Emergency department care experience of suicidal patients: A qualitative analysis of patients’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Individuals experiencing suicidal ideation or behavior frequently seek assistance at the emergency department (ED), yet the care they receive does not consistently align with their needs. This study explores the ED care experience of suicidal patients from their own perspective and offers recommendations to improve ED care for this population. METHOD: This qualitative study uses a descriptive interpretative design. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 7 individuals who sought care in an ED due to suicidal ideation or behavior. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Participants' experiences were marked by an unsuited physical environment described as uncomfortable, noisy, and depressing. The organization of care was perceived as inadequate as patients complained about limited front-line access to mental health expertise, long waiting times, overworked staff, and inequities between patients with physical injuries and those with mental health concerns. Participants reported feelings of being trapped, left on their own and mistreated during their ED stay. Most found their care experience unhelpful or distressing, leaving them reluctant to reconsult. Specific recommendations based on patients' testimonials and literature are provided to enhance the ED care experience of suicidal patients. CONCLUSION: This study highlights several areas for improvement of the ED care experience of suicidal patients. Changes in current practices are needed to offer suicidal patients the satisfying care experience they deserve.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".