Conectar
To evaluate the effectiveness of a mental health screening form for early identification and care escalation of mental health issues in general settings. A secondary aim was to explore general nurses' use of the form and their confidence to discuss mental health issues with patients.
A cross-sectional design comprising a review of clinical records to determine use of the form, instances of missed care and escalation to the mental health team. The survey focused on nurses' confidence in general settings to engage in discussions with patients about mental health. Data were collected from April to December 2022. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Statement guided this study.
Of 400 patient records, 397 were analysed; 293 (73.8%) of those had mental health screening by nurses. Age was a significant factor, with younger patients more likely to be screened although concerns were typically recognized in older patients. Of the 20 patients identified with mental health concerns, 9 (45%) were referred for further evaluation by the Clinical Liaison Team. While nurses were proactive in assessing physical risks, assessing risk factors that required deeper conversations with patients, including psychiatric history, was lacking. The survey highlighted fewer than half of the respondents (46%, n = 10) felt competent to engage in discussions about mental health; however, most (59%, n = 13) knew when to seek a mental health referral.
General nurses have a role in the early identification and referral of patients with mental health challenges. However, training is imperative to facilitate deeper patient interactions concerning mental health. Integrating mental health checks within general settings is crucial for early detection and intervention, aligning with global quality care standards.
STROBE guidelines.
We received feedback that shaped the research protocol from a consumer representative.
To evaluate oxygen saturation and vital signs measured in the community by emergency medical services (EMS) as clinical markers of COVID-19-positive patient deterioration.
A retrospective data analysis.
Patients were conveyed by EMS to two hospitals in Hampshire, UK, between 1 March 2020 and 31 July 2020.
A total of 1080 patients aged ≥18 years with a COVID-19 diagnosis were conveyed by EMS to the hospital.
The primary study outcome was admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) within 30 days of conveyance, with a secondary outcome representing mortality within 30 days of conveyance. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to evaluate, in a retrospective fashion, the efficacy of different variables in predicting patient outcomes.
Vital signs measured by EMS staff at the first point of contact in the community correlated with patient 30-day ICU admission and mortality. Oxygen saturation was comparably predictive of 30-day ICU admission (area under ROC (AUROC) 0.753; 95% CI 0.668 to 0.826) to the National Early Warning Score 2 (AUROC 0.731; 95% CI 0.655 to 0.800), followed by temperature (AUROC 0.720; 95% CI 0.640 to 0.793) and respiration rate (AUROC 0.672; 95% CI 0.586 to 0.756).
Initial oxygen saturation measurements (on air) for confirmed COVID-19 patients conveyed by EMS correlated with short-term patient outcomes, demonstrating an AUROC of 0.753 (95% CI 0.668 to 0.826) in predicting 30-day ICU admission. We found that the threshold of 93% oxygen saturation is prognostic of adverse events and of value for clinician decision-making with sensitivity (74.2% CI 0.642 to 0.840) and specificity (70.6% CI 0.678 to 0.734).
by Miranda R. Chilver, Richard A. Burns, Ferdi Botha, Peter Butterworth
Self-report measures are widely used in mental health research and may use different recall periods depending on the purpose of the assessment. A range of studies aiming to monitor changes in mental health over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic opted to shorten recall periods to increase sensitivity to change over time compared to standard, longer recall periods. However, many of these studies lack pre-pandemic data using the same recall period and may rely on pre-existing data using standard recall periods as a reference point for assessing the impact of the pandemic on mental health. The aim of this study was to assess whether comparing scores on the same questionnaire with a different recall period is valid. A nationally representative sample of 327 participants in Australia completed a 7-day and 30-day version of the six-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and a single-item measure of psychological distress (TTPN item) developed for the Taking the Pulse of the Nation survey. Linear mixed models and mixed logistic regression models were used to assess whether altering the recall period systematically changed response patterns within subjects. No substantive recall period effects were found for the K6 or the TTPN, although there was a trend towards higher K6 scores when asked about the past 30 days compared to the past 7 days (b = 1.00, 95% CI: -0.18, 2.17). This may have been driven by the “feeling nervous” item which was rated higher using the 30-day compared to the 7-day recall period. Neither the K6 nor the TTPN item were significantly affected by the recall period when reduced to a binary variable of likely severe mental illness. The results indicate that altering the recall period of psychological distress measures does not substantively alter the score distribution in the general population of Australian adults.
FreshRSS 