What do you think?
Rate this book
Essentials of Psychiatric Diagnosis: Responding to the Challenge of DSM-5®
This trusted practitioner resource and text helps the busy clinician find the right psychiatric diagnosis and avoid the many pitfalls that lead to errors. Covering every disorder routinely encountered in clinical practice, Allen Frances provides the ICD-9-CM codes and (where feasible) ICD-10-CM codes required for billing, a useful screening question, a descriptive prototype, diagnostic tips, and other disorders that must be ruled out. Frances was instrumental in the development of past editions of DSM and provides helpful cautions on questionable aspects of DSM-5. An index of common presenting symptoms lists possible diagnoses that must be considered for each. The Appendix (which can also be accessed at the companion website) features a Crosswalk to ICD-10-CM codes.
218 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
30 people are currently reading
162 people want to read
About the author
Allen Frances
39 books41 followersAllen J. Frances (born 1942) is an American psychiatrist.
He is currently Professor and Chairman Emeritus of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University School of Medicine.
He is best known for serving as chair of the American Psychiatric Association task force overseeing the development and revision of the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).
Frances is the founding editor of two well-known psychiatric journals: the Journal of Personality Disorders and the Journal of Psychiatric Practice.
He is currently Professor and Chairman Emeritus of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University School of Medicine.
He is best known for serving as chair of the American Psychiatric Association task force overseeing the development and revision of the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).
Frances is the founding editor of two well-known psychiatric journals: the Journal of Personality Disorders and the Journal of Psychiatric Practice.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
October 6, 2016
Right form the beginning, the author makes it clear that he is skeptical of contemporary psychiatry's tendency to over diagnose and medicate ostensibly "normal" human feelings and behaviors.
The author doesn't miss an opportunity to point out what he perceives as dangerous flaws in the the underlying rationale and outcome of the recent DSM 5 revisions.
Although I agree with much of the authors critiques, I found them to be ultimately one sided and frankly unsolicited, particularly in a book that is not marketed as a critical work, but rather as a guide to clarifying and simplifying DSM 5 diagnosis.
I'm currently studying for the California MFT exam, and I really need to know how I'm "supposed" to diagnose, regardless of how "right or wrong" current practices are. Perhaps I failed to do my research. But that's why I bought the book.
Furthermore, I personally am not hostile to the DSM 5. I actually view it as a huge improvement in many ways. Although I don't plan on strictly adhering to the medical modal of mental illness treatment. I prefer to view people as "stuck not broken". I'm gland that these professional medical standards and resources exist as a lingua franka between various mental health providers and administrators (if nothing else).
Many of the controversial revisions (from DSM IV to DSM 5) essentially broaden the diagnostic criteria to include a greater spectrum of behaviors to qualify as clinically significant (i.e. pathological, treatable in therapy, billable for moe $$$, it gets complicated fast).
This is pretty clearly a double edged sword:
On one side; the newly expanded criteria make it easier for individuals to qualify for treatment. For instance; someone suffering the loss of a loved one can qualify for therapy sooner because the criteria for Major Depressive Disorder can now be made sooner after a traumatic loss such as this. That's good right? You wouldn't want have to tell a person grieving the loss of a child "come back after 6 months because you don't qualify for treatment yet". Not that any one would do that. But you get the picture.
On the other side; the newly expanded criteria make it easier for individuals to qualify for potentially stigmatizing and damaging diagnosis of a psychopathology. Many people resist getting "labeled" and potentially being subjected to medications with serious side effects and treatment that does more harm than good, and rightly so I might add. Take the afore mentioned example of the person suffering the loss of a loved one. Isn't it "natural" to grieve. Do we really want to pathologize the very human (nay mammalian) process of grieving? That would be bad right?
When the author is at his best, he takes the middle path by presenting the new criteria in a systematic, clear and organized way. While integrating cautionary provisions throughout the book, erring on the side of caution to not over diagnose. I call this the only responsible stance.
When the author is at his worst, he comes off as a curmudgeonly crank with an ax to grind. It's unfortunate because his middle path message is spot on, and it is denigrated by his more one sided positions.
I really lost confidence in this book when the author decided to unilaterally stay with the old way of doing things e.g. sticking with the old DSM IV (categorical) substance use and dependence, rather than going with the new (dimensional) substance dependence mild, moderate severe qualifiers.
I get his argument that labeling recreational substance use as mild substance dependence is problematic. But please don't teach me the wrong shit. I'd much rather learn how to use the new (correct and industry standard) method in a sensitive and skillful way.
Further more, I personally view the new dimensional approach to be superior to the categorical approach, as I view all so called psychopathology as dimensional outliers of so called "normal" adaptive traits and behaviors. Particularly in regards to substance use. Labeling all substance use a variant of dependence is problematic. But I don't think that's why they made the change. I think the rationale was that if the use is not at the level of dependence, than it's sub clinical and therefor shouldn't be in the DSM at all.
Any way. I HATE to whip out the three star paddle for such a potentially awesome book. But whop there it is. I'll use the heck out of this book. But the flaws really added up in the end and became too bothersome to ignore. Buy it. Read it. Use it. But consider yourself a warned and informed consumer.
The author doesn't miss an opportunity to point out what he perceives as dangerous flaws in the the underlying rationale and outcome of the recent DSM 5 revisions.
Although I agree with much of the authors critiques, I found them to be ultimately one sided and frankly unsolicited, particularly in a book that is not marketed as a critical work, but rather as a guide to clarifying and simplifying DSM 5 diagnosis.
I'm currently studying for the California MFT exam, and I really need to know how I'm "supposed" to diagnose, regardless of how "right or wrong" current practices are. Perhaps I failed to do my research. But that's why I bought the book.
Furthermore, I personally am not hostile to the DSM 5. I actually view it as a huge improvement in many ways. Although I don't plan on strictly adhering to the medical modal of mental illness treatment. I prefer to view people as "stuck not broken". I'm gland that these professional medical standards and resources exist as a lingua franka between various mental health providers and administrators (if nothing else).
Many of the controversial revisions (from DSM IV to DSM 5) essentially broaden the diagnostic criteria to include a greater spectrum of behaviors to qualify as clinically significant (i.e. pathological, treatable in therapy, billable for moe $$$, it gets complicated fast).
This is pretty clearly a double edged sword:
On one side; the newly expanded criteria make it easier for individuals to qualify for treatment. For instance; someone suffering the loss of a loved one can qualify for therapy sooner because the criteria for Major Depressive Disorder can now be made sooner after a traumatic loss such as this. That's good right? You wouldn't want have to tell a person grieving the loss of a child "come back after 6 months because you don't qualify for treatment yet". Not that any one would do that. But you get the picture.
On the other side; the newly expanded criteria make it easier for individuals to qualify for potentially stigmatizing and damaging diagnosis of a psychopathology. Many people resist getting "labeled" and potentially being subjected to medications with serious side effects and treatment that does more harm than good, and rightly so I might add. Take the afore mentioned example of the person suffering the loss of a loved one. Isn't it "natural" to grieve. Do we really want to pathologize the very human (nay mammalian) process of grieving? That would be bad right?
When the author is at his best, he takes the middle path by presenting the new criteria in a systematic, clear and organized way. While integrating cautionary provisions throughout the book, erring on the side of caution to not over diagnose. I call this the only responsible stance.
When the author is at his worst, he comes off as a curmudgeonly crank with an ax to grind. It's unfortunate because his middle path message is spot on, and it is denigrated by his more one sided positions.
I really lost confidence in this book when the author decided to unilaterally stay with the old way of doing things e.g. sticking with the old DSM IV (categorical) substance use and dependence, rather than going with the new (dimensional) substance dependence mild, moderate severe qualifiers.
I get his argument that labeling recreational substance use as mild substance dependence is problematic. But please don't teach me the wrong shit. I'd much rather learn how to use the new (correct and industry standard) method in a sensitive and skillful way.
Further more, I personally view the new dimensional approach to be superior to the categorical approach, as I view all so called psychopathology as dimensional outliers of so called "normal" adaptive traits and behaviors. Particularly in regards to substance use. Labeling all substance use a variant of dependence is problematic. But I don't think that's why they made the change. I think the rationale was that if the use is not at the level of dependence, than it's sub clinical and therefor shouldn't be in the DSM at all.
Any way. I HATE to whip out the three star paddle for such a potentially awesome book. But whop there it is. I'll use the heck out of this book. But the flaws really added up in the end and became too bothersome to ignore. Buy it. Read it. Use it. But consider yourself a warned and informed consumer.
July 19, 2015
This book covers one man's perspective on the DSM-5. Frances, a major contributor to the development of the DSM-III, DSM-III-R, and the DSM-IV, takes a very critical standpoint on the reorganization, removal, and renaming of the disorders included in the DSM-5. Though Frances makes many valid points, I cannot say his points are objective. It seems to me he has taken the changes that have occurred between the DSM-IV and the DSM-5 quite personally. Nonetheless, if you work in the mental health field and want the "Cliff Notes" version of what you will read in the DSM-5 along with some good diagnostic tips, this book is worth picking up. However, it is meant to be a supplement, not a replacement for the DSM-5. Good clinicians would recognize this and make sure they are up to date on the content included in the DSM-5 by reading the DSM-5 themselves.
February 8, 2017
What a pompous, ignorant douchebag... Frances makes a lot of good points, but is not sensitive to how his language often serves to increase stigma surrounding people with mental illness and the use of psychotropic medications. A lot of this book reads as ableist, sexist, binarist, and cissexist - while this is an essential read for helping professionals, Frances is not as 'woke' as he needs to be and is prone to committing microaggressions throughout this text.
December 21, 2018
A really nice way to approaching and getting introduced to DSM V.
Dr. Frances gives the high yield points from DSM V discussing the most frequently used diagnoses while providing sample questions to screen for those particular diagnoses. He also offers his own views on the new DSM with strategically placed cautionary boxes to put an emphasis on things to look out for when assessing patients.
Dr. Frances gives the high yield points from DSM V discussing the most frequently used diagnoses while providing sample questions to screen for those particular diagnoses. He also offers his own views on the new DSM with strategically placed cautionary boxes to put an emphasis on things to look out for when assessing patients.
June 5, 2022
I read this book for class. It was interesting. There was an obvious slant from the author. I found it to be a critical read about the negative aspects of the DSM-5. Use this book as a resource. But, beware of its one directional strategy. An objective reader with good decision-making skills can benefit from this book.
April 29, 2023
5 ⭐️ so good!! i’ve read this throughout this semester for my abnormal psychology class and it does such a good job at presenting all of the disorders in the DSM + tips, differential diagnoses, and criticisms to the DSM that are so helpful to understand the conditions. so good.
November 1, 2019
Good book for getting a surface understanding for DSM-5 diagonsis
May 31, 2015
An excellent book to read for me as a clinician. It has enhanced my understanding of what a diagnosis should be. Clear and easy to understand. I will be a better clinician for having read this cover to cover, and also better informed and able to argue with Doctors that try to pull psycho bullshit on me. A diagnosis should benefit the patient primarily, not be a tool to show what an expert the clinician is.
The treatment of Mental Illness is more subjective than us "the experts" care to admit.
The treatment of Mental Illness is more subjective than us "the experts" care to admit.
July 25, 2014
This is a very fast read, and has some useful information, but mainly it is Allen Frances' rant against the DSM-V. He has some valid points, but all is delivered in a hysterical and conspiracy-theory-fearing tone.
May 5, 2015
I found this book helpful in understanding the disorders in the DSM-5, as well as how this version of the DSM differs from previous ones. Have to say that I enjoyed the author's snarky critiques as much as his explanations of the diagnoses.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews