Nicolas Laporte
Lily Hechtman2,3
Cécile Rousseau
Brian Greenfield- 1Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada
- 2Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
- 3Department of Psychiatry, Montreal Children's Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada
1. Introduction
Upwards of 500,000 pediatric patients visit emergency rooms (ER) annually for psychiatric crises (1), with rates recently increasing (2, 3), necessitating an examination of ER treatment approaches, including triage and crisis interventions. Nurses and pediatricians without specialized psychiatric training often apply a triage approach to such youth's care (4–8), rapidly admitting or discharging them depending on risks of auto- or hetero-aggression. Alternatively, a crisis intervention model emphasizes diagnosis, immediate treatment and orientation to either inpatient and/or outpatient resources on discharge (9–19). This approach is often multimodal (18), including nurses and social workers experienced in pediatric mental health, thus requiring additional resources compared to triage approaches. The triage (4–8) and crisis intervention (9–16) models have mostly been considered in isolation. When considered in tandem (17–20), there is little elaboration on treatment variables (e.g., alliance, the patient and physician's emotional responses and time limitations). This article compares the two models and the interplay of these variables with respect to each. A composite case highlights the differences.
2. Triage model
A triage model is time-limited, guided by assessment of suicide acuity as reflected by answers to core questions that expeditiously discern those most at risk of attempting or completing suicide (4–8). This model could begin with a nurse's assessment of the acuity of the suicidal phenomena on a scale of simple ideation to a threat, mild attempt, severe attempt and/or plan, and communicating those results to a pediatrician, who spends 15 min exploring those factors and deciding upon the need for hospitalization (5–8). The brevity of these assessments is suitable for busy ERs, scarce in mental health workers (2, 3). This time-restricted ER triage approach provides only limited information about the origins of the youth's psychiatric disorder, the presence of adversity and treatment options, and opportunities for symptom resolution. With such limitations, a triage approach could yield higher rates of ER return (4, 6). Repeated visits strain the ER, reducing time clinicians allot to youth, diminishing health professional's senses of self-efficacy, thus contributing to apathetic attitudes toward such patients and their families (21), perhaps leading to worse outcomes (22). By contrast, improved training in such youth's care, although rarely available (23), enhances staff's self-efficacy, engagement with and treatment of this population (21). Despite this model's limitations, it may contribute to resolution of negative feelings surrounding the youth's adversity (24), soothed by the security of the ER and an empathetic ear, although potentially offset by the ER's fast pace (25).
3. Crisis intervention model
A crisis intervention model would include a multidisciplinary team approach to treating youth and family distress, including diagnosis, treatment planning and community referral (9–19). The first component of this model is identical to the triage model, differing only insofar as the pediatrician subsequently refers the youth and family to a multimodal mental health team, including a psychiatric nurse, psychiatrist and social worker, working together to alleviate distress. This model requires an additional 1–3 h, depending on the needs of the case. Elements central to this intervention could include understanding the underpinnings of the crisis, defining the youth's psychiatric disorder and prescribing psychotherapeutic and/or pharmacologic interventions for its management, identifying and arresting abuse, and developing a treatment plan addressing the underlying disorder and adversity. A mental re-framing of identified core beliefs could reduce the youth's dysphoria, using techniques such as a narrative shift, for example guiding a child from a sense of low self-worth due to a learning disorder to one of normal intelligence, simply learning differently. Such a narrative shift would also help youth perceive themselves as strong and courageous for surviving despite considerable challenges, rather than feeling weak due to past toxic chronic emotional abuse (24). The crisis thus serves as an opportunity to change how youth and caregivers think and feel about themselves and each other, at a time when emotions are heightened and defenses are low, rendering those youth accessible to interventions aimed at reducing their psychological distress. Such an approach can also reduce inpatient admissions (17) and depressive symptomatology (11, 14) and increase adherence to outpatient referrals (9, 10, 13, 16); although findings are mixed (9, 10, 12, 15). Multimodal ER interventions may therefore reduce patient's subsequent emergencies and return visits (18). The repeated reassessment of the child's suicidality using this approach would allow for a more informed perspective on their suitability for hospitalization or outpatient management.
4. The development of an alliance
Alliances with pediatric patients are critical in mental health services. They are characterized by the quality of relationship and trust between clinicians and youth/families, strengthened by empathy and active listening (26). Good alliances manifest in a triage model when youth honestly reveal their reasons for ER presentation, maximizing chances that decisions for hospitalization or outpatient management would be best informed. Alliances are critical for an outpatient ER crisis intervention model to enhance the intervention's impact. That outpatient process can be informed by crisis interventions with similar hospitalized high-risk youth. These usually places an emotional burden on youth, family, and health professionals, thus requiring the rapid building of alliance. Strong alliances are associated with treatment adherence (27), reduction in re-admission rates (28) and positive psychotherapy outcomes (29). Alliance building is challenging in any environment but is particularly so in an ER setting, using either model, as the ensuing rapid assessment creates a pressured environment, compromising the clinician's empathetic stance (25). Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) could also developmentally lead to youth's mistrust of caregivers (24), aggression and unpredictability, thus disrupting alliances with healthcare professionals and engendering anxiety and vigilance among them (30).
5. The clinician's emotional experience
Occasionally, clinicians experience feelings or thoughts when interacting with youth that surprise them as these were absent prior to the assessment. Such experiences could be named countertransferences. They are often stimulated by the child's early relationships with primary caregivers and then repeated in sessions with the therapist. This is called a transference and has little to do with the clinician themselves. The clinician's unwelcome feelings, absent prior to interactions with youth, probably emanated from the child and/or family (31, 32). Understanding this process can lead to insight into the youth's difficulties and relieve distress. This interplay of emotions, particularly relevant when associated with emotionally dysregulated youth in their pattern of interpersonal difficulties (33, 34), might commonly occur with those exposed to ACEs (24). For example, projective identification occurs when individuals attempt to extricate bad feelings or conflicts by projecting them into another who then acquires the rejected feelings or conflicts as their own (35). Using the clinician's emotional experience and self-awareness, projective identification becomes apparent as it draws the clinician into the youth's emotional orbit beyond simple empathy. Such primitive defenses could be anticipated by ER clinicians when working with youth experiencing intensely negative feelings (e.g., anger, guilt and feelings of incompetence) often resulting from family dysfunction and unattuned and rejecting parents. This interplay of emotions between youth and clinicians, contributing to the therapeutic process, will manifest in both models, but is more elaborated in the crisis intervention model. It would be of benefit to ER staff, although rarely the case (23), to receive mental health training to improve their awareness of such processes. Balint groups could facilitate discussions of these emotionally charged cases and have improved patient-staff communication and empathy and reduced burnout (36).
6. Time limitations
The rapid pace and associated ER time constraints must be managed in both triage and crisis intervention approaches (17). Limited time may detract from the validity of observations, negatively impacting decisions to hospitalize/discharge and may impair a perception of a youth's diagnosis and treatment plan. Although the crisis intervention model vs. the triage approach provides more observation time (9–19), neither approach benefits to the same extent from multiple observations over extended periods characterizing an outpatient setting. That setting engenders several evaluations, improving the likelihood of diagnostic and treatment clarity and accuracy.
7. Reluctance to accept healthcare
The youth or caregivers' reluctance to accept healthcare may impair an ER clinician's effectiveness. When obliged by family or police to submit to an ER assessment, youth may lack motivation for help-seeking (19). As well, a caregivers' reluctance to submit to evaluation may stem from unwillingness to acknowledge their contribution to the adversity (37). Abusive parents, themselves often victims of childhood abuse, may also be blinded to the adversity they are perpetuating (38). Stopping the adversity can reassure the child of security, contrary to their previous adverse home environment, thus relieving reluctance to change and lessening the youth's suicidality. The child could potentially be discharged to a safer environment, avoiding hospitalization. Adversity resulting in suicidality within a triage context would not likely be addressed prior to hospitalization.
8. Case study
Mary was a 14-year-old female, residing with her biological mother and father and 12-year-old sister. She presented to the ER after having told a friend she ingested 15 pills of aspirin 2 days previously while thinking ambivalently about suicide. She had not previously discussed this overdose with anyone nor sought help. The friend informed the mother who brought her to the ER. She had not confided to anyone her two prior attempts within the past 6 months.
8.1. Triage model
The clinicians were concerned about her multiple recent ingestions even in the absence of her distress. Without further data characterizing this case in the triage model, the clinicians could legitimately hospitalize this youth awaiting a full multimodal evaluation on an inpatient service.
8.2. Crisis intervention model
On further evaluation, the youth revealed that her grades were in the passing range, aside from her customary failures in math. She loved her friends and boyfriend, enjoyed drawing for which she had talent and wanted an art career.
She was easily angered when her father typically called her “stupid” and “lazy” upon failing math exams and when he requested she perform household chores leading to shouting matches. Suicidal feelings would ensue as well as low self-esteem associated with struggles in math, self-perception as an angry young woman and the thought that her parents would be better off without her, as revealed to the psychiatrist. She also noticed frequent distractions during class, fidgeting and having a restless leg.
The youth appreciated an awareness of an underlying ADHD with impulsivity, its treatability and its genetic etiology (39), thereby partially absolving her of guilt related to her angry episodes. Awareness of the factors that leading to suicidal feelings contributed to their resolution. The father acknowledged to the social worker the toxicity of his verbal putdowns, expressing wishes to find alternative ways to communicate with his daughter, thus diminishing her dysphoria.
The youth was informed about strategies to manage future suicidal feelings and was referred to community mental health services. Ideally, an ER follow-up team would provide follow-up services 2–3 days post discharge, absent which the patient's general practitioner/pediatrician was guided in using Guanfacine to manage her irritability and she and her father were referred to dyadic therapy to improve their relationship. Contact with team members 1 month post ER discharge ensured community follow-up, at which point pharmacologic management was confirmed, the irritability had reduced and the relationship with her father and self-esteem had improved while the suicidality had abated.
8.3. Relative merits of the two models
The triage model, although ensuring the youth's security through hospitalization, could have benefited from further questioning. For example, the crisis model provided more extensive evaluation of dynamics leading to her suicidality, which were driven by her exposure to adversity and her negative self-esteem reflective of a fast temper. The more elaborated multimodal crisis evaluation also led to identification of resilience factors, understanding of her reasons for distress and their resolution while in the ER, leading to discharge and follow-up care. Although we contrast the two ends of the spectrum between the triage and crisis intervention models in caring for youth in suicidal crisis, evaluations of such patients are usually an amalgam of the two models (20). Their deployment, in a given setting, probably reflects the availability of emergency resources (18).
9. Conclusion
Both triage and crisis intervention models share challenges of creating an alliance in a short period while overcoming reluctance to change. The crisis intervention model might provide more opportunities of evoking strong emotions from the youth and family and analogously from the treating clinician. Where resources are available, a crisis intervention model provides the luxury of either a multimodal team and/or a more extensive evaluation while the youth and family are still in the ER, working out suitable treatment plans and potentially reducing the need for hospitalization. A trans-Canadian study is currently underway to measure client satisfaction for youth and families who experience either model. We await that study's results.
Author contributions
NL: Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing, Conceptualization. LH: Writing—review and editing. CR: Writing—review and editing. BG: Supervision, Writing—review and editing, Conceptualization.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Pittsenbarger ZE, Mannix R. Trends in pediatric visits to the emergency department for psychiatric illnesses. Acad Emerg Med. (2014) 21:25–30. doi: 10.1111/acem.12282
2. Hoffmann JA, Stack AM, Samnaliev M, Monuteaux MC, Lee LK. Trends in visits and costs for mental health emergencies in a pediatric emergency department, 2010–2016. Acad Pediatr. (2019) 19:386–93. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2019.02.006
3. Mapelli E, Black T, Doan Q. Trends in pediatric emergency department utilization for mental health-related visits. J Pediatr. (2015) 167:905–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.07.004
4. Horowitz LM, Bridge JA, Teach SJ, Ballard E, Klima J, Rosenstein DL, et al. Ask suicide-screening questions (ASQ): a brief instrument for the pediatric emergency department. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. (2012) 166:1170. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1276
5. Ballard ED, Cwik M, Van Eck K, Goldstein M, Alfes C, Wilson ME, et al. Identification of at-risk youth by suicide screening in a pediatric emergency department. Prev Sci. (2017) 18:174–82. doi: 10.1007/s11121-016-0717-5
6. DeVylder JE, Ryan TC, Cwik M, Wilson ME, Jay S, Nestadt PS, et al. Assessment of selective and universal screening for suicide risk in a pediatric emergency department. JAMA Netw Open. (2019) 2:e1914070. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.14070
7. Horowitz LM, Ballard ED, Pao M. Suicide screening in schools, primary care and emergency departments. Curr Opin Pediatr. (2009) 21:620–7. doi: 10.1097/MOP.0b013e3283307a89
8. DeVylder JE, Ryan TC, Cwik M, Jay SY, Wilson ME, Goldstein M, et al. Screening for suicide risk among youths with a psychotic disorder in a pediatric emergency department. Psychiatr Serv. (2020) 71:205–8. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201900290
9. Ougrin D, Zundel T, Ng A, Banarsee R, Bottle A, Taylor E. Trial of therapeutic assessment in London: randomised controlled trial of therapeutic assessment versus standard psychosocial assessment in adolescents presenting with self-harm. Arch Dis Child. (2011) 96:148–53. doi: 10.1136/adc.2010.188755
10. Grupp-Phelan J, McGuire L, Husky MM, Olfson M. A randomized controlled trial to engage in care of adolescent emergency department patients with mental health problems that increase suicide risk. Pediatr Emergency Care. (2012) 28:1263–8. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e3182767ac8
11. King CA, Gipson PY, Horwitz AG, Opperman KJ. Teen options for change: an intervention for young emergency patients who screen positive for suicide risk. Psychiatr Serv. (2015) 66:97–100. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300347
12. Donaldson D, Spirito A, Esposito-Smythers C. Treatment for adolescents following a suicide attempt: results of a pilot trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2005) 44:113–20. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200502000-00003
13. Rotheram-Borus MJ, Piacentini J, Van Rossem R, Graae F, Cantwell C, Castro-Blanco D, et al. Enhancing treatment adherence with a specialized emergency room program for adolescent suicide attempters. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (1996) 35:654–63. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199605000-00021
14. Rotheram-Borus MJ, Piacentini J, Cantwell C, Belin TR, Song J. The 18-month impact of an emergency room intervention for adolescent female suicide attempters. J Consult Clin Psychol. (2000) 68:1081–93. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.1081
15. Grupp-Phelan J, Stevens J, Boyd S, Cohen DM, Ammerman RT, Liddy-Hicks S, et al. Effect of a motivational interviewing–based intervention on initiation of mental health treatment and mental health after an emergency department visit among suicidal adolescents: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. (2019) 2:e1917941. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.17941
16. Spirito A, Boergers J, Donaldson D, Bishop D, Lewander W. An intervention trial to improve adherence to community treatment by adolescents after a suicide attempt. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2002) 41:435–42. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200204000-00016
17. Wharff EA, Ginnis KM, Ross AM. Family-based crisis intervention with suicidal adolescents in the emergency room: a pilot study. Social Work. (2012) 57:133–43. doi: 10.1093/sw/sws017
18. Sheridan DC, Sheridan J, Johnson KP, Laurie A, Knapper A, Fu R, et al. The effect of a dedicated psychiatric team to pediatric emergency mental health care. J Emerg Med. (2016) 50:e121–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2015.10.034
19. Guedj-Bourdiau MJ, Guilé JM, Garny De La Rivière S, Pace U, Cohen D, Benarous X. Unmet needs and classical pitfalls in the management of adolescents with behavioral problems in emergency. Front Psychiatry. (2021) 12:527569. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.527569
20. Babeva K, Hughes JL, Asarnow J. Emergency department screening for suicide and mental health risk. Curr Psychiatry Rep. (2016) 18:100. doi: 10.1007/s11920-016-0738-6
21. Clarke D, Usick R, Sanderson A, Giles-Smith L, Baker J. Emergency department staff attitudes towards mental health consumers: a literature review and thematic content analysis: Emergency attitudes towards mental illness. Int J Ment Health Nurs. (2014) 23:273–84. doi: 10.1111/inm.12040
22. Zun LS. An issue of equity of care: psychiatric patients must be treated “on par” with medical patients. AJP. (2014) 171:716–9. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.14010002
23. Crowley JJ, A. clash of cultures: A&E and mental health. Accid Emerg Nurs. (2000) 8:2–8. doi: 10.1054/aaen.1999.0061
24. Randall MM, Parlette K, Reibling E, Chen B, Chen M, Randall F, et al. Young children with psychiatric complaints in the pediatric emergency department. Am J Emerg Med. (2021) 46:344–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.10.006
25. Mitten N, Preyde M, Lewis S, Vanderkooy J, Heintzman J. The perceptions of adolescents who self-harm on stigma and care following inpatient psychiatric treatment. Soc Work Ment Health. (2016) 14:1–21. doi: 10.1080/15332985.2015.1080783
26. Rosenberg RC. The therapeutic alliance and the psychiatric emergency room crisis as opportunity. Psychiatr Ann. (1994) 24:610–4. doi: 10.3928/0048-5713-19941101-13
27. Loneck B, Banks S, Way B, Bonaparte E. An empirical model of therapeutic process for psychiatric emergency room clients with dual disorders. Social Work Res. (2002). 26(3):132–44. doi: 10.1093/swr/26.3.132
28. Segal SP, Egley L, Watson MA, Goldfinger SM. The quality of psychiatric emergency evaluations and patient outcomes in county hospitals. Am J Public Health. (1995) 85:1429–31. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.85.10.1429
29. Horvath AO, Symonds BD. Relation between working alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: a meta-analysis. J Couns Psychol. (1991) 38:139–49. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.38.2.139
30. Gillespie GL, Gates DM, Miller M, Howard PK. Violence against healthcare workers in a pediatric emergency department. Adv Emerg Nurs J. (2010) 32:68–82. doi: 10.1097/TME.0b013e3181c8b0b4
31. Kimerling RE, Zeiss AM, Zeiss RA. Therapist emotional responses to patients: Building a learning-based language. Cogn Behav Pract. (2000) 7:312–21. doi: 10.1016/S1077-7229(00)80089-9
32. Sneed JR, Balestri M, Belfi BJ. The use of dialectical behavior therapy strategies in the psychiatric emergency room. Psychotherapy. (2003) 40:265–77. doi: 10.1037/0033-3204.40.4.265
33. Porter C, Palmier-Claus J, Branitsky A, Mansell W, Warwick H, Varese F. Childhood adversity and borderline personality disorder: a meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand. (2020) 141:6–20. doi: 10.1111/acps.13118
34. Chabrol H, Leichsenring F. Borderline personality organization and psychopathic traits in nonclinical adolescents: Relationships of identity diffusion, primitive defense mechanisms and reality testing with callousness and impulsivity traits. Bull Menninger Clin. (2006) 70:160–70. doi: 10.1521/bumc.2006.70.2.160
35. Joseph B. Projective identification: clinical aspects. In: Projection, Identification, Projective Identification. London: Routledge. (2018). p. 65–76.
36. Yang C, Zhou B, Wang J, Pan S. The effect of a short-term Balint group on the communication ability and self-efficacy of pre-examination and triage nurses during COVID-19. J Clin Nurs. (2021) 30:93–100. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15489
37. Essex S, Gumbleton J, Luger C. Resolutions: working with families where responsibility for abuse is denied. Child Abuse Review. (1996) 5:191–201. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0852(199608)5:3<191::AID-CAR272>3.0.CO;2-E
38. Essex S, Gumbleton J. ‘Similar but different' conversations: working with denial in cases of severe child abuse. Austral New Zeal J Family Therapy. (1999) 20:139–48. doi: 10.1111/j.0814-723X.1999.00115.x
Keywords: pediatric psychiatry, crisis intervention, triage, emergency room, crisis care, suicidal adolescents, alliance
Citation: Laporte N, Hechtman L, Rousseau C and Greenfield B (2023) Striking a balance: triage and crisis intervention models within the pediatric emergency room. Front. Psychiatry 14:1277095. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1277095
Received: 14 August 2023; Accepted: 27 September 2023;
Published: 18 October 2023.
Edited by:
David Cohen, Sorbonne Université, FranceReviewed by:
Xavier Benarous, Sorbonne Université, FrancePatrick Köck, Universitäre Psychiatrische Dienste Bern, Switzerland
Copyright © 2023 Laporte, Hechtman, Rousseau and Greenfield. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Nicolas Laporte, nicolas.laporte@mail.concordia.ca