Psychiatric Consultation Protocols for Ketamine

The consultation visit is where a ketamine program earns (or loses) its clinical credibility. A fast intake with perfunctory screening can clear a patient for treatment in fifteen minutes; a proper psychiatric consultation for a candidate takes closer to ninety, and much of what that time produces never appears on the claim. You're assessing diagnostic accuracy, prior-trial adequacy, suicide risk, family psychiatric patterns, and the subtler question of whether this person has the psychological scaffolding to use what ketamine is about to open up. The patients who do best with ketamine are usually the ones whose clinicians asked the right questions before the first dose, not the ones who were most eager to start.

Initial Psychiatric Assessment Framework

Most ketamine candidates arrive with a depression diagnosis, a history of several medication trials, and a story about what hasn't worked. The consultation's job is to translate that narrative into the specific clinical details that shape treatment: which diagnoses are actually in play, which prior trials were adequate versus nominal, what the trajectory of the illness looks like, and which treatment approach (within the ketamine toolkit) is likeliest to help.

Comprehensive Diagnostic Evaluation

A first consultation moves through a full clinical interview: the chief complaint and the history of the present illness, then a detailed psychiatric history that documents previous treatments rather than merely noting that they occurred, a current substance-use assessment, and a family psychiatric history that flags heritable risk (bipolarity in a first-degree relative changes the calculus for a drug that can destabilize mood). It closes with a read of the psychosocial stressors and the support system the patient will actually be leaning on during a treatment course.

The structured instruments are there to quantify what the interview surfaces, and each earns its place by measuring something specific and repeatable. The PHQ-9 tracks depression severity and gives a number to follow across sessions. The GAD-7 does the same for anxiety symptoms. The MADRS provides a finer-grained, clinician-rated depression score where a self-report screen is not enough. The C-SSRS structures the suicidal-ideation assessment so that ideation, plan, and intent are captured consistently rather than by clinical feel.

Treatment History Documentation

The phrase "treatment-resistant depression" is easy to write and harder to document. For ketamine to be the right clinical choice, and for the insurance conversation that may follow, the prior-trial history needs to be specific: which SSRIs at what doses for how long, why each was discontinued, whether adequate augmentation was attempted. A patient who tried three SSRIs for four weeks each has a materially different treatment history than one who completed four full trials with clear failure criteria.

Documenting the medication history well means recording, for each antidepressant, the specific dose and duration, the response and side effects the patient experienced, the actual reason it was discontinued, and whether augmentation or combination strategies were attempted before the trial was written off as a failure. That last point is where nominal treatment resistance often unravels: a trial abandoned at a subtherapeutic dose or after two weeks is not a failed trial, it is an incomplete one.

The psychotherapy history deserves the same specificity, because it feeds directly into planning rather than just filling out the chart. What kind of therapy, delivered by what sort of clinician, for how long, and with what response tells you what has already engaged this patient and what has not. Since ketamine works best alongside active therapeutic work, that history shapes how the integration piece of the plan is built and who it is built with.

Risk Assessment and Contraindication Screening

The contraindication list is where screening decisions are made, but the real clinical work is noticing the patient who technically meets no exclusion criterion and yet still isn't a good candidate: the subclinical mania the patient didn't recognize as mania, the dissociative tendency they've always just called "zoning out," the ketamine curiosity that's actually a substance-use pattern hiding behind therapeutic language. Screening instruments catch the obvious cases; clinical judgment catches the ones that matter.

Psychiatric Contraindications

The absolute contraindications are the presentations where ketamine's own mechanism is the hazard. Active psychosis or a history of schizophrenia leads the list: a dissociative, perception-altering drug is the wrong thing to give a brain already struggling with reality testing. An acute manic episode in bipolar disorder is a parallel case, since ketamine can push mood in the wrong direction. Active substance-use disorder involving ketamine or other dissociatives is disqualifying on both safety and misuse grounds, and a severe personality-disorder presentation that will keep the patient from engaging safely with the treatment structure belongs in the same category.

The relative contraindications are the ones to weigh rather than to bar outright. A history of ketamine misuse raises the bar without automatically closing the door. A severe dissociative disorder risks compounding what the patient already lives with. Cognitive impairment that undercuts the capacity to give informed consent has to be resolved before treatment begins, not worked around during it. And an active suicidal plan that needs immediate intervention routes the patient into crisis stabilization first, because at-home ketamine is not a substitute for that level of care.

Suicide Risk Assessment

Ketamine has a specific anti-suicidal effect that can be lifesaving for high-risk patients, and the same population is the one for whom careful safety planning matters most. The consultation is not just assessing current risk; it's calibrating how the plan changes if ketamine begins to help, what happens if a session produces an unexpected emotional surge, and what the safety net looks like in the hours after the patient leaves the clinic.

The evaluation itself is standard psychiatric stratification, done with particular care because this population holds both the patients ketamine can help most and the patients for whom a misjudgment costs most. It weighs current ideation for intensity and specificity, prior attempts and the lethality of the methods used, the protective factors and reasons for living the patient can actually name, and the concrete safety plan and crisis pathway that will be in place once they leave the visit. What ketamine adds to the usual workup is a forward-looking question: how does risk shift if the drug begins to help, and what is the plan if a session surfaces an unexpected emotional surge in the hours afterward.

That assessment then sorts each candidate into a working tier that drives the safety plan:

• Low risk: passive ideation with strong protective factors. Generally appropriate for outpatient ketamine treatment.
• Moderate risk: active ideation with some protective factors. Treatable as an outpatient, but with enhanced safety planning built in.
• High risk: a plan or intent with limited protective factors. Requires stabilization before any at-home ketamine, plus enhanced safety measures throughout the course.

Treatment Planning and Goal Setting

By the end of the consultation, there should be a concrete treatment plan the patient can repeat back to you: what we're treating, what success looks like, how we'll measure it, what happens if it doesn't work, and what happens if it does. Vague goals (such as "feel better" or "have more energy") predict poor adherence and weak clinical data. Specific, measurable ones give both patient and clinician something to orient around across a course of 10 or more sessions over 4-8 weeks.

The therapeutic objectives should be specific and measurable enough to track over time. Not "feel better," but a defined change in function at work, in relationships, or in self-care, tied to a realistic timeline and to the quality-of-life priorities the patient actually holds, and coordinated with whatever ongoing mental-health treatment is already in place. Concrete goals give both patient and clinician something to orient around across a course of ten or more sessions over four to eight weeks; vague ones predict poor adherence and thin clinical data.

The protocol is then chosen against those goals rather than by default. The route decision, IV versus sublingual, follows from the setting, the supervision the patient needs, and their situation at home; dosing frequency and maintenance planning follow from how they respond; and the whole plan is structured to run alongside psychotherapy, with defined points to monitor progress and adjust rather than a fixed schedule that ignores how the patient is actually doing.

Informed Consent Process

The informed consent conversation for ketamine is not a signature you collect; it's a conversation you have. A patient who cannot articulate, in their own words, what ketamine will feel like during the session and how it differs from a standard medication is not yet consented, regardless of what the form says. Good consent in this context is measured by the patient's ability to describe the treatment back to you, not by the completeness of the paperwork.

Good patient education covers the mechanism and expected effects in plain language, a realistic range of benefit rather than a sales pitch, the side-effect profile and how each part is managed, and an honest account of the alternatives and why ketamine is being chosen over them. The test of whether that education landed is not the signature; it is the teach-back. A patient who cannot describe, in their own words, what the session will feel like and how it differs from taking a daily medication is not yet consented, whatever the form says.

The documentation exists to record that process, not to replace it: written consent with a genuine discussion of risks, a note verifying the patient's understanding rather than only capturing their signature, a consent that stays live as the treatment plan is adjusted, and an explicit acknowledgment of the right to stop treatment at any point.

Conclusion

A well-conducted consultation does more than qualify a patient for a protocol; it establishes the therapeutic alliance that carries the clinical work through the hard moments a treatment course will inevitably produce. The patient who remembers being taken seriously during their intake is the patient who texts you when they're having a rough night in week three; the one who was processed through quickly is the one who silently drops out. The ninety minutes spent on a proper consultation return themselves many times over in treatment completion, outcome quality, and the clinical confidence of the program itself.

Considering ketamine therapy for a patient who hasn't responded to standard care?

Tovani Health is a physician-led at-home ketamine therapy practice serving Florida, New Jersey, and California. We conduct full 60–90 minute psychiatric consultations on every candidate before any treatment begins, and we coordinate with referring clinicians throughout the course.

Refer a patient via /eligibility →

Want to discuss a case directly before referral? Call 561-468-6981.

Benjamin Soffer, DO, Tovani Health

---

Related professional reading: clinical protocols and patient selection, referral guidelines for primary care physicians, clinical supervision protocols, evidence-based outcomes review, SSRI vs ketamine pharmacological comparison.