General hospital psychiatry · 2026
Extending the reach of inpatient consultation-liaison psychiatry: A systematic review of telepsychiatry in U.S. general hospitals.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schulte Victoria P, Portley Makayla, Guasch Cristina, Rojas-Velasquez Danilo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Psychiatrist shortages and rural hospital gaps limit inpatient consultation-liaison (C-L) psychiatry in U.S. general hospitals. Telepsychiatry has expanded rapidly, yet implementation models, outcomes, and challenges of inpatient C-L telepsychiatry remain incompletely and inconsistently described.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched major medical, nursing, and psychological databases and ClinicalTrials.gov (1990-November 2025) for English-language studies of adult inpatient C-L telepsychiatry in U.S. general hospitals. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and appraised quality with Joanna Briggs Institute tools.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies met inclusion criteria with no randomized or quasi-experimental trials. Most programs used hub-and-spoke models linking community hospitals with academic C-L services, supported by local staff for technology and workflow. Consults commonly addressed mood and substance use disorders, delirium or other neurocognitive syndromes, and capacity, and often led to medication changes. Operational outcomes suggested improved access and shorter time-to-consult, while some requests were triaged to in-person care when clinical or technical factors limited virtual assessment. Clinicians generally viewed inpatient telepsychiatry as feasible but described difficulty assessing delirium and agitation and limited interpreter integration; patient-centered outcomes, cost, and equity measures were rarely reported.
CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient C-L telepsychiatry appears feasible across diverse U.S. hospitals and can extend psychiatric expertise to underserved settings while preserving key liaison functions when supported by clear triage pathways, in-person backstops, and coordination. However, evidence is largely observational; rigorous multi-site comparative studies with standardized clinical, operational, cost, and equity outcomes are needed.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched major medical, nursing, and psychological databases and ClinicalTrials.gov (1990-November 2025) for English-language studies of adult inpatient C-L telepsychiatry in U.S. general hospitals. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and appraised quality with Joanna Briggs Institute tools.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies met inclusion criteria with no randomized or quasi-experimental trials. Most programs used hub-and-spoke models linking community hospitals with academic C-L services, supported by local staff for technology and workflow. Consults commonly addressed mood and substance use disorders, delirium or other neurocognitive syndromes, and capacity, and often led to medication changes. Operational outcomes suggested improved access and shorter time-to-consult, while some requests were triaged to in-person care when clinical or technical factors limited virtual assessment. Clinicians generally viewed inpatient telepsychiatry as feasible but described difficulty assessing delirium and agitation and limited interpreter integration; patient-centered outcomes, cost, and equity measures were rarely reported.
CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient C-L telepsychiatry appears feasible across diverse U.S. hospitals and can extend psychiatric expertise to underserved settings while preserving key liaison functions when supported by clear triage pathways, in-person backstops, and coordination. However, evidence is largely observational; rigorous multi-site comparative studies with standardized clinical, operational, cost, and equity outcomes are needed.