MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2802704252 · doi:10.1017/cem.2018.347

P149: Do patients presenting to the emergency department with a mental health crisis have access to community healthcare resources?

2018· article· en· W2802704252 on OpenAlexaff
C. Thompson, Shelley McLeod, Aislinn Sandre, Bjug Borgundvaag

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsSchwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentMental healthMedicineHealth careAnxietyFamily medicineDepression (economics)Medical emergencyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The emergency department (ED) is often the first point of access to the health care system for patients with an acute mental health crisis. Outpatient resources are limited, typically do not operate after hours, and patients and their families often lack sufficient information on where and how to access mental health services within their communities. The objective of this study was to determine which community healthcare resources patients attempted to access for their mental health condition prior to presenting to the ED. Methods: Between April 2016 to June 2017, a convenience sample of adult ( 18 years) patients presenting to an academic ED (annual census 65,000) with a mental health complaint were invited to complete a 23-item, paper-based survey. The questionnaire was pilot-tested and peer-reviewed for feasibility and comprehension. Results: Of the 200 patients who completed the survey, mean (SD) age was 37 (16) years and 96 (48%) were male. 20 (10%) patients were brought to the ED involuntarily by police services. 175 (88%) had been previously diagnosed with a mental health condition, the most common being depression and/or anxiety (n=134, 67%). 47 (24%) patients indicated they were currently only connected to a primary care provider, while 94 (47%) patients indicated they had existing relationships with multiple mental healthcare providers. 117 (59%) patients attempted to see an alternative healthcare provider prior to coming to the ED. 78 (39%) patients had a pending scheduled appointment with a healthcare provider for their mental health condition, 44 (56%) of which were within 7 days of their ED visit, but chose to seek care in the ED. 38 (19%) patients either had a referral with no appointment date set, or had an impending mental health appointment scheduled more than 30 days from their ED visit. Conclusion: These findings suggest that most patients seeking ED care during a mental health crisis do so despite being connected to alternative healthcare providers and outpatient services. Future studies should attempt to determine reasons why patients with mental health conditions seek care in the ED, and examine barriers to mental health care in the community and outpatient setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Emergency Medicine→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→