MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387311054 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v15n10p73

Factors Influencing Nurses' Decisions in Using a Mental Health Triage Scale: A Review

2023· review· en· W4387311054 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Faisal Mohammed Alnakhilan, Shrouq Salem Alqhtani, Sultan G Alzahrani, Khalid Awaidh Alharbi, Awatif Salem Alqhtani

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLTriagePsycINFOMental healthCritical appraisalThematic analysisQualitative researchMedicineNursingMEDLINEPsychologyScale (ratio)Emergency departmentMedical educationPsychological interventionPsychiatryAlternative medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise evidence regarding ED nurses’ decision-making when applying a mental health triage scale. The review sought to answer the question: What factors influence ED nurses’ decisions and decision-making process in applying a mental health triage scale? The views, attitudes and experiences of mental health triage nurses performing triages for patients with mental health presentations in emergency department settings were examined in a systematic review of published and peer-reviewed qualitative research articles. CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and EMBASE were used to find published works from 2013 to 2022. After reading the title and abstract, the whole text of relevant research was obtained. The results of the included papers were analysed using the thematic content and narrative analysis approach, and critical appraisal of the quality of included articles was carried out using CASP. Sub-themes and themes were created by collapsing emerging patterns and codes. A total of eight full-text studies were included in the review. All the eight articles were qualitative studies conducted in six different countries and published in peer-reviewed journals. The total sample in the included articles consisted of 135 emergency department triage nurses with semi-structured and focus groups used in data collection. The methodological quality of the articles varied, with scores ranging from 16 to 18 out of 20. Three main themes emerged from the systematic review. From the ED triage nurses’ points of view, factors affecting triage decision making for patients with mental health presentations were “nurse-related”, “workplace-related”, and “patient-related”. This is the first systematic review summarising the evidence of the factors affecting ED triage nurses’ decision-making involving patients with mental health presentations. The findings suggest that the nurse as an individual (personally and professional), the workplace (social, structural and architectural environment), and the patient as an individual (safety, risk, acuity and behaviour) affect the quality of nursing decision-making in applying mental health triage scales. Ongoing review of the literature in this area is important to provide further evidence to inform nursing policy, practice, education and further research.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.263
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→