871 – One Year Prospective Study Of Service Utilization Following Adolescent Psychiatric Urgent Clinic Assessment And Brief Intervention: Preliminary Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction A full time urgent consult clinic was opened for adolescents presenting with risk to self or others. To date these adolescents have presented to ERs, held in the ER or admitted to the ward added to waitlists. This study is a part of a 1 year outcome study to examine whether urgent assessment and brief crisis intervention reduce ER visits, admissions and reduce the waiting lists. Aims a) examine 3 month outcome after urgent clinic assessment b) examine variables that may affect outcome c) examine effect of urgent consult assessment and intervention on ER visits, admission, repeat presentation and waitlist for other child and adolescent psychiatric outpatient clinics. Method Adolescents 12 -17 years of age seen in the UCC will be given information sheet and consent form to participate. Data will be gathered on demographic variables and a number of other pertinent variables including reason for referral, suicidality previous contact with MH services, past psychiatric history, family history of psychiatric disorders, diagnosis and management. The patients will complete a mental health screen, CDI and Connors Questionnaire Parents will complete the CBCL. The data will be checked against ER contact,admissions and wait lists at 3 month post assessment. Data analysis will be conducted using SPSS. Results It is expected that there will be a decrease in the number of adolescents presentating to the ERs, a reduction in ER admission to the ward and a decrease in the numbers of patients on the Outpatient wait list.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".