Individual, social and contextual factors associated with psychiatric care outcomes among patients with intellectual disabilities in the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) are disproportionately high users of psychiatric emergency services. Despite the demand for psychiatric assessments in the emergency department (ED), no clear guidelines have been established as to what factors should guide clinical decision-making processes. The current study aimed to explore individual, social and contextual factors related to psychiatric care outcomes among patients with ID in the emergency department. METHOD: Emergency department charts were reviewed for 66 individuals with ID who visited the emergency department during a psychiatric crisis. RESULTS: Standardised crisis severity scores were significantly higher in patients seen by psychiatrists as compared with patients who did not receive psychiatric consultations in the emergency department. A significantly greater proportion of patients with moderate or severe levels of ID (vs. borderline/mild) received psychiatric consultations. Emergency department visits resulting in inpatient hospital admission did not differ from those that did not, with the exception of the level of ID: patients admitted to psychiatric inpatient care were more likely to have moderate or severe levels of ID. CONCLUSIONS: The psychiatric care experiences of patients with ID in the emergency department appear highly variable. Further research focused on emergency department clinical decision-making practices concerning this population is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".