↓ Skip to main content

No longer ‘flying blind’: how access has changed emergency mental health care in rural and remote emergency departments, a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
No longer ‘flying blind’: how access has changed emergency mental health care in rural and remote emergency departments, a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0839-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily Saurman, Sue E Kirby, David Lyle

Abstract

Mental health presentations are considered to be a difficult aspect of emergency care. Although emergency department (ED) staff is qualified to provide emergency mental health care, for some, such presentations pose a challenge to their training, confidence, and time. Providing access to relevant and responsive specialist mental health care can influence care and management for these patients. The Mental Health Emergency Care-Rural Access Program (MHEC-RAP) is a telepsychiatry program that was established to improve access to specialist emergency mental health care across rural and remote western NSW, Australia. This study uses interviews with ED providers to understand their experience of managing emergency mental health patients and their use of MHEC-RAP. The lens of access was applied to assess program impact and inform continuing program development. With MHEC-RAP, these ED providers are no longer 'flying blind'. They are also more confident to manage and care for emergency mental health patients locally. For these providers, access to specialists who are able to conduct assessments and provide relevant and responsive advice for emergency mental health presentations was valued. Assessing the fit between the consumer and service as a requirement for the development, evaluation, and ongoing management of the service should result in decisions about design and delivery that achieve improved access to care and meet the needs of their consumers. The experience of these providers prior to MHEC-RAP is consistent with that reported in other rural and remote populations suggesting that MHEC-RAP could address limitations in access to specialist care and change the provision of emergency mental health care elsewhere. MHEC-RAP has not only provided access to specialist mental health care for local ED providers, but it has changed their practice and perspective. MHEC-RAP could be adapted for implementation elsewhere. Provider experience confirms that the program is accessible and offers insights to those considering how to establish an emergency telepyschiatry service in other settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 7 7%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 26 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 23%
Psychology 7 7%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 28 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2015.
All research outputs
#13,082,469
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,376
of 7,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,660
of 264,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#58
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.