MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415550625 · doi:10.63564/jnep.v15n10p39

Early identification of mental health disorders: Using the mental health inventory-5 (MHI-5) in a free-standing emergency room

2025· article· W4415550625 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jesús E. Garćıa, Mandy Glikas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthAnxietyEmergency departmentAuditDistressDocumentationIdentification (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emotional distress in high-acuity emergency care settings is frequently underrecognized, resulting in missed opportunities for early behavioral health intervention. At a free-standing Emergency Room (ER) in a small, semi-urban city in a largely rural region of Texas, internal audits revealed a 100% miss rate for identifying adult patients with symptoms of depression or anxiety during triage. Professional guidelines, including recommendations from the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, emphasize routine mental health screening in emergency departments to improve patient safety and outcomes. National data indicate increasing psychiatric-related visits, particularly among youth, many of whom remain undiagnosed. Undiagnosed emotional distress also places additional burdens on emergency care providers managing complex physical presentations without awareness of underlying psychological factors. This highlights the critical need for structured mental health screening protocols in emergency settings to enhance early detection and support comprehensive patient care. This quality improvement project explored how embedding the Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5) screening tool into the intake process at a freestanding emergency department affected early detection of psychological distress in adults aged 18 and older. Over a nine-week implementation period, 710 of 2,583 eligible patients (27.5%) completed the screening. A total of 147 patients screened positive for psychological distress (20.7%); however, only 38 (25.9%) were documented in the electronic health record, reflecting a significant gap in follow-through. Staff noted increased awareness and confidence in addressing mental health concerns. The MHI-5 screening tool identified emotional needs not captured during routine triage. Recommendations include improving documentation workflows, adding EHR prompts, and continuing staff training to support consistent use.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.394 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→