Frequent users of emergency departments present very high prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders, which are largely underdiagnosed by clinicians

Background: The objective of this study was to determine if mental health and substance use diagnoses were equally detected in frequent users (FUs) compared to infrequent users (IUs) of emergency departments (EDs). Methods: In a sample of 399 adult patients (>= 18 years old) admitted to a teaching hospital ED, we compared the mental health and substance use disorders diagnoses established clinically and consigned in the medical files by the ED physicians to data obtained in face-to-face research interviews using the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) and the Alcohol, Smoking and Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Between November 2009 and June 2010, 226 FUs (>4 visits within a year) who attended the ED were included, and 173 IUs (<= 4 visits within a year) were randomly selected from a pool of identified patients to comprise the comparison group. Results: For mental health disorders identified by the PRIME-MD, FUs were more likely than IUs to have an anxiety (34 vs. 16%, Chi2(1) = 16.74, p <0.001), depressive (47 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 19.11, p <0.001) or posttraumatic stress (PTSD) disorder (11 vs. 5%, Chi2(1) = 4.87, p = 0.027). Only 3/76 FUs (4%) with an anxiety disorder, 16/104 FUs (15%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 24 FUs with PTSD were detected by the ED medical staff. None of the 27 IUs with an anxiety disorder, 6/43 IUs (14%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 8 IUs with PTSD were detected. For substance use disorders identified by the ASSIST, FUs were more at risk than IUs for alcohol (24 vs. 7%, Chi2(1) = 21.12, p <0.001) and drug abuse/dependence (36 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 5.52, p = 0.019). Of the FUs, 14/54 (26%) using alcohol and 8/81 (10%) using drugs were detected by the ED physicians. Of the IUs, 5/12 (41%) using alcohol and none of the 43 using drugs were detected. Overall, there was no significant difference in the rate of detection of mental health and substance use disorders between FUs and IUs (Fisher's Exact Test: anxiety, p = 0.567; depression, p = 1.000; PTSD, p = 1.000; alcohol, p = 0.517; and drugs, p = 0.053). Conclusions: While the prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders was higher among FUs, the rates of detection were not significantly different for FUs vs. IUs. However, it may be that drug disorders among FUs were more likely to be detected.

Frequent users of emergency departments present very high prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders, which are largery underdiagnosed by clinicians.

Background: The objective of this study was to determine if mental health and substance use diagnoses were equally detected in frequent users (FUs) compared to infrequent users (IUs) of emergency departments (EDs). Methods: In a sample of 399 adult patients (>= 18 years old) admitted to a teaching hospital ED, we compared the mental health and substance use disorders diagnoses established clinically and consigned in the medical files by the ED physicians to data obtained in face-to-face research interviews using the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) and the Alcohol, Smoking and Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Between November 2009 and June 2010, 226 FUs (>4 visits within a year) who attended the ED were included, and 173 IUs (<= 4 visits within a year) were randomly selected from a pool of identified patients to comprise the comparison group. Results: For mental health disorders identified by the PRIME-MD, FUs were more likely than IUs to have an anxiety (34 vs. 16%, Chi2(1) = 16.74, p <0.001), depressive (47 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 19.11, p <0.001) or posttraumatic stress (PTSD) disorder (11 vs. 5%, Chi2(1) = 4.87, p = 0.027). Only 3/76 FUs (4%) with an anxiety disorder, 16/104 FUs (15%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 24 FUs with PTSD were detected by the ED medical staff. None of the 27 IUs with an anxiety disorder, 6/43 IUs (14%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 8 IUs with PTSD were detected. For substance use disorders identified by the ASSIST, FUs were more at risk than IUs for alcohol (24 vs. 7%, Chi2(1) = 21.12, p <0.001) and drug abuse/dependence (36 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 5.52, p = 0.019). Of the FUs, 14/54 (26%) using alcohol and 8/81 (10%) using drugs were detected by the ED physicians. Of the IUs, 5/12 (41%) using alcohol and none of the 43 using drugs were detected. Overall, there was no significant difference in the rate of detection of mental health and substance use disorders between FUs and IUs (Fisher's Exact Test: anxiety, p = 0.567; depression, p = 1.000; PTSD, p = 1.000; alcohol, p = 0.517; and drugs, p = 0.053). Conclusions: While the prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders was higher among FUs, the rates of detection were not significantly different for FUs vs. IUs. However, it may be that drug disorders among FUs were more likely to be detected.

The polymorhism of crime scene investigation: an exploratory analysis of the influence of crime and forensic intelligence on decisions made by crime scene examiners

A growing body of scientific literature recurrently indicates that crime and forensic intelligence influence how crime scene investigators make decisions in their practices. This study scrutinises further this intelligence-led crime scene examination view. It analyses results obtained from two questionnaires. Data have been collected from nine chiefs of Intelligence Units (IUs) and 73 Crime Scene Examiners (CSEs) working in forensic science units (FSUs) in the French speaking part of Switzerland (six cantonal police agencies). Four salient elements emerged: (1) the actual existence of communication channels between IUs and FSUs across the police agencies under consideration; (2) most CSEs take into account crime intelligence disseminated; (3) a differentiated, but significant use by CSEs in their daily practice of this kind of intelligence; (4) a probable deep influence of this kind of intelligence on the most concerned CSEs, specially in the selection of the type of material/trace to detect, collect, analyse and exploit. These results contribute to decipher the subtle dialectic articulating crime intelligence and crime scene investigation, and to express further the polymorph role of CSEs, beyond their most recognised input to the justice system. Indeed, they appear to be central, but implicit, stakeholders in intelligence-led style of policing.