Urgent Psychiatric Services: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Urgent psychiatric services can provide timely access to ambulatory psychiatric assessment and short-term treatment for patients experiencing a mental health crisis or risk of rapid deterioration requiring hospitalization, yet little is known about how best to organize mental health service delivery for this population. Our scoping review was conducted to identify knowledge gaps and inform program development and quality improvement. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, and EBM Reviews for English-language articles, published from January 1993 to June 2014, using relevant key words and subject headings. Reverse and forward citations were manually searched using reference lists and Google Scholar. Articles were included if they described programs providing ambulatory psychiatric assessment (with or without treatment) within 2 weeks of referral. RESULTS: We identified 10 programs providing urgent psychiatric services. Programs targeted a diagnostically heterogeneous population with acute risks and intensive needs. Most programs included a structured process for triage, strategies to improve accessibility and attendance, interprofessional staffing, short-term treatment, and efforts to improve continuity of care. Despite substantial methodological limitations, studies reported improvements in symptom severity, distress, psychosocial functioning, mental health-related quality of life, subjective well-being, and satisfaction with care, as well as decreased wait times for post-emergency department (ED) ambulatory care, and averted ED visits and admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent psychiatric services may be an important part of the continuum of mental health services. Further work is needed to clarify the role of urgent psychiatric services, develop standards or best practices, and evaluate outcomes using rigorous methodologies.
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 | 0.011 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".