Enabling Expedited Disposition of Emergencies Using Telepsychiatry in Israel: Protocol for a Hybrid Implementation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Telepsychiatry is the use of virtual communication, such as a video link, to deliver mental health assessment, treatment, and follow-up. Previous studies have shown telepsychiatry to be feasible, accurate compared with in-person practice, and satisfying for psychiatrists and patients. Telepsychiatry has also been associated with reduced waiting times for evaluation and, in some studies, lower admission rates. However, most previous studies focused on using telepsychiatry in community settings and not on involuntary admission. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness and implementation process of patient assessment for involuntary admissions in the psychiatric emergency department (ED) using a video link. METHODS: This type 1 hybrid implementation study will examine telepsychiatry effectiveness and the implementation process, by comparing telepsychiatry (n=240) with historical controls who had a face-to-face evaluation (n=240) during the previous, usual care period in 5 psychiatric EDs in Israel. A temporary waiver of the standing policy requiring in-person evaluations only, for the purpose of research, was obtained from the Israeli Ministry of Health. During the telepsychiatry phase, clinical staff and patients will join a video call from the ED, while the attending physician will log in elsewhere. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework will guide the evaluation of the telepsychiatry implementation process in the ED. PARIHS has the following 3 constructs: (1) evidence: staff's opinions regarding the innovation's viability and practicality, their satisfaction levels with its use, and patients' perceptions of the change; (2) context: level of approval of new strategies in the ED, decision-making processes, and the manner in which clinical teams converse and work together; (3) facilitation: adequacy of the facilitation efforts using champions reports. Primary clinical outcomes include ED length of stay and violent incidents obtained from medical records. RESULTS: This study received Helsinki approval from the Ethics Committee of Abarbanel Mental Health Center (174; March 13, 2023), Jerusalem Mental Health Center (22-21; November 6, 2022), Lev-Hasharon Mental Health Medical Center (LH12023; February 12, 2023), Tel-Aviv Medical Center (TLV-22-0656; January 3, 2023), and Sha'ar Menashe (1-4-23; April 18, 2023). Data collection began in July 2023 in 2 study sites and will begin soon at the others. CONCLUSIONS: Telepsychiatry could have significant benefits for patients in the psychiatric ED. Examining telepsychiatry effectiveness in the ED, in addition to identifying the facilitators and barriers of implementing it in different emergency settings, will facilitate better policy decisions regarding its implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05771545; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05771545. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/49405.
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 | 0.058 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.011 |
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".