↓ Skip to main content

Procedures for risk management and a review of crisis referrals from the MindSpot Clinic, a national service for the remote assessment and treatment of anxiety and depression

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
225 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
Procedures for risk management and a review of crisis referrals from the MindSpot Clinic, a national service for the remote assessment and treatment of anxiety and depression
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12888-015-0676-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olav Nielssen, Blake F. Dear, Lauren G. Staples, Rebecca Dear, Kathryn Ryan, Carol Purtell, Nickolai Titov

Abstract

The MindSpot Clinic (MindSpot) provides remote screening assessments and therapist-guided treatment for anxiety and depression to adult Australians. Most patients are self-referred. The purpose of this study was to report on the procedures followed to maintain the safety of patients and to examine the circumstances of urgent referrals to local services made by this remote mental health service. A description of the procedures used to manage risk, and an audit of case summaries of patients who were urgently referred for crisis intervention. The reported measures were scores on self-report scales of psychological distress (K-10) and depression (PHQ-9), the number reporting suicidal thoughts and plans, and the number of acute referrals. A total of 9061 people completed assessments and consented for analysis of their data in the year from 1 July, 2013 to 30 June, 2014. Of these, 2599 enrolled in online treatment at MindSpot, and the remainder were supported to access local mental health services. Suicidal thoughts were reported by 2366 (26.1 %) and suicidal plans were reported by 213 (2.4 %). There were 51 acute referrals, of whom 19 (37.3 %) lived in regional or remote locations. The main reason for referral was the patients' self-report of imminent suicidal intent. The police were notified in three cases, and in another case an ambulance attended after the patient reported taking an overdose. For the remaining acute referrals, MindSpot therapists were able to identify a local mental health service or a general practitioner, confirm receipt of a written case summary, and confirm that the patient had been contacted, or that the local service intended to contact the patient. Around 0.6 % of the people seeking assessment or treatment by MindSpot were referred to local mental health services for urgent face to face care. The procedures for identifying and managing those patients were satisfactory, and in every case, either emergency services or local mental health services were able to take over the patient's care. This review suggests that the uncertainty associated with taking responsibility for the remote treatment of patients who disclose active suicidal plans is not a major impediment to providing direct access online treatment for severe forms of anxiety and depression.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 224 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 12%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 10%
Researcher 18 8%
Other 36 16%
Unknown 66 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 63 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 8%
Social Sciences 19 8%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 16 7%
Unknown 71 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,456,836
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#3,892
of 4,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#279,777
of 387,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#62
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,698 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 387,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.