An audit to assess the consequences of the use of a pluripotential risk syndrome: the case to move on from "psychosis risk syndrome (PRS) ".

An audit has been carried out of the patients who have been assessed using the CAARMS tool in order to assess patients who have been judged to have a prodromal psychotic syndrome. Instead of advocating PRS, Johannessen & McGorry (Johannessen 2010), have offered an alternative: a 'Pluripotent risk syndrome'. This less specific prodrome reflects the unpredictable nature of "Ultra-High Risk" states which have been shown to be more likely to develop into a non-psychotic mood disorder than schizophrenia (Hoon 2012). The corollary this is thus; could patients who exhibit significant depressive features (regardless of diagnosis) be initially identified as having a 'Pluripotent risk syndrome'? Ten adult patients (6 males & 4 females, aged 19-26 years old) with four broad psychiatric diagnoses (Depression, Schizoaffective disorder, Borderline personality disorder and psychotic illness) were chosen from an anonimised database of the patients and their symptomatology as assessed by CAARMS was retrospectively assessed to see if the presence of depressive symptoms supported the case for a "Pluripotent risk syndrome". Though patients diagnosed with depression frequently exhibited depressive symptoms, psychotic symptoms were also apparent, albeit in comparatively decreased severity. Patients diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder had depressive symptoms more frequently than psychotic symptoms, but these were comparatively less severe. Borderline personality disorder patients exhibited depressive symptoms more frequently than psychotic symptoms. Psychotic illnesses frequently had depressive symptoms, but more typically (and unsurprisingly) had comparatively more severe psychotic than depressive symptoms. Hence we propose that the concept of a "Pluripotent risk syndrome" is in our view born out.