ArticleInternational journal of mental health nursing2025
Psychiatric Emergency or General Emergency: Evolution or Involution? A Qualitative Study With Mental Health and Emergency Professionals.
Article in International journal of mental health nursing, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The treatment of individuals with psychiatric disorders who visit the Emergency Department (ED) remains a significant issue within healthcare organisations. Over the past decades, various organisational solutions have been proposed, ranging from dedicated Emergency Departments to liaison mechanisms involving mental health nurses within EDs or direct access to acute units. On one hand, there are clinical and organisational needs pushing towards the creation of dedicated pathways; on the other hand, there are concerns that such solutions may be counterproductive and dangerous in terms of health and social inclusion. The aim of this study is to assess the opinions of Mental Health and Emergency professionals on the advantages and disadvantages of clinical and organisational pathways dedicated to patients with psychiatric disorders who visit the general ED. The study was conducted using a qualitative research approach: semi-structured interviews were carried out through purposeful sampling composed of two cohorts: Emergency and Mental Health professionals. The data were analysed using content analysis with the software Atlas.ti. Forty-five interviews were collected, and six main themes/families were identified. A certain distance in opinions between the two cohorts emerged, especially regarding the adoption of dedicated pathways. In both cohorts, but particularly in the mental health cohort, there is a fear of stigmatisation and violation of patients' rights in dedicated pathways. Both groups believe that there is a need for more specific training and greater multidisciplinarity. This study adheres to the COREQ checklist for qualitative studies.
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.