MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283207825 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20210135

Physicians’ perspectives on processes for emergency mental health transfers from university health clinics to hospitals in Ontario, Canada: a qualitative analysis

2022· article· en· W4283207825 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Andrea Chittle, Shane Neilson, Gina Nicoll, Juveria Zaheer

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WaterlooRegional Municipality of WaterlooCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthHarmQualitative researchMedicineFamily medicineTelephone interviewNursingPsychologyPsychiatrySociologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In Ontario, Canada, there is variability in how students experiencing a mental health crisis are transferred from university health clinics to hospital for emergent psychiatric assessment, particularly regarding police involvement and physical restraint use. We sought to understand existing processes for these transfers, and barriers to and facilitators of change. METHODS: Between July 2018 and January 2019, we conducted semistructured qualitative interviews by telephone or in person with physicians working at Ontario university health clinics. We developed the interview guide by integrating an extensive literature review, and the expertise of stakeholders and people with lived experience. We analyzed the interview transcripts thematically. Analysis was informed by participant responses to a questionnaire exploring their perspectives about crisis transfer processes. We requested institutional policy and process documents to support analysis and generate a policy summary. RESULTS: Eleven physicians (9 family physicians and 2 psychiatrists) from 9 university health clinics were interviewed. Ten of the 11 completed questionnaires. Policy and process documents were obtained from 5 clinics. There was variation in processes for emergency mental health transfers and in clinicians' experiences with and beliefs about these processes. Police were commonly involved in transfers from 7 of the 11 clinics, and in nearly all or all transfers from 5 of the 11 clinics. Handcuffs were always or almost always used during transfer at 2 clinics. Three major themes were identified: police involvement and restraint use can cause harm; clinical considerations are used to justify police involvement and restraint use; and pragmatic, nonclinical factors often inform transfer practices. INTERPRETATION: The involvement of police and use of restraints in crisis mental health transfers to hospital were related to pragmatic, extramedical factors in some university health clinics in Ontario. Exploring existing variability and the factors that sustain potentially harmful practices can facilitate standard implementation of less invasive and traumatizing transfer processes.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0220.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207