Countertransference in the General Hospital Setting: Implications for Clinical Supervision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychiatry residents completing their consultation-liaison (CL) rotations are implicitly expected to recognize and consider countertransference reactions when offering clinical recommendations. Residents often lack formal guidance in this role, as there exists limited examination of clinical scenarios from a psychodynamic perspective. The authors present a historical review of the literature on countertransference with the medically ill and describe a clinical vignette illustrating the vicissitudes of liaison work. The case involves a psychotic patient with mental retardation and acute renal failure. Through refusal of care and a tumultuous clinical course, this patient elicited various countertransferential reactions from the primary care and CL teams, in turn adversely impacting treatment. The case illustrates how clinicians' failure to collaborate led to hospital administrators having to take on the liaison role. (1) A review of literature corroborates the importance of CL psychiatrists' assistance in the management of countertransference. At the same time, it is notable for a paucity of guidance in teaching these skills to psychiatry trainees. The psychiatry resident-in-training faces challenges and shortcomings in the management of countertransference. Formal training in this aspect of psychiatric consultation is lacking, as evidenced by extant publications. The authors propose future directions for research and teaching, with emphasis on clarifying the liaison component of CL psychiatry and advocating for establishment of psychodynamic psychotherapy training guidelines in the general hospital setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".