Mental health practitioners' experiences and practices in making decisions about onward care for patients presenting to emergency departments with self-harm or suicidal ideation: systematic review and meta-synthesis

精神卫生从业人员在对因自残或自杀意念而到急诊科就诊的患者做出后续治疗决策方面的经验和实践:系统评价和荟萃分析

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Emergency department mental health practitioners (MHPs) decide onward care for individuals presenting with self-harm or suicidal ideation. However, their experiences and practices in making these decisions remain underexplored. AIMS: To synthesise research on MHPs' experiences and practices in making decisions about onward care for patients presenting to emergency departments with self-harm or suicidal ideation. METHOD: We searched six databases (inception to July 2024) for empirical studies of MHPs making care decisions for self-harm or suicidal patients in emergency departments. We used a segregated mixed-methods design, applying narrative synthesis of quantitative data and thematic synthesis of qualitative data. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included (one quantitative, one mixed-methods, nine qualitative). Narrative synthesis of quantitative data produced two themes: (a) subjective decision-making and variability among MHPs and (b) impact of the institutional mandate to discharge within 4 h on referral outcomes. Thematic synthesis of qualitative data generated five themes: (a) risk-centric culture is anti-therapeutic and shapes defensive practice, scepticism toward patients and burnout; (b) time and environmental pressures impact therapeutic potential of assessments; (c) 'battling' to access services: gatekeeping, cycles of repeat attendances affecting patient safety and staff moral injury; (d) strategies to facilitate access and extending care to overcome challenges in the emergency department and (e) potential for training to counter negative attitudes and stereotypes. CONCLUSIONS: Intersecting institutional, systemic and emotional pressures shape MHPs' practices, undermining assessment quality and access to care. System-level reforms and training should promote relational, compassionate care. Limited quantitative evidence restricted integration, and the review reflects high-income Western settings.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。