远程医疗自杀评估与紧急拘留令(EOD)程序:系统回顾

Kathryn L. Diebold, Christopher Graham, Martine Laventure, NaKeisha Williams, S. Savani
{"title":"远程医疗自杀评估与紧急拘留令(EOD)程序:系统回顾","authors":"Kathryn L. Diebold, Christopher Graham, Martine Laventure, NaKeisha Williams, S. Savani","doi":"10.33790/jmhsb1100176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Emergency orders of detention (EOD) are used to hold potential suicidal individuals against their will. The COVID-19 pandemic altered the way these evaluations are conducted as virtual telehealth conferences became more frequently utilized. The purpose of this review is to identify screening practices of telehealth providers, describe assessment discrepancies used in telehealth versus in-person visits, and identify variance in EOD hospital admission rates. Methods: A systematic review of literature was conducted utilizing the PRISMA model. Five electronic databases were searched for articles related to suicide, EOD, and telehealth spanning from 2001 to 2021. Of the eight (n=8) articles returned by the search, three (n=3) met inclusion criteria. Results: Findings of this review reveal that there is virtually no research on standardized suicide screening tools used to make EOD determinations. Additionally, the research does not comment on discrepancies between suicide evaluations via telehealth or in-person. Research on telehealth evaluation and involuntary hospitalization rates is limited. Discussion: Little is described in the current research about the types of assessment tools used in the EOD process when conducted via telehealth. Overall, this review found that protecting citizens by telehealth EOD is noticeably under-researched.","PeriodicalId":179784,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mental Health and Social Behaviour","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Telehealth Suicide Assessment and The Emergency Order of Detention (EOD) Process: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Kathryn L. Diebold, Christopher Graham, Martine Laventure, NaKeisha Williams, S. Savani\",\"doi\":\"10.33790/jmhsb1100176\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Emergency orders of detention (EOD) are used to hold potential suicidal individuals against their will. The COVID-19 pandemic altered the way these evaluations are conducted as virtual telehealth conferences became more frequently utilized. The purpose of this review is to identify screening practices of telehealth providers, describe assessment discrepancies used in telehealth versus in-person visits, and identify variance in EOD hospital admission rates. Methods: A systematic review of literature was conducted utilizing the PRISMA model. Five electronic databases were searched for articles related to suicide, EOD, and telehealth spanning from 2001 to 2021. Of the eight (n=8) articles returned by the search, three (n=3) met inclusion criteria. Results: Findings of this review reveal that there is virtually no research on standardized suicide screening tools used to make EOD determinations. Additionally, the research does not comment on discrepancies between suicide evaluations via telehealth or in-person. Research on telehealth evaluation and involuntary hospitalization rates is limited. Discussion: Little is described in the current research about the types of assessment tools used in the EOD process when conducted via telehealth. Overall, this review found that protecting citizens by telehealth EOD is noticeably under-researched.\",\"PeriodicalId\":179784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Mental Health and Social Behaviour\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Mental Health and Social Behaviour\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33790/jmhsb1100176\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mental Health and Social Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33790/jmhsb1100176","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:紧急拘留令(EOD)被用来在违背潜在自杀者意愿的情况下拘留他们。COVID-19大流行改变了开展这些评估的方式,因为虚拟远程医疗会议得到了更频繁的利用。本综述的目的是确定远程医疗提供者的筛查做法,描述远程医疗与现场就诊中使用的评估差异,并确定EOD住院率的差异。方法:采用PRISMA模型对文献进行系统回顾。在五个电子数据库中搜索了2001年至2021年间与自杀、EOD和远程医疗相关的文章。在检索返回的8篇(n=8)文章中,3篇(n=3)符合纳入标准。结果:本综述的发现表明,几乎没有关于用于确定EOD的标准化自杀筛查工具的研究。此外,该研究没有评论通过远程医疗或面对面自杀评估之间的差异。关于远程医疗评估和非自愿住院率的研究有限。讨论:在目前的研究中,很少描述通过远程保健进行排爆过程中使用的评估工具类型。总的来说,这次审查发现,通过远程医疗EOD保护公民的研究明显不足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Telehealth Suicide Assessment and The Emergency Order of Detention (EOD) Process: A Systematic Review
Background: Emergency orders of detention (EOD) are used to hold potential suicidal individuals against their will. The COVID-19 pandemic altered the way these evaluations are conducted as virtual telehealth conferences became more frequently utilized. The purpose of this review is to identify screening practices of telehealth providers, describe assessment discrepancies used in telehealth versus in-person visits, and identify variance in EOD hospital admission rates. Methods: A systematic review of literature was conducted utilizing the PRISMA model. Five electronic databases were searched for articles related to suicide, EOD, and telehealth spanning from 2001 to 2021. Of the eight (n=8) articles returned by the search, three (n=3) met inclusion criteria. Results: Findings of this review reveal that there is virtually no research on standardized suicide screening tools used to make EOD determinations. Additionally, the research does not comment on discrepancies between suicide evaluations via telehealth or in-person. Research on telehealth evaluation and involuntary hospitalization rates is limited. Discussion: Little is described in the current research about the types of assessment tools used in the EOD process when conducted via telehealth. Overall, this review found that protecting citizens by telehealth EOD is noticeably under-researched.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Frustration, Examination, Appreciation: An Autoethnography of a Psychotherapist’s Work with a Challenging Patient The Essential Need to Clearly Define Addiction Criticism in Literature Studies Relieving Pandemic-Related Psychological Distress: Key Protective Factors Against Mental Health Impairment An Increasing Bilateral Advantage in Chinese Reading Challenges Faced by Mexican Americans when Accessing Mental Health Care Service Utilization along the South Texas – Mexico border
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1