Search

BACKGROUND Prior suicide attempts are a strong risk factor for future attempts. There is growing interest in using longitudinal electronic health record (EHR) data to derive risk prediction models for suicidal behavior. However, model performance may be inflated by an unrecognized form of “data leakage” during model training: codes for suicide attempt outcomes may refer to prior attempts also included as predictors. OBJECTIVE We aimed to develop an automated rule for determining when documented suicide attempt codes identify distinct events. METHODS From a large healthcare system’s EHR, patients with at least two suicide attempt codes were randomly sampled (N = 369). Chart reviewers assigned clinical setting, attempt method, and inter-code interval to each pair of suicide attempt codes. The probability that the second code in a pair referred to a distinct attempt from its preceding code was calculated by setting, method, and inter-code interval. RESULTS Of the 1,253 code pairs reviewed, 78% were non-independent (i.e., two codes referred to the same event). When the second code in a pair was assigned in a setting other than the emergency department (ED), it represented a distinct event less than 15% of the time. Code pairs in which the second code was assigned in the ED at least 5 days after its preceding code had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.90. CONCLUSIONS Suicide attempt codes documented in an ED setting at least 5 days after a preceding code can be confidently treated as new events in EHR-based suicide risk prediction models. CLINICALTRIAL NA

BACKGROUND Interest in developing machine learning models that use electronic health record data to predict patients’ risk of suicidal behavior has recently proliferated. However, whether and how such models might be implemented and useful in clinical practice remain unknown. To ultimately make automated suicide risk–prediction models useful in practice, and thus better prevent patient suicides, it is critical to partner with key stakeholders, including the frontline providers who will be using such tools, at each stage of the implementation process. OBJECTIVE The aim of this focus group study is to inform ongoing and future efforts to deploy suicide risk–prediction models in clinical practice. The specific goals are to better understand hospital providers’ current practices for assessing and managing suicide risk; determine providers’ perspectives on using automated suicide risk–prediction models in practice; and identify barriers, facilitators, recommendations, and factors to consider. METHODS We conducted 10 two-hour focus groups with a total of 40 providers from psychiatry, internal medicine and primary care, emergency medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology departments within an urban academic medical center. Audio recordings of open-ended group discussions were transcribed and coded for relevant and recurrent themes by 2 independent study staff members. All coded text was reviewed and discrepancies were resolved in consensus meetings with doctoral-level staff. RESULTS Although most providers reported using standardized suicide risk assessment tools in their clinical practices, existing tools were commonly described as unhelpful and providers indicated dissatisfaction with current suicide risk assessment methods. Overall, providers’ general attitudes toward the practical use of automated suicide risk–prediction models and corresponding clinical decision support tools were positive. Providers were especially interested in the potential to identify high-risk patients who might be missed by traditional screening methods. Some expressed skepticism about the potential usefulness of these models in routine care; specific barriers included concerns about liability, alert fatigue, and increased demand on the health care system. Key facilitators included presenting specific patient-level features contributing to risk scores, emphasizing changes in risk over time, and developing systematic clinical workflows and provider training. Participants also recommended considering risk-prediction windows, timing of alerts, who will have access to model predictions, and variability across treatment settings. CONCLUSIONS Providers were dissatisfied with current suicide risk assessment methods and were open to the use of a machine learning–based risk-prediction system to inform clinical decision-making. They also raised multiple concerns about potential barriers to the usefulness of this approach and suggested several possible facilitators. Future efforts in this area will benefit from incorporating systematic qualitative feedback from providers, patients, administrators, and payers on the use of these new approaches in routine care, especially given the complex, sensitive, and unfortunately still stigmatized nature of suicide risk.

Background Interest in developing machine learning models that use electronic health record data to predict patients’ risk of suicidal behavior has recently proliferated. However, whether and how such models might be implemented and useful in clinical practice remain unknown. To ultimately make automated suicide risk–prediction models useful in practice, and thus better prevent patient suicides, it is critical to partner with key stakeholders, including the frontline providers who will be using such tools, at each stage of the implementation process. Objective The aim of this focus group study is to inform ongoing and future efforts to deploy suicide risk–prediction models in clinical practice. The specific goals are to better understand hospital providers’ current practices for assessing and managing suicide risk; determine providers’ perspectives on using automated suicide risk–prediction models in practice; and identify barriers, facilitators, recommendations, and factors to consider. Methods We conducted 10 two-hour focus groups with a total of 40 providers from psychiatry, internal medicine and primary care, emergency medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology departments within an urban academic medical center. Audio recordings of open-ended group discussions were transcribed and coded for relevant and recurrent themes by 2 independent study staff members. All coded text was reviewed and discrepancies were resolved in consensus meetings with doctoral-level staff. Results Although most providers reported using standardized suicide risk assessment tools in their clinical practices, existing tools were commonly described as unhelpful and providers indicated dissatisfaction with current suicide risk assessment methods. Overall, providers’ general attitudes toward the practical use of automated suicide risk–prediction models and corresponding clinical decision support tools were positive. Providers were especially interested in the potential to identify high-risk patients who might be missed by traditional screening methods. Some expressed skepticism about the potential usefulness of these models in routine care; specific barriers included concerns about liability, alert fatigue, and increased demand on the health care system. Key facilitators included presenting specific patient-level features contributing to risk scores, emphasizing changes in risk over time, and developing systematic clinical workflows and provider training. Participants also recommended considering risk-prediction windows, timing of alerts, who will have access to model predictions, and variability across treatment settings. Conclusions Providers were dissatisfied with current suicide risk assessment methods and were open to the use of a machine learning–based risk-prediction system to inform clinical decision-making. They also raised multiple concerns about potential barriers to the usefulness of this approach and suggested several possible facilitators. Future efforts in this area will benefit from incorporating systematic qualitative feedback from providers, patients, administrators, and payers on the use of these new approaches in routine care, especially given the complex, sensitive, and unfortunately still stigmatized nature of suicide risk.