Characterizing the inpatient care of young adults experiencing early psychosis: A medical record review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To characterize the inpatient care received by individuals experiencing early psychotic episodes in an inner city hospital. METHOD: Medical records of patients admitted between April 01, 2013, and March 31, 2015, to a psychiatric ward at an inner city hospital were retrospectively examined. Included in the study are patients who were 25 years of age or younger and were hospitalized for psychotic symptoms. Demographics and health service use were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 73 inpatients (mean age = 22; males =78%; Caucasian = 41%) met the study inclusion criteria with a combined total of 102 care episodes and an average length of stay of 32.6 days. Monitoring of vital signs (VS) and mental status examinations (MSE) were performed in most care episodes although these were not performed regularly (daily VS checks-31%; MSE every nursing shift-18.6%). In 49% of the care episodes, patients were discharged on long-acting injectable antipsychotics. Even when indicated, not all care episodes had follow-up appointments (82.8%) in the community. The use of seclusion was higher in the wards (32%) than in the emergency department (21%), whereas the use of restraints was higher in the emergency department (16%) than in the wards (<1%). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the rate at which various clinical care processes are performed and in the provision of inpatient care to younger adults experiencing episodes of early psychosis. Consistent standards of care are needed to reduce variations and improve treatment outcomes and experiences.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".