Evaluation of a Collaborative Mental Health Care System

In the absence of easy access to second-line ambulatory care, the number of 'inappropriate' psychiatric emergency visits is increasing, with emergency departments becoming the gateway to mental health care. This is the context in which the 'med@psy' system was set up in the Toulon-Provence-Mediterranean metropolitan area by a private psychiatrist. It facilitates access to psychiatric second referral for General Practitioners (GPs) by pooling the 48-hour supply of psychiatric consultations in real time. It is assumed that this system will facilitate access to outpatient psychiatric care and help to optimize the organisation of patient care and follow-up. The aim of this study is to evaluate the med@psy system in the care pathway for patients with psychiatric disorders. This study main objective is to compare the proportion of patients with a psychiatric disorder who will receive outpatient follow-up 1 month after a visit to a psychiatric emergency department without hospitalization (Group 1) versus 1 month after a consultation with a psychiatrist within 48 hours via the med@psy system (Group 2).

Inclusion Criteria: * Patient ≥ 18 years ; * Patient presenting to the Centre hospitalier de Toulon La Seyne sur Mer emergency department, with or without referral, and receiving psychiatric advice with discharge without hospitalization after clinical assessment (Group 1) or patients referred for psychiatric consultation via the Med@psy system (Group 2). * Patient with indication for outpatient follow-up * Patient with open social security rights Exclusion Criteria: * Patient's refusal to take part in research ; * Patient currently being followed by a psychiatrist. Psychiatric follow-up is defined as at least one consultation with a psychiatrist in the last 3 months, outside an unscheduled care consultation or in an emergency department; * Patients referred for a suicide attempt, violent or non-violent, serious or non-serious; * Patients without a declared general practioner; * Patients already included in the study; * Patients who do not speak French; * Patients under judicial protection (guardianship, curatorship, etc.) or safeguard of justice; * Patient under compulsory care, under a care order or deprived of liberty. * Any other reason which, in the investigator's opinion, could interfere