ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Variability in documentation of neurological and psychiatric examinations among emergency department patients with behavioral health-related presentations: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Emergency departments (EDs) serve as a critical safety net for individuals experiencing acute behavioral health crises, a population that faces substantial medical morbidity and well-documented disparities in healthcare delivery. Thorough physical and neuropsychiatric assessment is essential in this setting to identify medical conditions that may mimic or exacerbate psychiatric symptoms. Incomplete documentation of these assessments may reflect gaps in care processes and represent a potential marker of inequity. Objective: To characterize the completeness of documented neurological and psychiatric examinations among adult ED patients presenting with primary behavioral health-related chief complaints and to assess whether documentation patterns suggest persistent gaps in standardized evaluation. Methods: We conducted a retrospective electronic medical record review of adult patients presenting to a large, urban academic ED between May 2020 and May 2021 with behavioral health-related chief complaints requiring medical clearance prior to psychiatric evaluation. Documentation of neurological and psychiatric examination components was systematically abstracted using predefined operational definitions. Results: Of 1,613 screened encounters, 507 met inclusion criteria (mean age 39.1 ± 14 years; 66.7% male; 49.7% African American). Suicidal ideation was the most common presenting complaint (49.9%), and 55.0% of patients presented voluntarily. A general neurological or mental status examination was documented in 94.5% of encounters; however, specific neurological components such as Glasgow Coma Scale (9.3%) and deep tendon reflexes (1.4%) were infrequently recorded. Psychiatric examinations were documented in 63.3% of cases, with behavioral observations most commonly reported and cognition and memory least frequently assessed. Conclusions: Documentation of neurological and psychiatric examinations for ED patients with primary behavioral health presentations remains inconsistent, particularly for specific examination components. When documentation is used as a surrogate for care processes, these findings suggest variability in the thoroughness of evaluation for a vulnerable population. Establishing standardized, evidence-based expectations for neuropsychiatric assessment and documentation in the ED may represent an important step toward improving patient safety and promoting equity in emergency psychiatric care.
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.