Cited by 149Psychiatric care and mental health servicesHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsMental Health and Patient Involvement

What do consumers say they want and need during a psychiatric emergency?

ALLEN, MICHAEL H., CARPENTER, DANIEL, SHEETS, JOHN L., MICCIO, STEVEN, ROSS, RUTH·2003·Journal of Psychiatric Practice

Abstract

Behavioral emergencies are a common and serious problem for consumers, their families and communities, and the healthcare providers on whom they rely for help. In recent years, serious concerns about the management of behavioral and psychiatric emergencies-in particular, the misapplication and overuse of physical and chemical restraints and seclusion-have become a focus of attention for mental health professionals and policy makers as well as for the lay public, the media, and patient advocacy organizations. Policy leaders and clinicians are searching for ways to balance the rights of consumers with considerations of safety and good care in an area in which it is difficult to conduct research. A survey of mental health professionals who are experts on the treatment of psychiatric and behavioral emergencies identified consumer input and collaboration between patient and clinician whenever possible as being extremely important in achieving the best short-term and particularly the best long-term outcomes for patients. The survey of consumer perspectives described in this article was undertaken in response to the need to better understand consumer experiences and preferences. The authors describe four emergency services forums conducted in 2002, which involved a total of 59 consumers. Each forum involved a written consumer survey as well as a workshop to develop and prioritize recommendations for improving psychiatric emergency care. The authors present the results of the consumer survey and summarize the top recommendations from the workshops. In both the survey and the workshops, the consumers repeatedly stressed the importance of having staff treat them with respect, talk to them, listen to them, and involve them in treatment decisions. There were a number of important areas of agreement between the recommendations of the consumer panel and those of the experts in emergency psychiatry surveyed for the Expert Consensus Guidelines on the Treatment of Behavioral Emergencies. These include the desirability of verbal interventions, the use of a collaborative approach, and the use of oral medications guided by the individual consumer's problems, medication experiences, and preferences. The majority of the consumer panel reported adverse experiences with general hospital emergency rooms and, in fact, called for the development of specialized psychiatric emergency services such as those recommended in the Expert Consensus Guidelines. One-fifth of the consumer panel attributed their emergency contact to lack of access to more routine mental health care. The consumers clearly do not reject medications categorically. Almost half indicated that they wanted medications and a similar number indicated benefit from medications, although many complained of forced administration and unwanted side effects. The consumer panel preferred benzodiazepines and ranked haloperidol as a least preferred option. Among their key recommendations for improving psychiatric emergency care, the consumer panel stressed the development of alternatives to traditional emergency room services, the increased use of advance directives, more comfortable physical environments for waiting and treatment, increased use of peer support services, improved training of emergency staff to foster a more humanistic and person-centered approach, increased collaboration between practitioners and patients, and improved discharge planning and post-discharge follow-up. The implications of these findings for improving psychiatric emergency care are considered.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00131746-200301000-00005

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
ALLEN, M. H., CARPENTER, D., SHEETS, J. L., MICCIO, S., & ROSS, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado System (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric Practice
Published
2003-01
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
39-58
ISSN
  • 1527-4160 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-1145
OpenAlex
W1996057222
Cited by
149
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 8
FWCI
7.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychiatric Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
customer perspective, psychiatric emergencies, behavioral emergencies, psychiatric emergency care, consumer preferences, patient involvement in treatment decisions, seclusion, verbal interventions, adverse drug reactions, benzodiazepines, haloperidol, advance directives, peer support services, access to mental health care, patient safety, mental health policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review