals of risk.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had substantial global morbidity and mortality. Clinical research related to prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of COVID-19 is a top priority. Effective and efficient recruitment is challenging even without added constraints of a global pandemic. Recruitment registries offer a potential solution to slow or difficult recruitment.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the design and implementation of a digital research recruitment registry to optimize awareness and participant enrollment for COVID-19-related research in Baltimore and to report preliminary results.

Planning began in March 2020, and the registry launched in July 2020. The primary recruitment mechanisms include electronic medical record data, postcards distributed at testing sites, and digital advertising campaigns. Following consent in a Research Electronic Data Capture survey, participants answer questions related to COVID-19 exposure, testing, and willingness to participate in research. Branching logic presents participants with studies they might be eligible for.

As of March 24, 2021, 9010 participants have enrolled, and 64.2% are female, 80.6% are White, 9.4% are Black or African American, and 6% are Hispanic or Latino. Phone outreach has had the highest response rate (13.1%), followed by email (11.9%), text (11.4%), and patient portal message (9.4%). Eleven study teams have utilized the registry, and 4596 matches have been made between study teams and interested volunteers.

Effective and efficient recruitment strategies are more important now than ever due to the time-limited nature of COVID-19 research. Pilot efforts have been successful in connecting interested participants with recruiting study teams.

Increased impulsivity is a diagnostic feature of mania in bipolar disorder (BD). However it is unclear whether increased impulsivity is also a trait feature of BD and therefore present in remission. Trait impulsivity can also be construed as a personality dimension but the relationship between personality and impulsivity in BD has not been explored. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship of impulsivity to clinical status and personality characteristics in patients with BD.

We measured impulsivity using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) and personality dimensions using Eysenck Personality Questionnaire in 106 BD patients and demographically matched healthy volunteers. Clinical symptoms were assessed in all participants using the Clinical Global Impressions Scale, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Young Mania Rating Scale. Based on their clinical status patients were divided in remitted (n = 36), subsyndromal (n = 25) and syndromal (n = 45).

There was no difference in BIS-11 and EPQ scores between remitted patients and healthy subjects. Impulsivity, Neuroticism and Psychoticism scores were increased in subsyndromal and syndromal patients. Within the BD group, total BIS-11 score was predicted mainly by symptoms severity followed by Psychoticism and Neuroticism scores.

Increased impulsivity may not be a trait feature of BD. Symptom severity is the most significant determinant of impulsivity measures even in subsyndromal patients.