Raising Our HEADSS: Adolescent Psychosocial Documentation in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of a chart stamp featuring the acronym "HEADSS" (Home, Education, Alcohol, Drugs, Smoking, Sex) at improving adolescent psychosocial documentation in the emergency department (ED) chart. METHODS: The study sample consisted of ten emergency physicians. The ED charts of 306 adolescent patients (aged 13-18 years) completed by these physicians were surveyed. An analysis of ED chart psychosocial documentation was conducted that compared a six-week control phase (with no chart stamp) with a four-week intervention phase (with a chart stamp featuring the HEADSS acronym). Presenting complaints in the ED, psychosocial documentation in the ED, and information from past medical records were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The ED charts surveyed consisted of 153 charts from each phase. HEADSS documentation ranged from 8% to 12% in the intervention phase and 0% to 7% in the control phase. Emergency physicians were more likely to document the topics of education (p = 0.029), alcohol (p = 0.045), and smoking (p = 0.009) as well as whether the patient was interviewed alone (p = 0.0001) in the intervention phase charts. Documentation of a detailed psychosocial assessment (>4/6 HEADSS topics addressed; p = 0.003) was more likely during the intervention phase. CONCLUSIONS: The HEADSS stamp is useful in prompting psychosocial documentation in the ED chart. Further study is needed to determine whether routine use of the HEADSS stamp technique can improve the detection and management of adolescent psychosocial problems.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".