Establishing an evidence base for the clinical management of catatonia is made difficult by the heterogeneous nature of the condition and the limited understanding of its pathophysiology. Benzodiazepines are a mainstay of treatment. The Cochrane review discussed identified only one eligible study (17 participants with catatonia who received either lorazepam or oxazepam), which found no difference on the single outcome measure (a 50% improvement on a visual analogue scale). This commentary discusses the findings in more detail, and considers what constitutes high-quality evidence for the acute treatment of catatonia, why there is such a paucity of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the topic and whether RCTs are both feasible and appropriate for the condition.

Eating disorders are heterogeneous disorders characterised by a maladaptive drive to lose weight and, for the most part, by extreme fear of weight gain and overvaluation of thin body image. Calorie restriction, overexercise and purging behaviours put some sufferers at high risk of physical morbidity and mortality. Mental preoccupations interfere with social, professional and general quality of life. Patients’ defensive secrecy and compulsivity can make it hard to diagnose and treat such disorders despite the suffering they involve. Integrated medical and psychiatric intervention can save life and safely improve nutrition. Behavioural support – with family and carer involvement when appropriate – can counter the dysregulation that leads to vicious cycles of restriction–binge–purge, helping patients develop new skills to regulate emotion without weight losing. In the future, exciting developments in neuroimaging, neurosurgery and pharmacology may lead to ways to make the brain more responsive to therapy. Insights into risk factors may also improve preventive strategies in a climate of highly sophisticated international electronic communication.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists’ continuing professional development (CPD) module on clinical ethics in psychiatry by Pearce & Tan describes some common ethical dilemmas in psychiatric practice and the work of clinical ethics committees in analysing these dilemmas. In this article we build upon their work and offer additional exploration of the nature of ethical dilemmas in psychiatry. We also build upon the models of reasoning that are described in the module and suggest ways for psychiatrists to think about ethical dilemmas when a clinical ethics committee is not available.

Advocating for good physical healthcare for their patients is of the utmost importance to psychiatrists. This narrative review focuses on one part of this large goal, the topic of hyperprolactinaemia from the perspective of mental healthcare. For psychiatrists this often includes managing raised prolactin levels in the context of medication. However, they must consider the wider differentials of a raised prolactin level and the possible impact of treatments. For that reason, in this review we start with an overview of prolactin physiology before considering hyperprolactinaemia both in the context of antipsychotic therapy and its wider differentials, including prolactinoma. Investigation and management are considered and key practice points developed.

Substance misuse worsens the prognosis for people suffering psychosis and places them at risk of being denied appropriate mental health service interventions. To increase the chances of its success, the plan of management for patients with coexisting psychosis and substance misuse should be based on a valid formulation of their problems, which in turn is dependent on the clinician having (a) a thorough understanding of the bidirectional and changing ways that substance use and mental illness symptoms can interact, (b) an awareness of their own biased implicit assumptions about causality in explaining these interactions and (c) a framework for assessment and formulation. This article addresses these three areas with reference to the evidence base and to clinical experience in a way that guides mental health clinicians in the assessment of patients with coexisting psychosis and substance misuse.

In this overview we discuss the role of psychiatry in managing delirium in acute hospital admissions. We briefly discuss the role psychiatry can offer in four main domains: (a) assessment; (b) management; (c) recovery; and (d) paradigm, education and research. In the assessment section we discuss accurately detecting delirium in the context of comorbid mixed neuropsychiatric syndromes, including depression and dementia, and the clinical importance of delirium subtyping. The management section briefly outlines pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches to delirium and their evidence-based rationale. The recovery section focuses on the effect delirium can have on cognitive decline, mental health and long-term health, including functional outcome and need for institutional care after hospital discharge. Finally, we outline the role of psychiatry in delirium research and education. We hope that this article will encourage clinicians to reflect on their current practice and consider holistic and evidence-based care for this vulnerable population in the acute hospital setting.

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a persistent, pervasive disorder characterised by symptoms of inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity. Although traditionally considered a disorder of childhood, symptoms and associated impairments persist into adulthood for a significant proportion of individuals. Untreated ADHD can have a number of adverse effects for both the individual and wider society. Despite this, ADHD in adults is often misdiagnosed or its diagnosis is ‘missed’ in general psychiatric settings and this article highlights some reasons for this.

If a Mental Health Act section 136 lapses at 24 h because no in-patient bed is available, the legal grounds to continue holding an individual in the place of safety are dubious. Duty of candour and a senior clinical review are essential. The use of common law and the Mental Capacity Act have limitations, the latter also raising a question about whether deprivation of liberty safeguards would also apply. Clarity of this dilemma is needed through legislation.