ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2014
Computerization of Mental Health Integration complexity scores at Intermountain Healthcare.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond Diagnosis and Comorbidities-A Scoping Review of the Best Tools to Measure Complexity for Populations with Mental Illness.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intermountain Healthcare's Mental Health Integration (MHI) Care Process Model (CPM) contains formal scoring criteria for assessing a patient's mental health complexity as "mild," "medium," or "high" based on patient data. The complexity score attempts to assist Primary Care Physicians in assessing the mental health needs of their patients and what resources will need to be brought to bear. We describe an effort to computerize the scoring. Informatics and MHI personnel collaboratively and iteratively refined the criteria to make them adequately explicit and reflective of MHI objectives. When tested on retrospective data of 540 patients, the clinician agreed with the computer's conclusion in 52.8% of the cases (285/540). We considered the analysis sufficiently successful to begin piloting the computerized score in prospective clinical care. So far in the pilot, clinicians have agreed with the computer in 70.6% of the cases (24/34).
Indexed as
Identifiers
25954401PMC4419948What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.