After utilizing the benefits of the mental state examination for a long time, it is now possible to offer some valuable critique of the process. To begin with, psychiatric diagnoses that are carried out by physicians have only been made possible through the mental state examination (Aquilina & Warner, 2004). There are myriads of psychiatric orders that have been differentiated, identified and also evaluated using this type of examination.
Trzepacz and Baker (1993) are quite categorical that when a physician makes an encounter with a patient, vital personal data is gathered based on the mental health. However, cultural bias may hinder the acquisition of vita personal data in some cases. It is only through the mental state examination that a physician can make recommendations to the patient on whether to undergo additional or be referred to a more advanced healthcare facility (Recupero, 2010). Language can be a major barrier during the process of data collection. If some vital data is not recorded, the entire process can be flawed.
In addition, a mental state examination process offers the best approach for assessing various aspects of mental health such as perceptual disturbances, thought content, thought process, motor activity and the general behavior of a patient (Polanski & Hinkle, 2000).
On the other hand, the mental state examination may present several limitations in spite of the positive attributes outlined above. For instance, a false negative diagnosis may be realized due to poor sensitivity of the system (Silver & Teasdale, 2005).
Organic brain disease cannot be easily detected under the regular neurologic examination. According to Silver and Teasdale (2005), mental state examination screening may only identify the cognitive effects especially among patients suffering from cortical atrophy and brain tumors. The ceiling effect may remarkably affect the overall health outcome of a patient (Polanski & Hinkle, 2000).
There are various overlapping systems that make up the memory component. It is pertinent to mention that language deterioration may take place in some components of the brain. Polanski and Hinkle (2000) observe that the memory function measures that are carried out during mental state examination can hardly identify latent complications (Silver &Teasdale, 2005). As a result, memory measures are not sufficiently evaluated in mental state examination (Polanski & Hinkle, 2000). The visuals and recognition paradigms are also absent in most mental state measurements. Moreover, Serial calculation is the only method used to assess attention (Hamilton, 1985).
The most vital brain functions of a patient cannot be evaluated easily when a mental state examination is carried out. Hamilton (1985) narrates there are several brain functions that an ordinary mental state measurement cannot evaluate. For example, it is not possible to offer unbiased judgment in a social situation. The ability to perform abstract tasks is also hindered in mental state examinations (Trzepacz & Baker, 1993).
Silver and Teasdale (2005) posit that mental state examinations that deal with determining the effectiveness of drugs can be poorly interpreted. Most of the trials carried out on new drugs cannot yield accurate results. It is pertinent to mention that the trials are usually carried out in short intervals (Hamilton, 1985). it makes it cumbersome for examiners to read the results accurately. When difficulty is encountered in the interpretation of results, the entire process of diagnosis cannot be relied upon.
High intellectual ability is usually a major cause of concern during the mental state examination (Rutter & Taylor, 2003). For instance, an individual with limited education background will reveal different results from the one who has adequate education. When the mental state examination is carried out at the same time for such individuals, wrong deductions can be made.
Although mental state examination provides the best approach forestalling psychological stability of a person, it is prudent to mention that individuals with ESL have a higher probability of encountering a lot of challenges when using certain components of the examination (Sims, 1995). According to Silver and Teasdale (2005), lack of compatibility with system’s components is a critical in most mental state examinations.
References
Aquilina, C. & Warner, J. (2004). A Guide to Psychiatric Examination. Lancaster: Carnegie Book Production.
Hamilton, M. (1985). Fish’s clinical psychopathology. London: John Wright.
Polanski, P. J., & Hinkle, J. S. (2000). The mental status examination: Its use by professional counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development : JCD, 78(3), 357-364.
Recupero, P.R. (2010). The Mental Status Examination in the Age of the Internet. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 38 (1): 15–26.
Rutter, M. & Taylor, E. (2003). Child and adolescent psychiatry. Malden: Blackwell Science.
Silver, E., & Teasdale, B. (2005). Mental disorder and violence: An examination of stressful life events and impaired social support. Social Problems, 52(1), 62-78.
Sims, A. G. (1995). Symptoms in the mind: an introduction to descriptive psychopathology. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
Trzepacz, P. T, & Baker, R. W (1993). The psychiatric mental status examination. New York: Oxford University Press.