MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2947664269 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxz066.102

103 Mental Health Care for Pediatric Presentations to Emergency Departments: A scoping review

2019· review· en· W2947664269 sur OpenAlexaff
Gayathri Narendran, Savithiri Ratnapalan

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2019
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueChild and Adolescent Health
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCINAHLPsycINFOMental healthMedicineEmergency departmentMEDLINEInclusion (mineral)Family medicinePopulationHealth careMedical diagnosisSystematic reviewPsychological interventionPsychiatryPsychologyEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Approximately 20% of children suffer from mental health (MH) diagnoses in North America and many of these of these children seek care in emergency departments (ED). There are no current formalized recommendations or protocols to inform optimized clinical practice for managing children with mental health concerns in ED. To identify the state of services provided and strategies used to optimize care for children presenting to the ED with mental health concerns in North America. A systematic review was conducted using published literature from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane and CINAHL from January 2007 to March 2017 to identify publications using MeSH terms for mental health, pediatrics and emergency department. Strict inclusion criteria were used to evaluate the 3450 papers that were identified, following duplicate removal. 17 studies were found to meet the inclusion criteria of – first, children <18 years of age presenting to emergency departments in North America with mental health concerns were the study population, secondly, the services provided to these patients and their treatment outcomes were included in the analyses and reporting. Studies were not excluded based on study design, while studies that were not available in English were excluded. 16 studies were found through the systematic review of the above listed databases, while one study was identified through consulting the reference lists from the 16 studies. Of the 23 studies, two described characteristics of children’s mental health presentations, one described patient and caregiver perceptions and expectations of emergency department (ED) care, two examined the current state of mental health services in EDs, six discussed care and outcomes such as length of stay, lab testing, admission or return visits, eight addressed self-harm in children with mental health issues presenting to the emergency department and four examined the impact of strategies aimed at improving care. These reports indicated that, mood/anxiety disorders and suicidal ideation were the most common ED presentations, while suicidality was the most common reason for subsequent hospital admission. Furthermore, the mental health services available for pediatric psychiatry assessments showed significant heterogeneity. The length of stay in the ED was found to be increased by several factors: a rural site, a presenting history of suicidal ideation or self-injurious behavior, and laboratory investigations as part of the ED assessment. Studies also consistently reported that adding mental health staff, such as psychiatric nurses, in the ED care did not increase the costs of care. Finally, staff surveys following these additions showed improved perception of patient satisfaction, process efficacy and patient safety. This review indicates length of stay and characterization of the demographics of pediatric patients presenting for MH concerns as priorities for the published literature. Further, that the services for this population needs to be further characterized, with only four studies being identified to evaluate optimization strategies. These reports suggest the importance of considering strategies such as adding MH workers to ED care as an important method to potentially improve patient care and family satisfaction.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,018
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,048

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,045
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0060,008
Bibliométrie0,0180,017
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0040,003
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,105
Tête enseignante GPT0,506
Écart entre enseignants0,402 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child HealthMême sujetChild and Adolescent HealthTravaux en français237 207