Emergency Psychiatric Services for Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities: Perspectives of Hospital Staff
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strains on the mainstream mental health system can result in inaccessible services that force individuals with intellectual disabilities into the emergency room (ER) when in psychiatric crisis. The purpose of this study was to identify clinical and systemic issues surrounding emergency psychiatry services for people with intellectual disabilities, from the perspective of hospital staff. Focus groups were conducted with emergency psychiatry staff from 6 hospitals in Toronto, Canada. Hospital staff reported a lack of knowledge regarding intellectual disabilities and a shortage of available community resources. Hospital staff argued that caregivers need more community and respite support to feel better equipped to deal with the crisis before it escalates to the ER and that hospital staff feel ill prepared to provide the necessary care when the ER is the last resort. Input from hospital staff pointed to deficiencies in the system that lead caregivers to use the ER when other options have been exhausted. Both staff and caregivers need support and access to appropriate services if the system is to become more effective at serving the psychiatric needs of this complex population.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 it