Diogenes Syndrome and Diagnostic Elucidation: Reclaiming a Distinct Nosology from the Shadow of Psychosis

Abstract

Diogenes Syndrome (DS), also known as Senile Squalor Syndrome, is a complex behavioural disorder predominantly affecting older adults. It is characterised by extreme self-neglect, domestic squalor, hoarding of refuse (syllogomania), social withdrawal, and a marked lack of insight or shame regarding one’s condition. Despite an estimated annual incidence of 5 new cases for every 10,000 people over the age of sixty, DS remains absent from major diagnostic manuals such as the DSM-5 and ICD-11. This omission contributes to frequent misdiagnosis, particularly in the early stages, where DS is often conflated with psychotic disorders. This article presents a retrospective case analysis of twelve individuals initially misdiagnosed with psychosis but subsequently identified as exhibiting DS. The findings highlight the need for clearer diagnostic criteria and a reclassification of DS as a distinct neuropsychiatric-behavioural syndrome, with profound implications for clinical management and policy.

Introduction

Diogenes Syndrome (DS) occupies a paradoxical space in clinical psychiatry: simultaneously recognisable and yet diagnostically elusive. Though first described in the mid-twentieth century (MacMillan & Shaw, 1966), the syndrome remains uncodified in contemporary diagnostic frameworks. Clinically, DS manifests through a cluster of behaviours including severe self-neglect, domestic squalor, compulsive hoarding of non-functional items, and a profound withdrawal from social engagement. These features are often accompanied by a striking absence of insight or shame, further complicating clinical interpretation.

The syndrome’s exclusion from the DSM-5 and ICD-11 has led to significant nosological ambiguity. In the absence of formal criteria, clinicians frequently rely on heuristic or phenomenological impressions, which can result in misclassification, most notably within the psychotic spectrum. This misdiagnosis carries tangible risks, including inappropriate pharmacological interventions and the neglect of capacity-led, psychosocial approaches more suited to the syndrome’s underlying pathology.

This article seeks to address these diagnostic challenges by presenting a retrospective case series of twelve individuals initially referred for suspected psychosis but ultimately diagnosed with DS. Through this analysis, the paper aims to clarify the distinguishing features of DS, advocate for its recognition as a distinct clinical entity, and propose a framework for more accurate diagnosis and management.

The Diagnostic Challenge

The phenotypic similarity between DS and primary psychotic disorders has long confounded diagnostic clarity. Individuals with DS often present with aloofness, suspiciousness, and profound social withdrawal, features that may be misinterpreted as indicative of paranoid schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Garrick and Heins (2017) observed that such behavioural presentations, particularly in conjunction with a distorted perception of reality, frequently lead to provisional diagnoses within the psychotic spectrum.

Moreover, the hoarding of refuse and disregard for environmental hygiene are often construed as manifestations of disorganised thought or delusional content. Fond et al. (2011) highlighted that clinicians may mistake the chaotic living conditions and refusal of assistance as evidence of a primary delusional disorder. Hanon et al. (2004) proposed a transnosographic approach, suggesting that DS does not fit neatly within existing psychiatric categories and requires a more judicious diagnostic lens.

Differential diagnosis in older adults further complicates the picture. DS must be distinguished from late-onset schizophrenia, alcohol-related brain damage, and behavioural-variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD). Vermeulen et al. (2019) provided compelling evidence linking DS to frontal lobe dysfunction, a finding echoed by Cipriani et al. (2019), who emphasised the syndrome’s neuropsychiatric aetiological roots. Crucially, the absence of Schneiderian first-rank symptoms such as auditory hallucinations or thought insertion, and the poor response to antipsychotic medication serve as key differentiators between DS and primary psychosis (Takahashi & Arai, 2016; Finney et al., 2017).

Methodology

This study employed a retrospective review of clinical case notes and community health records for a cohort of twelve patients. All individuals were initially referred under the Mental Health Act (1983) for suspected psychosis, based on presentations of severe self-neglect, domestic squalor, and social withdrawal. Inclusion criteria required the presence of at least three core features of DS, as delineated by Clark et al. (1975): extreme self-neglect, hoarding of refuse, and active refusal of assistance.

Data were extracted regarding initial presenting features, provisional diagnoses, diagnostic criteria applied, final diagnoses, and treatment responses. The diagnostic evolution was assessed using the criteria proposed by Clark et al. and later refined by Snowdon et al. (2012). The study design aligns with methodologies employed by Ames and Snowdon (2015), who conducted similar analyses of domestic squalor in older populations. Ethical considerations were addressed through anonymisation of patient data and adherence to local governance protocols. Steele and Gray (2018) and Hurley et al. (2000) have previously emphasised the importance of detailed clinical documentation in identifying DS. This study builds upon such work by offering a comparative analysis of diagnostic trajectories and treatment outcomes.

Key Findings

The analysis revealed a consistent pattern of misdiagnosis across the cohort. In ten of the twelve cases, patients were initially diagnosed with paranoid psychosis or delusional disorder. These diagnoses were based on features such as social withdrawal, refusal of care, and environmental squalor, behaviours that were interpreted as evidence of persecutory delusions or disorganised thought. However, further assessment revealed a lack of core psychotic features, such as hallucinations or systematised delusions, and a notable absence of response to antipsychotic medication.

Instead, the patients exhibited high rates of comorbid affective disorders and cognitive impairments, particularly frontal lobe dysfunction. Vermeulen et al. (2019) and Cipriani et al. (2012) have previously linked DS to neurodegenerative processes, suggesting that the syndrome may be secondary to underlying neuropathology. In this context, six patients demonstrated signs consistent with behavioural-variant frontotemporal dementia, while four exhibited chronic affective disorders, including dysthymia and treatment-resistant depression.

The therapeutic implications of accurate diagnosis were profound. In cases where DS was correctly identified, interventions shifted from pharmacological management to capacity-led approaches, including environmental remediation, social care planning, and legal interventions under the National Assistance Act (1948) and the Mental Capacity Act (2005). These strategies proved more effective in stabilising patients and improving quality of life than antipsychotic regimens, which had yielded minimal benefit.

Takahashi and Arai (2016) argue that DS should be conceptualised as a syndrome of behavioural collapse, rather than a variant of psychosis. This perspective is supported by Finney et al. (2017), whose cluster analysis demonstrated that DS occupies a distinct position within the spectrum of self-neglect syndromes. The findings of this study reinforce the need for diagnostic specificity and challenge the prevailing tendency to pathologise DS within psychotic frameworks.

Conclusion

Diogenes Syndrome represents a distinct neuropsychiatric-behavioural entity, often secondary to cognitive or affective disorders. Its clinical presentation though superficially similar to psychosis, requires a fundamentally different diagnostic and therapeutic approach. The misclassification of DS as a primary psychotic disorder not only obscures its unique pathology but also leads to inappropriate treatment and suboptimal outcomes. This paper advocates for the development of standardised diagnostic criteria and screening tools to facilitate accurate identification and management of DS. Future research should prioritise prospective studies to elucidate the neurobiological correlates of the syndrome and establish evidence-based care protocols that honour its complexity.

**Context Note

Legislation	Primary Function in DS Cases
Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005)	Provides the legal framework for making "best interests" decisions and intervening (e.g., providing care, environmental remediation) for patients found to lack capacity for those specific decisions. This is the main framework for capacity-led approaches.
Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA 1983)	Used for compulsory detention and treatment when a patient is deemed to have a treatable mental disorder and is a risk to self or others. The major amendments to this Act were made by the MHA 2007 (e.g., introducing Community Treatment Orders).
National Assistance Act 1948	Provides local authorities with powers to enter and clean premises in cases of severe domestic squalor and neglect.

Academic References

1. MacMillan, D., & Shaw, P. (1966). Senile breakdown in standards of personal and environmental cleanliness. British Medical Journal, 2(5521), 1032-1037.

   
   

2. Clark, A.N., Mankikar, G.D., & Gray, I. (1975). Diogenes syndrome: A clinical study of gross neglect in old age. The Lancet, 1(7903), 366-368.

   
   

3. Cybulska, E., & Rucinski, J. (1986). Gross self-neglect in old age. British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 36(6), 332-337.

   
   

4. O'Brien, J.G. (1989). Diogenes syndrome: an aspect of self-neglect. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 155(5), 701-704.

   
   

5. Drummond, I.A., Turnbull, G.J., & Sheldon, M. (1997). Diogenes syndrome: a load of rubbish? International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 12(10), 999-1004.

   
   

6. Reyes-Ortiz, C.A. (2001). Diogenes syndrome: the self-neglect elderly. Comprehensive Therapy, 27(2), 117-121.

   
   

7. Snowdon, J. (2006). Severe domestic squalor: prevalence and risk factors in the Sydney Older Persons Study. International Psychogeriatrics, 18(3), 545-554.

   
   

8. Cipriani, G., Lucetti, C., Vedovello, M., & Nuti, A. (2012). Diogenes syndrome in patients suffering from dementia. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 14(4), 438-444.

   
   

9. Snowdon, J., Halliday, G., & Banerjee, S. (2012). Severe Domestic Squalor. Cambridge University Press.

   
   

10. Ames, D., & Snowdon, J. (2015). Diogenes syndrome: A perspective for the century. International Psychogeriatrics, 27(1), 163-171.

    
    

11. Takahashi, N., & Arai, H. (2016). Diogenes syndrome: Pathogenesis and clinical aspects. Psychogeriatrics, 16(1), 44-50.

    
    

12. Garrick, T.R., & Heins, C.H. (2017). Diogenes Syndrome: A Special Manifestation of Hoarding Disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry Residents' Journal, 12(8), 4-6.

    
    

13. Vermeulen, E., van Zandvoort, M.J.E., van Wingen, G.A., & Kanning, S.K. (2019). The link between Diogenes Syndrome and Frontotemporal Dementia: a systematic review. Ageing Research Reviews, 56, 100965.

    
    

14. Fond, G., Jollant, F., & Abbar, M. (2011). The need to consider mood disorders, and especially chronic mania, in cases of Diogenes syndrome (squalor syndrome). International Psychogeriatrics, 23(3), 505-507.

    
    

15. Hanon, C., Pinquier, C., Gaddour, N., Saïd, S., Mathis, D., & Pellerin, J. (2004). Diogenes syndrome: a transnosographic approach. Encephale, 30(4), 315-322.

    
    

16. Hurley, A.D., Vostanis, P., & Dean, C. (2000). Self-neglect and Diogenes Syndrome: A review of prevalence and associated factors. Journal of Mental Health, 9(4), 387-394.

    
    

17. Cipriani, G., Nuti, A., & Danti, S. (2019). Clinical and ethical aspects of Diogenes syndrome: A narrative review. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 15, 2529-2540.

    
    

18. Steele, C., & Gray, I. (2018). Self-neglect and Diogenes syndrome: Clinical management. British Journal of General Practice, 68(673), 390-391.

    
    

19. Lee, V., & Ooi, S. (2020). Hoarding and the law: A review of legal issues and implications in the United Kingdom. The Psychiatrist, 44(4), 184-188.

    
    

20. Finney, C.M., Aakre, J.M., & Whiteside, S.P. (2017). Diogenes Syndrome is a syndrome of symptom overlap: A cluster analysis of cases. Journal of Affective Disorders, 217, 194-198.