Patient and Provider Perspectives on Emergency Department Care Experiences among People with Mental Health Concerns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emergency departments (EDs) are an important source of care for people with mental health (MH) concerns. It can be challenging to treat MH in EDs, and there is little research capturing both patient and provider perspectives of these experiences. We sought to summarize the evidence on ED care experiences for people with MH concerns in North America, from both patient and provider perspectives. Medline and EMBASE were searched using PRISMA guidelines to identify primary studies. Two reviewers conducted a qualitative assessment of included papers and inductive thematic analysis to identify common emerging themes from patient and provider perspectives. Seventeen papers were included. Thematic analysis revealed barriers and facilitators to optimal ED care, which were organized into three themes each with sub-themes: (1) interpersonal factors, including communication, patient-staff interactions, and attitudes and behaviours; (2) environmental factors, including accommodations, wait times, and restraint use; and (3) system-level factors, including discharge planning, resources and policies, and knowledge and expertise. People with MH concerns and ED healthcare providers (HCPs) share converging perspectives on improving ED connections with community resources and diverging perspectives on the interplay between system-level and interpersonal factors. Examining both perspectives simultaneously can inform improvements in ED care for people with MH concerns.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".