Search

Introduction: Suicide rates are extremely high among emergency department patients seen for deliberate self-harm. Inpatient hospitalization is often recommended for these patients, but evidence on the suicide prevention impacts of hospitalization is scarce. Confounding by indication and challenges to implementing randomized designs are barriers to advances in this field., Methods: Investigators used 2009-2012 statewide data on 57,312 self-harm emergency department patients from California, linked to mortality records. Naive 12-month and 30-day suicide risks were estimated among patients who were hospitalized versus those who were discharged. Then, generalized random forest methods were applied to estimate the average treatment impacts of hospitalization on suicide, conditioning on observable covariates. Associations were calculated separately for sex- and age-specific subgroups. Analyses were conducted in February 2019-August 2021., Results: In naive analyses, suicide risk was significantly higher in hospitalized than in discharged patients in each subgroup. In 12-month models accounting for the observed covariates through generalized random forest methods, hospitalized male patients had 5.4 more suicides per 1,000 patients (95% CI=3.0, 7.8), hospitalized patients aged 10-29 years had 2.4 more suicides per 1,000 (95% CI=1.1, 3.6), and those aged ≥50 years had 5.8 more suicides per 1,000 (95% CI=0.5, 11.2) than corresponding discharged patients. Hospitalization was not significantly associated with suicide among female patients or patients aged 30-49 years in generalized random forest analyses. Patterns were similar in 30-day generalized random forest models., Conclusions: Emergency department personnel intend to hospitalize self-harm patients with high suicide risk; this study suggests that this goal is largely realized. Analyses that control for confounding by observable covariates did not find clear evidence that hospitalization reduces suicide risk and could not rule out the possibility of iatrogenic effects., (Copyright © 2021 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Suicide screening followed by an intervention may identify suicidal individuals and prevent recurring self-harm, but few cost-effectiveness studies have been conducted. This study sought to determine whether the increased costs of implementing screening and intervention in hospital emergency departments (EDs) are justified by improvements in patient outcomes (decreased attempts and deaths by suicide)., Methods: The Emergency Department Safety Assessment and Follow-up Evaluation (ED-SAFE) study recruited participants in eight U.S. EDs between August 2010 and November 2013. The eight sites sequentially implemented two interventions: universal screening added to treatment as usual and universal screening plus a telephone-based intervention delivered over 12 months post-ED visit. This study calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves to evaluate screening and suicide outcome measures and costs for the two interventions relative to treatment as usual. Costs were calculated from the provider perspective (e.g., wage and salary data and rental costs for hospital space) per patient and per site., Results: Average per-patient costs to a participating ED of universal screening plus intervention were $1,063 per month, approximately $500 more than universal screening added to treatment as usual. Universal screening plus intervention was more effective in preventing suicides compared with universal screening added to treatment as usual and treatment as usual alone., Conclusions: Although the choice of universal screening plus intervention depends on the value placed on the outcome by decision makers, results suggest that implementing such suicide prevention measures can lead to significant cost savings.

Background: Many emergency department (ED) patients are at risk of suicide, and the ED is a key setting for suicide prevention. Although ED interventions are associated with reduced suicide attempts and societal costs, most EDs do not have follow-up programs. This pilot investigated the feasibility and implementation process of a statewide program., Methods: This multicenter prospective pilot program included all patients evaluated for suicidal behavior in, and discharged home from, participating EDs across Colorado. Suicidal ED patients were offered crisis hotline follow-up calls that focused on continued support and connection to outpatient care. Data collection at EDs focused on implementation issues and referral and participation rates; the crisis line collected patient information and call statistics., Results: From July 1, 2015, to October 31, 2017, the program expanded to 15 EDs covering almost a quarter of ED visits in a large, high-burden state. Some sites achieved 100% referral rates, suggesting that referral became routine, and the mean referral rate was 76%. High referral rates were associated with an ED champion, record system enhancements, repeated training, and regular communication. Of 5,620 visits with referral, 2,737 resulted in participation (48.7%). Although the program was free for patients, half declined it. The call center made 15,414 calls, ultimately reaching all but 9.8% of participants. Few participants reported repeat ED visits or suicide attempts., Conclusion: This project demonstrated the feasibility of using a state crisis hotline to provide postdischarge follow-up for suicidal ED patients. Continued investigation into sustainable implementation and outcomes of such programs is warranted., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

In clinical practice, welfare checks have become a fairly common aspect of suicide prevention. At the same time, the medical literature provides almost no guidance to inform clinicians under what circumstances welfare checks should be requested, how best to go about placing those requests, or how to document decision-making related to this important subject. Literature searches spanning both PubMed and Google Scholar failed to yield any applicable results. Performed correctly, welfare checks have the potential to be life-saving interventions for persons in suicidal crises. Performed incorrectly, welfare checks may become an overly defensive practice that damages therapeutic relationships, violates patients' rights, and consumes important and limited community resources. The need for thoughtful guidance to assist clinicians in navigating these difficult clinical scenarios is long overdue. This column, the second in a 2-part series, offers an approach to welfare checks informed by the tenets of therapeutic risk management.

In clinical practice, welfare checks have become a fairly common aspect of suicide prevention. At the same time, there is almost no guidance in the medical literature to inform clinicians under what circumstances welfare checks should be requested, how best to go about placing those requests, or how to document decision-making around this important subject. Literature searches spanning both PubMed and Google Scholar fail to yield any applicable results. Performed correctly, welfare checks have the potential to be life-saving interventions for persons in suicidal crises. Performed incorrectly, the welfare check may become an overly defensive practice that damages therapeutic relationships, violates patients' rights, and consumes important and limited community resources. The need for thoughtful guidance to assist clinicians in navigating these difficult clinical scenarios is long overdue. This article, the first in a 2-part series, will describe welfare checks and explore their potential risks and benefits.

Emergency department (ED) clinicians routinely decide the disposition of patients with suicidal ideation, with potential consequences for patient safety, liability, and system costs and resources. An expert consensus panel recently created a 6-item decision support tool for patients with passive or active suicidal ideation. Individuals scoring a 0 (exhibiting none of the tool's 6 items) are considered "lower risk" and suitable for discharge, while those with non-0 scores are considered "elevated risk" and should receive further evaluation. The current study tested the predictive utility of this tool using existing data from the Emergency Department Safety Assessment and Follow-up Evaluation. ED patients with active suicide ideation (n = 1368) were followed for 12 months after an index visit using telephone assessment and medical chart review. About 1 in 5 patients had attempted suicide during follow-up. Because of the frequency of serious warning signs and risk factors in this population, only three patients met tool criteria for "lower risk" at baseline. The tool had perfect sensitivity, but exceptionally low specificity, in predicting suicidal behavior within 6 weeks and 12 months. In logistic regression analyses, several tool items were significantly associated with suicidal behavior within 6 weeks (suicide plan, past attempt) and 12 months (suicide plan, past attempt, suicide intent, significant mental health condition, irritability/agitation/aggression). Although the tool did not perform well as a binary instrument among those with active suicidal ideation, having a suicide plan identified almost all attempters while suicide plan and past attempt identified over four-fifths of near-term attempts. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).)

Objective: This study estimated the expected cost-effectiveness and population impact of outpatient interventions to reduce suicide risk among patients presenting to general hospital emergency departments (EDs), compared with usual care. Several such interventions have been found efficacious, but none is yet widespread, and the cost-effectiveness of population-based implementation is unknown., Methods: Modeled cost-effectiveness analysis compared three ED-initiated suicide prevention interventions previously found to be efficacious-follow-up via postcards or caring letters, follow-up via telephone outreach, and suicide-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)-with usual care. Primary outcomes were treatment costs, suicides, and life-years saved, evaluated over the year after the index ED visit., Results: Compared with usual care, adding postcards improved outcomes and reduced costs. Adding telephone outreach and suicide-focused CBT, respectively, improved outcomes at a mean incremental cost of $4,300 and $18,800 per life-year saved, respectively. Monte Carlo simulation (1,000 repetitions) revealed the chance of incremental cost-effectiveness to be a certainty for all three interventions, assuming societal willingness to pay ≥$50,000 per life-year. These main findings were robust to various sensitivity analyses, including conservative assumptions about effect size and incremental costs. Population impact was limited by low sensitivity of detecting ED patients' suicide risk, and health care delivery inefficiencies., Conclusions: The highly favorable cost-effectiveness found for each outpatient intervention provides a strong basis for widespread implementation of any or all of the interventions. The estimated population benefits of doing so would be enhanced by increasing the sensitivity of suicide risk detection among individuals presenting to general hospital EDs.

Importance: Suicide is a leading cause of deaths in the United States. Although the emergency department (ED) is an opportune setting for initiating suicide prevention efforts, ED-initiated suicide prevention interventions remain underdeveloped., Objective: To determine whether an ED-initiated intervention reduces subsequent suicidal behavior., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter study of 8 EDs in the United States enrolled adults with a recent suicide attempt or ideation and was composed of 3 sequential phases: (1) a treatment as usual (TAU) phase from August 2010 to December 2011, (2) a universal screening (screening) phase from September 2011 to December 2012, and (3) a universal screening plus intervention (intervention) phase from July 2012 to November 2013., Interventions: Screening consisted of universal suicide risk screening. The intervention phase consisted of universal screening plus an intervention, which included secondary suicide risk screening by the ED physician, discharge resources, and post-ED telephone calls focused on reducing suicide risk., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was suicide attempts (nonfatal and fatal) over the 52-week follow-up period. The proportion and total number of attempts were analyzed., Results: A total of 1376 participants were recruited, including 769 females (55.9%) with a median (interquartile range) age of 37 (26-47) years. A total of 288 participants (20.9%) made at least 1 suicide attempt, and there were 548 total suicide attempts among participants. There were no significant differences in risk reduction between the TAU and screening phases (23% vs 22%, respectively). However, compared with the TAU phase, patients in the intervention phase showed a 5% absolute reduction in suicide attempt risk (23% vs 18%), with a relative risk reduction of 20%. Participants in the intervention phase had 30% fewer total suicide attempts than participants in the TAU phase. Negative binomial regression analysis indicated that the participants in the intervention phase had significantly fewer total suicide attempts than participants in the TAU phase (incidence rate ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00; P = .05) but no differences between the TAU and screening phases (incidence rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.71-1.41; P = .99)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among at-risk patients in the ED, a combination of brief interventions administered both during and after the ED visit decreased post-ED suicidal behavior.

Introduction: The Emergency Department Safety Assessment and Follow-up Evaluation Screening Outcome Evaluation examined whether universal suicide risk screening is feasible and effective at improving suicide risk detection in the emergency department (ED)., Methods: A three-phase interrupted time series design was used: Treatment as Usual (Phase 1), Universal Screening (Phase 2), and Universal Screening + Intervention (Phase 3). Eight EDs from seven states participated from 2009 through 2014. Data collection spanned peak hours and 7 days of the week. Chart reviews established if screening for intentional self-harm ideation/behavior (screening) was documented in the medical record and whether the individual endorsed intentional self-harm ideation/behavior (detection). Patient interviews determined if the documented intentional self-harm was suicidal. In Phase 2, universal suicide risk screening was implemented during routine care. In Phase 3, improvements were made to increase screening rates and fidelity. Chi-square tests and generalized estimating equations were calculated. Data were analyzed in 2014., Results: Across the three phases (N=236,791 ED visit records), documented screenings rose from 26% (Phase 1) to 84% (Phase 3) (χ(2) [2, n=236,789]=71,000, p<0.001). Detection rose from 2.9% to 5.7% (χ(2) [2, n=236,789]=902, p<0.001). The majority of detected intentional self-harm was confirmed as recent suicidal ideation or behavior by patient interview., Conclusions: Universal suicide risk screening in the ED was feasible and led to a nearly twofold increase in risk detection. If these findings remain true when scaled, the public health impact could be tremendous, because identification of risk is the first and necessary step for preventing suicide., Trial Registration: Emergency Department Safety Assessmentand Follow-up Evaluation (ED-SAFE) ClinicalTrials.gov: (NCT01150994). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01150994?term=ED-SAFE&rank=1., (Copyright © 2016 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study evaluated the concurrent validity of a brief suicide risk screener for adults in the emergency department (ED). Two versions of the verbally administered Patient Safety Screener (2-item, 3-item) were compared to a reference standard, the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation (BSSI). Analyses included measures of agreement (Kappa). Agreement between the Patient Safety Screener-2 and -3 and the BSSI (n = 951) was almost perfect for overall positive screening (K = 0.94-0.95) and past suicide attempts (K = 0.97-0.98). Agreement on ideation ranged from fair (K = 0.34) for the 2-item version to good (K = 0.61) for the 3-item version. The Patient Safety Screener's concurrent validity with the BSSI ranged from fair to almost perfect and warrants additional study.

Background: Due to the concentration of individuals at-risk for suicide, an emergency department visit represents an opportune time for suicide risk screening and intervention., Purpose: The Emergency Department Safety Assessment and Follow-up Evaluation (ED-SAFE) uses a quasi-experimental, interrupted time series design to evaluate whether (1) a practical approach to universally screening ED patients for suicide risk leads to improved detection of suicide risk and (2) a multi-component intervention delivered during and after the ED visit improves suicide-related outcomes., Methods: This paper summarizes the ED-SAFE's study design and methods within the context of considerations relevant to effectiveness research in suicide prevention and pertinent human participants concerns. 1440 suicidal individuals, from 8 general ED's nationally will be enrolled during three sequential phases of data collection (480 individuals/phase): (1) Treatment as Usual; (2) Universal Screening; and (3) Intervention. Data from the three phases will inform two separate evaluations: Screening Outcome (Phases 1 and 2) and Intervention (Phases 2 and 3). Individuals will be followed for 12 months. The primary study outcome is a composite reflecting completed suicide, attempted suicide, aborted or interrupted attempts, and implementation of rescue procedures during an outcome assessment., Conclusions: While 'classic' randomized control trials (RCT) are typically selected over quasi-experimental designs, ethical and methodological issues may make an RCT a poor fit for complex interventions in an applied setting, such as the ED. ED-SAFE represents an innovative approach to examining the complex public health issue of suicide prevention through a multi-phase, quasi-experimental design embedded in 'real world' clinical settings., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There are twice as many suicides as homicides in the United States, and the suicide rate is rising. Suicides increased 12% between 1999 and 2009. Mental health professionals often treat suicidal patients, and suicide occurs even among patients who are seeking treatment or are currently in treatment. Despite these facts, training of most mental health professionals in the assessment and management of suicidal patients is surprisingly limited. The extant literature regarding the frequency with which mental health professionals encounter suicidal patients is reviewed, as is the prevalence of training in suicide risk assessment and management. Most importantly, six recommendations are made to address the longstanding insufficient training within the mental health professions regarding the assessment and management of suicidal patients., (© 2012 The American Association of Suicidology.)

Objectives:   The objective was to provide estimates and predictors of screening for suicide in emergency departments (EDs)., Methods:   Eight geographically diverse U.S. EDs each performed chart reviews of 100 randomly selected patients, ages 18 years or older, with visits in October 2009. Trained chart abstractors collected information on patient demographics, presentation, discharge diagnosis, suicide screening, and other mental health indicators. Univariate logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with suicide screening., Results:   The cohort of 800 patients had a median age of 41 years (interquartile range = 27 to 53 years) with 57% female, 16% Hispanic, 58% white, 23% black or African American, and 10% other race. Suicide screenings were documented for 39 patients (4.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.4% to 6.4%). Of those screened, 23 (2.9% of total sample; 95% CI = 1.7% to 4.0%) were positive for suicidal ideation or behavior. Approximately 90% of those screened had documented complaints of a psychiatric nature at triage. About one-third had either documentation of alcohol abuse (33%) or intentional illegal or prescription drug misuse (36%)., Conclusions:   The presence of known psychiatric problems and substance use had the strongest associations with suicide screening, yet even patients presenting with these indicators were not screened for suicide. Understanding factors that currently influence suicide screening in the ED will guide the design and implementation of improved suicide screening protocols and related interventions., (© 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Objective: Little is known about the effects of lithium on suicidal ideation or about the possible antisuicidal effects of divalproex, second-generation antipsychotics, or antidepressants among persons with bipolar disorder., Methods: Using a cross-sectional design, the authors examined patterns of psychotropic drug use relative to suicidal ideation among 1,000 patients with bipolar disorder in the National Institute of Mental Health's Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD)., Results: The presence of suicidal ideation was similar between patients who were taking any lithium and those who were not (22.2 percent and 25.8 percent, respectively) and between those who were taking any divalproex and those who were not (20.3 percent and 21.5 percent). Suicidal ideation was significantly more prevalent among patients who were taking a second-generation antipsychotic than those who were not (26 percent and 17 percent) and those who were taking an antidepressant and those who were not (25 percent and 14 percent). After other variables had been controlled for, lithium prescriptions were significantly more common among patients who had suicidal ideation., Conclusions: Among patients with bipolar disorder who have suicidal ideation, antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics appear to be prescribed by community practitioners more often than other medications, with lithium reserved for those with more severe illness characteristics.

Suicide prevention is a critical objective in the treatment of bipolar disorder. This article describes practical mechanisms by which monitoring and management of suicide risk can be integrated into the routine care of patients with bipolar disorder. Suicide risk is assessed in terms of inclination (the drive to commit a self-destructive act) and opportunity (access to lethal means). Intervention strategies are adapted to the needs of bipolar patients across 3 phases of treatment: the acute episode; the continuation phase, when symptom reduction has occurred but adaptive recovery has not; and the maintenance phase, in which optimization of adaptive function and vigilance against impending relapse are paramount. Integration of suicide prevention into the outpatient management plan begins with a routine discussion of suicide risk at the initiation of a treatment relationship, even in the absence of other known risk factors. This discussion paves the way for ongoing assessment of suicidality. Just as the recommended routine monitoring of every euthymic bipolar patient includes at least some minimal assessment for prodromal symptoms of acute mania or depression, every clinical visit can include sufficient probes to determine the need for new interventions specific to suicide prevention. Ongoing assessment of risk and protective factors can be linked to a range of individualized interventions designed to meet the varying needs of patients over time. The intensity of monitoring and interventions reflects the clinician's knowledge of risk factors and may be life saving, but it is also important that patients and others involved in their care understand that monitoring cannot guarantee safety.