ArticleMilitary medicine2019
Implementation and Evaluation of a Military-Civilian Partnership to Train Mental Health Specialists.
Article in Military medicine, 2019. 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.
- Cross-training Social Workers to Work in a Psychiatric Emergency Service during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMental health specialists (MHS, or 68X) play a central role in meeting the growing demand for combat stress care among Service Members. Partnering with civilian institutions may enhance the MHS training experience beyond Advanced Individual Training (AIT).
methodsWe describe a novel military-civilian collaboration to train U.S. Army Reserve MHS's in the psychiatric emergency service (PES) of a public, safety-net hospital. Details of implementation are described. The training rotation was evaluated after 1 year through a comprehensive chart abstraction of patients seen as well as surveys of MHS's and civilian partners.
resultsThe roles of MHS and physician officers in this rotation are described. Over 9 days in the PES, the MHS team evaluated 26 patients. MHS's described a high-quality training environment (83% rated very good or excellent) in which they frequently saw high-risk patients relevant to military practice. Experience with a certain patient presentation was correlated with comfort assessing and managing that presentation (p < 0.01). Many civilian staff (40%) felt the PES operated better with the presence of the Army team and 50% of civilians agreed their impression of the U.S. Army Reserve improved as a result of the partnership. Hundred percent of specialists and 80% of civilians reported very good to excellent rapport between military and civilian staff. Two civilian respondents (11%) expressed concern that the military team's presence impeded patient care.
conclusionThis is the first military-civilian training collaboration for behavioral health specialists, who have already completed AIT. This program provided well-received and mission-relevant training for MHS's without notable adverse effects on patient care or team functioning in a civilian environment. Our findings are based on a small sample size, and no other such programs exist against which to compare these results. We propose that such educational partnerships, which have long been effective for other clinical specialists, may benefit the military, civilian communities, and the country.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.