Patient and Health Care Provider Experiences With Suicide-Related Tele–Mental Health Evaluations in the Emergency Department: Multiphase Qualitative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Suicide is one of the most pressing public health issues in the United States, inflicting a devastating toll on families, communities, and society. Individuals with suicide risk often visit emergency departments (EDs), but the setting has chronic shortages in psychiatric care staffing, which results in gaps in best practices, prolonged length of stay for patients, and unnecessary inpatient admissions. To improve behavioral health care and suicide prevention practices, we implemented telehealth-based mental health evaluations with enhanced suicide care at 2 EDs in Massachusetts. Little is known about patient experiences and perceptions toward the appropriateness of telehealth for emergency mental health evaluations in the context of suicide prevention. OBJECTIVE: The goal of our qualitative study was to understand patient and health care provider experiences with the Telehealth to Improve Prevention of Suicide (TIPS) program and to gain insight into aspects of the implementation process. METHODS: We conducted 25 semistructured qualitative interviews with 10 patients who received a tele-mental health evaluation and 12 clinicians, including behavioral health and ED providers, whose clinical workflows included the new telehealth implementation. We used methods for rapid qualitative analysis and were guided by key implementation of a priori domains outlined in the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model framework. RESULTS: Patients and health care providers reported their perceptions of the patient care experiences and recommendations related to implementation. Patients' perspectives were highly varied, with several factors and priorities contributing to their views on tele-mental health in this setting. Overall, patients valued transparency and informed decision-making, which extended to having the option to choose between an in-person or telehealth evaluation. Health care providers generally felt that in-person evaluations were preferable; however, given the long wait times and staffing concerns, telehealth evaluations offered a strong alternative. Both patients and health care providers reported several recommendations for future implementation efforts, including increased support and information, communication throughout the process, and improving overall psychiatric care in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: Given current shortages in behavioral health care, emergency tele-mental health evaluations could provide an opportunity to reduce wait times and support the delivery of best practice suicide-related care. However, their implementation has the potential to exacerbate existing issues related to patient autonomy, therapeutic alliance, and care transitions. Our study contributes to filling a gap in knowledge related to patient and health care provider experiences of this telehealth service and describes factors that impact implementation, which may inform future care advances by clinicians and administrators.
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 | 0,015 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 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 ».