{"title":"Psychiatric Emergency or General Emergency: Evolution or Involution? A Qualitative Study With Mental Health and Emergency Professionals","authors":"Camuccio Carlo Alberto, Zara Silvia","doi":"10.1111/inm.70063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":14007,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Mental Health Nursing","volume":"34 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/inm.70063","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Mental Health Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/inm.70063","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Mental Health Nursing is the official journal of the Australian College of Mental Health Nurses Inc. It is a fully refereed journal that examines current trends and developments in mental health practice and research.
The International Journal of Mental Health Nursing provides a forum for the exchange of ideas on all issues of relevance to mental health nursing. The Journal informs you of developments in mental health nursing practice and research, directions in education and training, professional issues, management approaches, policy development, ethical questions, theoretical inquiry, and clinical issues.
The Journal publishes feature articles, review articles, clinical notes, research notes and book reviews. Contributions on any aspect of mental health nursing are welcomed.
Statements and opinions expressed in the journal reflect the views of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Australian College of Mental Health Nurses Inc.