Reducing treatment delays of first episode psychosis through policy in Canada: a mixed methods analysis of service provider perspectives
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Young people with a first episode of psychosis can achieve full remission with prompt treatment. Throughout Canada, early psychosis intervention programs are implementing policies to ensure timely delivery of services. One of Canada’s first early intervention services, the Prevention and Early Intervention for Psychosis program, set the guideline that all youth referred should receive an appointment within 72 hours. The availability of early intervention programs has increased significantly but the standards these programs have adopted to ensure timely delivery of services remains unknown. Objectives This project aims to identify the policies and practices in early intervention programs that ensure timely delivery of services. Secondly, the project aims to understand the level of awareness of the 72-hour recommendation and the level of adoption of this recommendation. Thirdly, the project aims to identify the factors that facilitate and hinder a program’s ability to reach and maintain their benchmarks for timely delivery of services. Methods Participants included 17 service delivery providers from four early intervention programs located in socio-culturally distinct regions in Canada. Participants completed a survey about their program’s service delivery policies and practices. We led individual semi-structured interviews with seven service providers to identify the barriers and facilitators to delivering timely care. We conducted frequency analyses of the survey data and thematic analysis of the interviews to identify emerging themes. Results Forty-one percent of survey respondents indicated that their program implemented formal policies to minimize the delay to the first appointment, with benchmarks ranging from 72 hours to 12 weeks. The majority of program managers interviewed were aware of the 72-hour benchmark, voiced satisfaction with standards, and felt that establishing standards was helpful to delivering quality services. Average time between referral and first appointment ranged from 10 days to 12 weeks; however, more than half of survey respondents were unaware of the average delay in their program. Notable barriers to implementation included patient non-responsiveness, insufficient staffing, and missing patient contact information from referrals. The service providers reported engaged staff, flexible schedules, and team-based care as facilitators to meeting service delivery benchmarks. Conclusions Benchmarks such as the 72-hour recommendation are an excellent step in improving timeliness of delivery of early intervention services. Common barriers to meeting benchmarks, such as patient adherence and staff resources may be difficult to overcome; however, implementing standardized referral forms and processes, increasing staff engagement, providing flexible schedules, and encouraging team-based care could improve timely delivery of services. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,021 | 0,047 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».