Search

Background: Family involvement has been identified as a key aspect of clinical practice that may help to prevent suicide., Aims: To investigate how families can be effectively involved in supporting a patient accessing crisis mental health services., Method: A multi-site ethnographic investigation was undertaken with two crisis resolution home treatment teams in England. Data included 27 observations of clinical practice and interviews with 6 patients, 4 family members, and 13 healthcare professionals. Data were analysed using framework analysis., Results: Three overarching themes described how families and carers are involved in mental healthcare. Families played a key role in keeping patients safe by reducing access to means of self-harm. They also provided useful contextual information to healthcare professionals delivering the service. However, delivering a home-based service can be challenging in the absence of a supportive family environment or because of practical problems such as the lack of suitable private spaces within the home. At an organisational level, service design and delivery can be adjusted to promote family involvement., Conclusions: Findings from this study indicate that better communication and dissemination of safety and care plans, shared learning, signposting to carer groups and support for carers may facilitate better family involvement. Organisationally, offering flexible appointment times and alternative spaces for appointments may help improve services for patients.

Background: Psychological models of suicidal experiences are largely based on cross-sectional or long-term prospective data with follow-up intervals typically greater than 1 year. Recent time-series analyses suggest that these models may not account for fluctuations in suicidal thinking that occur within a period of hours and/or days., Aims: We explored whether previously posited causal relationships between defeat, entrapment and suicidal ideation accounted for temporal associations between these experiences at small time intervals from 3 to 12 h., Method: Participants ( N = 51) completed an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study, comprising repeated assessments at semi-random time points up to six times per day for 1 week, resulting in 1852 completed questionnaires. Multilevel vector autoregression was used to calculate temporal associations between variables at different time intervals (i.e. 3 to 12 h between measurements)., Results: The results showed that entrapment severity was temporally associated with current and later suicidal ideation, consistently over these time intervals. Furthermore, entrapment had two-way temporal associations with defeat and suicidal ideation at time intervals of approximately 3 h. The residual and contemporaneous network revealed significant associations between all variables, of which the association between entrapment and defeat was the strongest., Conclusions: Although entrapment is key in the pathways leading to suicidal ideation over time periods of months, our results suggest that entrapment may also account for the emergence of suicidal thoughts across time periods spanning a few hours.

Objective: Psychosocial assessment following self-harm presentations to hospital is an important aspect of care. However, many people attending hospital following self-harm do not receive an assessment. We sought to explore reasons why some patients do not receive a psychosocial assessment following self-harm from the perspective of patients and carers., Methods: Between March and November 2019, we recruited 88 patients and 14 carers aged ⩾18 years from 16 mental health trusts and community organisations in the United Kingdom, via social media, to a co-designed qualitative survey. Thematic analyses were used to interpret the data., Results: Patients' reasons for refusing an assessment included long waiting times, previous problematic interactions with staff and feeling unsafe when in the emergency department. Two people refused an assessment because they wanted to harm themselves again. Participants reported organisational reasons for non-assessment, including clinicians not offering assessments and exclusion due to alcohol intoxication. Other patients felt they did not reach clinically determined thresholds because of misconceptions over perceived heightened fatality risk with certain self-harm methods (e.g. self-poisoning vs self-cutting)., Conclusion: Our results provide important insights into some of the reasons why some people may not receive a psychosocial assessment following self-harm. Parallel assessments, compassionate care and specialist alcohol services in acute hospitals may help reduce the number of people who leave before an assessment. Education may help address erroneous beliefs that self-injury and self-harm repetition are not associated with greatly raised suicide risk.