Exploring how to enhance care and pathways between the emergency department and integrated youth services for young people with mental health and substance use concerns.
Emergency department
Integrated youth services
Mental health
Substance use
Young people
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 May 2022
07 May 2022
Historique:
received:
07
01
2022
accepted:
20
04
2022
entrez:
7
5
2022
pubmed:
8
5
2022
medline:
11
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Integrated youth services (IYS) provide multidisciplinary care (including mental, physical, and social) prioritizing the needs of young people and their families. Despite a significant rise in emergency department (ED) visits by young Canadians with mental health and substance use (MHSU) concerns over the last decade, there remains a profound disconnect between EDs and MHSU integrated youth services. The first objective of this study was to better understand the assessment, treatment, and referral of young people (ages 12-24 years) presenting to the ED with MHSU concerns. The second objective was to explore how to improve the transition from the ED to IYS for young people with MHSU concerns. We conducted semi-structured one-on-one video and phone interviews with stakeholders in British Columbia, Canada in the summer of 2020. Snowball sampling was utilized, and participants (n = 26) were reached, including ED physicians (n = 6), social workers (n = 4), nurses (n = 2), an occupational therapist (n = 1); a counselor (n = 1); staff/leadership in IYS organizations (n = 4); mental health/family workers (n = 3); peer support workers (n = 2), and parents (n = 3). A thematic analysis (TA) was conducted using a deductive and inductive approach conceptually guided by the Social Ecological Model. We identified three overarching themes, and factors to consider at all levels of the Social Ecological Model. At the interpersonal level inadequate communication between ED staff and young people affected overall care and contributed to negative experiences. At the organizational level, we identified considerations for assessments and the ED and the hospital (wait times, staffing issues, and the physical space). At the community level, the environment of IYS and other community services were important including wait times and hours of operation. Policy level factors identified include inadequate communication between services (e.g., different charting systems and documentation). This study provides insight into important long-term systemic issues and more immediate factors that need to be addressed to improve the delivery of care for young people with MHSU challenges. This research supports intervention development and implementation in the ED for young people with MHSU concerns.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Integrated youth services (IYS) provide multidisciplinary care (including mental, physical, and social) prioritizing the needs of young people and their families. Despite a significant rise in emergency department (ED) visits by young Canadians with mental health and substance use (MHSU) concerns over the last decade, there remains a profound disconnect between EDs and MHSU integrated youth services. The first objective of this study was to better understand the assessment, treatment, and referral of young people (ages 12-24 years) presenting to the ED with MHSU concerns. The second objective was to explore how to improve the transition from the ED to IYS for young people with MHSU concerns.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted semi-structured one-on-one video and phone interviews with stakeholders in British Columbia, Canada in the summer of 2020. Snowball sampling was utilized, and participants (n = 26) were reached, including ED physicians (n = 6), social workers (n = 4), nurses (n = 2), an occupational therapist (n = 1); a counselor (n = 1); staff/leadership in IYS organizations (n = 4); mental health/family workers (n = 3); peer support workers (n = 2), and parents (n = 3). A thematic analysis (TA) was conducted using a deductive and inductive approach conceptually guided by the Social Ecological Model.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We identified three overarching themes, and factors to consider at all levels of the Social Ecological Model. At the interpersonal level inadequate communication between ED staff and young people affected overall care and contributed to negative experiences. At the organizational level, we identified considerations for assessments and the ED and the hospital (wait times, staffing issues, and the physical space). At the community level, the environment of IYS and other community services were important including wait times and hours of operation. Policy level factors identified include inadequate communication between services (e.g., different charting systems and documentation).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides insight into important long-term systemic issues and more immediate factors that need to be addressed to improve the delivery of care for young people with MHSU challenges. This research supports intervention development and implementation in the ED for young people with MHSU concerns.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35525965
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07990-8
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-07990-8
pmc: PMC9077976
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
615Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017 Jun;56(6):475-482.e4
pubmed: 28545752
J Psychoactive Drugs. 2003 Apr-Jun;35(2):253-9
pubmed: 12924748
Addict Behav. 2013 May;38(5):2146-53
pubmed: 23454877
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2020 Dec;29(6):1202-1217
pubmed: 32789961
Front Psychol. 2017 Oct 09;8:1756
pubmed: 29062296
Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2019 Sep 11;14(1):37
pubmed: 31511016
Int Emerg Nurs. 2021 Jul;57:101013
pubmed: 34134083
Glob Health Promot. 2021 Mar;28(1):51-59
pubmed: 33601961
Int J Ment Health Syst. 2019 Jul 23;13:52
pubmed: 31367230
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2010 Feb;26(2):99-106
pubmed: 20094002
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2017 May;44(3):405-412
pubmed: 26961781
Healthc Manage Forum. 2019 Mar;32(2):51-55
pubmed: 30799661
Child Care Health Dev. 2011 Nov;37(6):883-95
pubmed: 22007989
Ir J Psychol Med. 2015 Mar;32(1):71-77
pubmed: 30185279
Emerg Med Australas. 2021 Feb;33(1):74-81
pubmed: 32683792
Pediatrics. 2012 Aug;130(2):e321-7
pubmed: 22826567
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 May 24;20(1):455
pubmed: 32448175
Acad Emerg Med. 2021 May;28(5):542-552
pubmed: 33346926
J Pediatr (Rio J). 2017 Nov - Dec;93 Suppl 1:46-52
pubmed: 28886402
Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2018 Jul;27(3):413-425
pubmed: 29933791
Emerg Med Australas. 2022 Feb;34(1):78-84
pubmed: 34490720
Pediatrics. 2016 Sep;138(3):
pubmed: 27550977
Acad Emerg Med. 2018 Dec;25(12):1375-1384
pubmed: 29924893
Mol Psychiatry. 2022 Jan;27(1):281-295
pubmed: 34079068
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2016 Oct;32(10):658-663
pubmed: 26945191
Early Interv Psychiatry. 2022 Apr;16(4):410-418
pubmed: 34008340
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;53(10):1005-1038
pubmed: 30136192
Med J Aust. 2017 Nov 20;207(10):S5-S18
pubmed: 29129182
J Emerg Nurs. 2005 Aug;31(4):351-6
pubmed: 16126099