Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32917199›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Implementation of three innovative interventions in a psychiatric emergency department aimed at improving service use: a mixed-method study.

Morgane Gabet, Guy Grenier, Zhirong Cao, Marie-Josée Fleury

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Emergency Department Use among Patients with Mental Health Problems: Profiles, Correlates, and Outcomes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Morgane GabetManagement, Evaluation and Health Policies Department, School of Public Health, Université de Montréal, 7101 av. du Parc, Montreal, QC, H3X1X9, Canada.
Guy GrenierResearch Center, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, 6875 LaSalle Blvd, Montreal, QC, H4H 1R3, Canada.
Zhirong CaoResearch Center, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, 6875 LaSalle Blvd, Montreal, QC, H4H 1R3, Canada.
Marie-Josée FleuryManagement, Evaluation and Health Policies Department, School of Public Health, Université de Montréal, 7101 av. du Parc, Montreal, QC, H3X1X9, Canada. flemar@douglas.mcgill.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4743-8611
Douglas Mental Health University Institute · CA

Funding

Fonds de soutien à l'innovation en santé et en services sociaux (FISSS) 8400819
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmergency department (ED) use is often viewed as an indicator of health system quality. ED use for mental health (MH) reasons is increasing and costly for health systems, patients, and their families. Patients with mental disorders (MD) including substance use disorders (SUD) and suicidal behaviors are high ED users. Improving ED services for these patients and their families, and developing alternatives to ED use are thus key issues. This study aimed to: (1) describe the implementation of three innovative interventions provided by a brief intervention team, crisis center team, and family-peer support team in a Quebec psychiatric ED, including the identification of implementation barriers, and (2) evaluate the impacts of these ED innovations on MH service use and response to needs.

methodUsing mixed methods with data triangulation, the implementation and impact of the three above-named ED interventions were studied. Quantitative data were collected from 101 participants (81 patients, 20 family members) using a user questionnaire and patient medical records. Qualitative data were gathered from focus groups (n = 3) with key intervention staff members (n = 14). The user questionnaire also included open-ended questions. Descriptive, comparative and content analyses were produced.

resultsKey implementation issues were identified in relation to system, organizational and patient profiles, similar to results identified in most studies in the ED implementation literature aimed at improving responsiveness to patients with MD. Results were encouraging, as the innovations had a significant impact for improved patient MH service use and adequacy of care. Services also seemed adapted to patient profiles. Family members were grateful for the help received in the ED.

conclusionsBefore implementing innovations, managers need to recognize the basic issues common to all new healthcare interventions: the need for staff training and strong involvement, particularly among physicians, development of collaborative tools especially in cases of potential cultural clash between staff and organizations, and continuous quality assessment. Future research needs to confirm the pertinence of these interventions, especially use of family-peer support teams in ED, as a highly innovative intervention. Broader ED strategies could also be deployed to improve MH services and decrease ED use for MH reasons.

Indexed as

AdultCrisis InterventionEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMental DisordersMental Health ServicesMiddle AgedQuebecSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultBrief intervention teamCrisis center teamEmergency department useFamily-peer support teamImplementationInnovationMental disordersPatient outcomes

Identifiers

PMID32917199
PMCPMC7488576
OpenAlexW3085612923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.