Traditional psychopharmacological terminology is based on historical grounds and under different aspects not systematic and rational. It even tends to confuse patients by prescribing a drug that does not reflect their identified diagnosis, prescribing “antipsychotics” to depression. Four major colleges of neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP, ACNP, Asian CNP, an CINP) proposed a new multi-axial pharmacologically-driven nomenclature. The template has five axes: 1- class (primary pharmacological target and relevant mechanism); 2- family (reflecting the relevant neurotransmitter and mechanism); 3- neurobiological activities; 4- efficacy and major side effects; and 5- approved indications. The results of the surveys suggest that the clinicians found the available indication-based nomenclature system dissatisfactory, non-intuitive, confusing, and doubt-inducing for them and the patients. The proposed five-axis template seeks to upend current usage bay placing pharmacology rather than indication as the primary axes. With the proposed nomenclature relating primarily to Axis 1 – the class, and usage of the other axes would largely depend the extent to which the clinician seeks to deepen the scientific and clinical base of his involvement.

It goes without saying that psychopharmacologic treatment requires extensive knowledge of topics ranging from pharmacodynamics and efficacy, to pharmacokinetics, side-effects, and toxicity. Knowledge should be supplemented with experience regarding applicability in a clinical setting. It is well accepted that comprehensive psychopharmacologic education is essential to convey necessary knowledge and adequately prepare trainees for independent practice [1]. Currently, a psychopharmacologic curriculum, under the umbrella of the European Psychiatric Association, is in preparation in order to emphasize the importance of psychopharmacologic education in the context of psychiatric training and to foster standardization within the European Union. The aim of this presentation is to discuss psychopharmacologic education and prerequisites for an effective curriculum from the trainee's point of view. We will address challenges facing psychiatric trainees [2] and review existing curricula as well as literature in which they are evaluated. Based on evaluation of the model curriculum by the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology, one of the most broadly used psychopharmacologic curricula, it has been emphasized that an effective curriculum should be more than a list of topics. It should also convey pedagogic strategies with a focus on up-to-date technology, and provide a process through which teacher and trainee progress can be assessed [3,4]. Reflection on currently available curricula should aid in the development of an effective and timely EU-wide psychopharmacologic curriculum.

The negative image of psychiatry is not only due to unfavourable communication with the media, but is basically a problem of self-conceptualization. It results both from unjustified prejudices of the general public, mass media and health care professionals and of own unfavourable coping with external and internal concerns.

Issues related to negative stereotypes of psychiatry include overestimation of coercion, associative stigma, lack of public knowledge, need of simplification of complex mental issues, problem of the continuum between normality and psychopathology, competition with medical and non-medical disciplines, and psychopharmacological treatment.

Issues related to psychiatry's own contribution to being underestimated include lack of a clear professional identity, lack of biomarkers supporting clinical diagnoses, limited consensus about best treatment options, lack of collaboration with other medical disciplines and low recruitment rates among medical students.

Much can be improved to achieve a positive self-concept, however, psychiatry will remain a profession with an exceptional position among the medical disciplines which should be seen as its specific strength.

It is a very unfortunate matter of fact that mental problems and diseases are matter to societal stigmatization. In the slipstream psychiatry has a negative image in the public eye. Fighting stigma should be at the core of all professionals involved in mental health care. Self-reflection should be a primary reaction of any psychiatrist when confronted with a sensitive issue like stigmatization and negative image. It is painful to realize that the negative image of psychiatry is also present to the community to which psychiatrists belong, namely the medical community. This is strange and hurting. Psychiatrists (then closely linked to neurology) have, worldwide strongly contributed to the birth and strengthening of medical associations. Yet psychiatrists have estranged themselves from the medical community, thus, in my view, contributing themselves to stigma on patients with mental conditions and the negative image of psychiatry. So time for action, starting by self-awareness of psychiatrists that they are medical specialist, urging oneself as a psychiatrist to behave as a medical specialist by relating to colleagues in a helpful way and keeping one's own medical knowledge and skills up to standards. Psychiatrists have so much to offer in helping their colleagues in somatic medicine.

To improve the care of older people with mental health problems it is necessary to have a highly skilled workforce who is very well-trained in the diagnosis and management of the range of the psychiatric problems affecting older people including the dementias. Key to this is the need to have an adequate number of specialists in geriatric psychiatry and a wider recognition of geriatric psychiatry training across Europe including a broad agreement on training requirements. In 2012 the European Association of Geriatric Psychiatry (Toot et al.) published the results of a Europe wide survey on geriatric psychiatry training to scope current practice and develop recommendations to begin a debate on harmonization. Representatives from 30 out of 38 (79%) representatives responded including many from countries where old age psychiatry was not formally a specialty. Training programs and duration varied between countries. Eleven countries reported that they had geriatric psychiatry training programs and most of these required geriatric psychiatry trainees to complete mandatory training for two years within old age psychiatry. Representatives from ten countries reported having specific Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for old age psychiatrists at consultant level.

The recognition of geriatric psychiatry as a specialist discipline in Europe is on the rise. The training procedures and processes in place vary considerably between and sometimes within countries. There are several options for harmonizing old age psychiatry training across Europe with advantages to each. However, support is required from national old age psychiatry bodies across Europe and an agreement needs to be reached on a training strategy that encompasses supervision, development, and appraisal of the knowledge and skills sets of old age psychiatrists. This workshop will look at options for harmonization and take first steps towards a consensus.

Mental health disorders, especially dementia, mood- and anxiety disorders, are among the most prevalent diseases in later life. Due to a greying European society, numbers are expected to increase over the next decades. Consequently, there is a pressing need for well-trained specialists in geriatric psychiatry across Europe in order to meet the mental health needs and to deliver a high standard of care to the aging population. In the past decades, some countries have set up specific training programs for specializing in geriatric psychiatry, whereas others did not. In order to stimulate the development of high-quality services, harmonizing specialty training across Europe will be a first step forward.

The EU stresses the need for standardizing qualifications of medical professionals to enable them to work across the EU. This workshop aims to work towards a consensus on the minimum training level required for geriatric psychiatry. We state that being able to work as an old age psychiatrist requires specific training in geriatric psychiatry and old age over and above general training in psychiatry. Therefore, discussion of opportunities to develop minimal criteria for training and practice across Europe is crucial. Taken the differences between countries into account (many countries do not provide specific training in old age psychiatry), we should finally agree on the minimal level of education and supervision, the minimum level of work experience and finally the minimal level of supervision in peer groups as a starting point.

Mental illness is one of the largest areas of activity in the health service, with mental disorders of the elderly an important part of it. This substantial ageing of the population is a new phenomenon, occurring over the last century. It has given prominence to mental illness in old age. There is a growing interest in making decisions about how many and which services to provide to the older community.

The expertise of old age psychiatry services lies in the care and treatment of people with complex mixtures of psychological, cognitive, functional, behavioral, physical and social problems usually relating to ageing. Current evidence suggests specialist old age services are best equipped to diagnose and treat mental illness in our ageing population. However, the specialists should be integrated optimally into a service system to the benefit of the elderly. It will be crucial to improve access of older patients to the services. The service system and the partners in the system differ to those for younger adult psychiatric patients. Thus, not only knowledge and skills underline the necessity of specialization but also the increasingly complex health service structures of modern societies.

The dichotomy between “dementia praecox” and “manic-depressive insanity” by Emil Kraepelin is one of the milestones of nosology in psychiatry [1].

This dichotomy reflects the necessity – particularly in the absence of effective treatment in Kraepelin's time – to differentiate (and to predict) the functional outcome of individual patients. Since Kraepelin's original division particularly the influence of Kurt Schneider has led to a full acknowledgment of the dichotomy in both ICD and DSM.

While this division has proven to be clinically useful, alternatives have been proposed covering a large spectrum from the idea of unitary psychosis as in Wilhelm Griesinger and Klaus Conrad to further subdivisions as in Karl Leonhard. Recent research in neuroscience suggests the presence of an overlap between schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders [2–4].

Cognitive dysfunction is a characteristic feature of patients with schizophrenia. Traditionally, the main distinction between “dementia praecox” and “manic-depressive insanity” was in fact the cognitive outcome during the course of the disease [1].

For the assessment of cognitive dysfunction both large, detailed instruments [2] and brief screening scales for quick and multiple use [3,4] are available.

Recently, the role of social cognition has been thoroughly examined showing differential effects [5].

Treatment of cognitive dysfunction in schizophrenia comprises adherence to a therapy with atypical antipsychotics as well as specific treatment programs for cognitive [6] and social cognitive [7,8] dysfunction.

The presentation is about the use of outcome measurements in combination of a newly developed app that enables psychiatrists and patients track the progress of their treatment process and adjust it if needed in an shared decision fashion.

In 2013 the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was introduced. Around the same time there was the start of a paradigm shift in healthcare which increased the focus on patient involvement in individual health care decision-making and on measuring and improving outcomes of care (Sederer et al., 1997; Sperry, 1997; Hermann, 2005). If outcome measures are psychometrically sound and able to measure clinical change, treatment progress can be made transparent for both patients and clinicians.

In this presentation the presenter will update the audience on a research project were the DSM-5 Field Trials, patient-reported dimensional measures and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) (Clarke et al., 2013; Narrow et al., 2013; Mościcki et al., 2013) are secured and placed in a newly developed app.

Only a very small percentage of adolescents and young adults with mental challenges is able to access specialized care. Access is limited due to a lack of capacity but also internal hurdles and stigma especially among young males. The web creates a new environment for them, which is defining a new culture of communication and interaction. The majority is using smart phones to access the internet and make that their main communication device. Walkalong is a web-based platform, which aims to provide a range of opportunities and tools for youth with especially mood challenges. These tools include screening and assessment, online resources and all kind of orientation and interaction for informed decision making. We are working on that to develop a framework for better online-based mental health care including useful tools beyond crisis based on the principles of empowerment and strength based approaches.

Mental disorders are common [1] and they are associated with high levels of distress, morbidity, disability, and mortality. We know today that psychiatric treatments work and there is extensive evidence and agreement on effective mental health practices for persons with these disorders. Unfortunately, at a time when treatment for psychiatric illness has never been more effective, many people with these disorders do not have access to psychiatric services due to the shortage, and maldistribution of providers, especially psychiatrists. This has resulted in patients going to hospital emergency departments to seek services resulting in long lengths of stay and boarding of psychiatric patients in hospital emergency departments. A growing body of literature now suggests that the use of telepsychiatry to provide mental health care has the potential to mitigate the workforce shortage that directly affects access to care, especially in remote and underserved areas [2,3].

The North Carolina Statewide Telepsychiatry Program (NC-STeP) was developed in response to NC Session Law 2013-360. The vision of NC-STeP is to assure that if an individual experiencing an acute behavioral health crisis enters an emergency department of a hospital anywhere in the state of North Carolina, s/he receives timely, evidence-based psychiatric treatment through this program. Aside from helping address the problems associated with access to mental health care, NC-STeP is helping North Carolina face a pressing and difficult challenge in the healthcare delivery system today: the integration of science-based treatment practices into routine clinical care. East Carolina University's Center for Telepsychiatry is the home for this statewide program, which is connecting 80-85 hospital emergency departments across the state of North Carolina. The plan for NC-STeP was developed in collaboration with a workgroup of key stakeholders including representatives from Universities in NC, hospitals/healthcare systems, NC Hospital Association, NC Psychiatric Association, LME-MCOs, NC-Department of HHS, and many others. The NC General Assembly has appropriated $4 million over two years to fund the program. The program is also partially funded by the Duke Endowment.

The program has already connected 56 of the projected 85 hospitals in the first 18 months since its inception and over 12,000 encounters have been successfully completed during this time. A web portal has been designed and implemented that combines scheduling, EMR, HIE functions, and data management systems. This presentation will provide current program data on the length of stay, dispositions, IVC status, and other parameters for all ED patients who received telepsychiatry services. NC-STeP is now positioned well to create collaborative linkages and develop innovative models for the mental health care delivery by connecting psychiatric providers with EDs and Hospitals, Community-based mental health providers, Primary Care Providers, FQHCs and Public Health Clinics, and others. NC-STeP is positioned well to build capacity by taking care of patients in community-based settings and by creating collaborative linkages across continuums of care. By doing so, the program implements evidence-based practice to make recovery possible for patients that it serves.

Social cognition (SC) refers broadly to the domains of cognitive functions that are employed in socially relevant situations. These include three primary domains (i.e., emotion perception, Theory of Mind-TOM-, and attributional style), as well as more complex and developing concepts such as social metacognition.

Patients with schizophrenia demonstrate significant deficits across multiple dimensions of SC and throughout all phases of the illness.

The correlation between SC and real-life functioning ranged from small to large, mainly depending on the examined aspect of SC, with largest effects observed for TOM. Indeed, it has been suggested that TOM difficulties may lead to social misperceptions that influence how an individual reacts to others, which in turn may lead to maladaptive social patterns and/or social withdrawal, which both may influence real-life vocational outcome more than neurocognition (NC) abilities. Moreover, SC appears to act as a mediator between nonsocial basic NC and community functioning.

The goals of this study are to analyze the pattern of SC variables in schizophrenia using cluster analysis, to examine the relationship of real-life functioning with cluster membership, and to identify cut-offs that best discriminate among clusters in a large sample of patients with schizophrenia recruited to the Italian Network for Research on Psychoses (NIRP). A full assessment of different aspects of SC was carried out, including emotional intelligence, recognition and theory of mind (TOM).

Social cognition is impaired in patients with schizophrenia [1]. This impairment is one of the core features of the illness and has a clear impact on functional outcome.

While conventional antipsychotics might have a worsening effect on social cognition, e.g. on amygdala attenuation in fMRI studies on facial recognition [2], atypical antipsychotics might not show this effect [3].

Social cognitive training [4] – such as the training of affect recognition [5] – is a promising approach in the treatment of schizophrenia.

Holistic strategies including both treatment with atypical antipsychotics and social cognitive training can improve functional outcome in patients with schizophrenia [6].