ArticleBMC health services research2024
'We tried our best... it wasn't great': a qualitative study of clinician experiences on child psychiatry wards at the height of COVID-19.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Changing public health and hospital protocols during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic shaped the provision of inpatient mental health care. While a growing body of research explores the challenges of restrictions on adult psychiatric wards, the impact on clinical teams and epidemiological trends in youth mental health, no research has explored inpatient psychiatric hospital services for child and adolescent psychiatry during the pandemic. This study seeks to understand how clinicians in Canada working in child and adolescent mental health wards experienced caring for their patients while navigating pandemic hospital restrictions. Following a qualitative descriptive methodology and also drawing on institutional ethnography we generated data using two methods: 1) an online survey of clinicians across the country asking about experiences providing care and COVID restrictions and 2) in-depth, semi-structured interviews with clinicians. Data from 54 surveys and 14 interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis yielding two major themes. First, clinicians felt that clinical care was compromised with likely impact on patient outcomes. Second, respondents reported that the context of the pandemic provoked tensions and resistance within the clinical teams and the institution. Our findings have important implications not only for future public health crises, but also for rethinking how psychiatric care is provided and prioritized. This study points to the need for 1) mechanisms which support collaborative decision making at the institutional level, to ensure regulations are more flexible and can adapt to the needs of child mental health patients; and 2) that child psychiatry prioritize generating spaces of ethical reflection for clinical teams and institutional decision-makers so that paternalism does not trump principles of primum non-nocere (first, do no harm), autonomy and reciprocity.
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.