Back

Understanding the burden and mitigating risks in the utilisation of the Emergency Medical Services in the management of community mental health emergencies

Howard, I.; Castle, N.; Al Shaikh, L.; Owen, R.

2021-11-29 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2021.11.28.21266975
Show abstract

IntroductionMental health disorders are highly prevalent globally with access to appropriate care oftentimes problematic. The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) have been suggested as a potential solution to improve access, however, it is unclear whether these services provide the most appropriate response with respect to the needs of patients experiencing a mental health emergency. MethodsA multi-method study was conducted to assess the current burden and potential risks associated with the transportation of patients experiencing a mental health emergency by EMS. Part 1 utilised a cross-sectional study of routinely collected clinical data for the period January 2018 to December 2019. Part 2 employed a systematic risk identification methodology focused on identifying the hazards associated with the transportation of this patient cohort, to identify key action plans towards mitigating their occurrence. ResultsPatients experiencing a mental health emergency were transported at an average rate of 11.96 per 1000 transports. Approximately 7% were administered prehospital sedation, with Ketamine administered as the most common sedative. Altogether, 50 potential hazards were identified involving the transportation of patients experiencing a mental health emergency. The Patient Assessment subprocess contained the most potential hazards/failure points (n=13). Risks categorized as occasional (n=33) and moderate (n=16) made up the majority. ConclusionThe burden of mental health emergencies on EMS is considerable, with the potential for several significant risks. Despite this, there was unequal focus on the development of care pathways and clinical guidance for this patient cohort compared with the more "traditional" case types serviced by EMS. Consequently, we identified several strategic-level action plans to mitigate these hazards and improve the delivery of care for these patients in the community.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 24%
17.5%
2
Frontiers in Public Health
based on 135 papers
Top 1%
10.5%
3
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 15%
7.8%
4
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
based on 10 papers
Top 0.1%
7.8%
5
BMC Health Services Research
based on 43 papers
Top 0.3%
7.8%
50% of probability mass above
6
PLOS Global Public Health
based on 287 papers
Top 9%
4.6%
7
JMIRx Med
based on 29 papers
Top 0.5%
4.6%
8
PLOS Medicine
based on 95 papers
Top 4%
2.9%
9
BMJ Open Quality
based on 15 papers
Top 1.0%
2.5%
10
BMC Psychiatry
based on 20 papers
Top 0.6%
2.5%
11
Journal of General Internal Medicine
based on 19 papers
Top 1%
2.3%
12
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
based on 10 papers
Top 0.1%
1.9%
13
BMJ Global Health
based on 95 papers
Top 8%
1.6%
14
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
based on 116 papers
Top 14%
1.6%
15
JMIR Formative Research
based on 31 papers
Top 3%
1.6%
16
eClinicalMedicine
based on 55 papers
Top 2%
1.4%
17
Journal of Medical Internet Research
based on 81 papers
Top 12%
1.2%
18
Psychiatry Research
based on 33 papers
Top 4%
1.2%
19
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
based on 16 papers
Top 4%
0.8%
20
Journal of Public Health
based on 23 papers
Top 4%
0.7%
21
Emergency Medicine Journal
based on 20 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
based on 11 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
23
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 21%
0.7%
24
Acta Neuropsychiatrica
based on 11 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
25
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
0.7%