Dataset Information

Improving Suicide Risk Screening to Identify the Highest Risk Patients: Results From the PRImary Care Screening Methods (PRISM) Study

ABSTRACT:

PURPOSE

Over 95% of patients who screen positive on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) suicide risk item do not attempt or die by suicide, which could lead to unnecessary treatment and/or misallocation of limited resources. The present study seeks to determine if suicide risk screening can be meaningfully improved to identify the highest-risk patients.

METHODS

Patients eligible to receive medical treatment from the US Department of Defense medical system were recruited from 6 military primary care clinics located at 5 military installations around the United States. Patients completed self-report measures including the PHQ-9 and 16 items from the Suicide Cognitions Scale (SCS) during routine primary care clinic visits. Postbaseline suicidal behaviors (suicide attempts, interrupted attempts, and aborted attempts) were assessed by evaluators who were blind to screening results using the Self-Injurious Thoughts and Behaviors Interview.

RESULTS

Among 2,744 patients, 13 (0.5%) engaged in suicidal behavior in the 30 days after screening and 28 (1.0%) displayed suicidal behavior in the 90 days after screening. Multiple SCS items differentiated patients with suicidal behavior less than 30 days after screening positive for suicide risk. Augmenting the PHQ-9 suicide risk item with SCS items improved the identification of patients who were most likely to have suicidal behavior within a month of screening positive without sacrificing sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

Among primary care patients who screen positive for suicide risk on the PHQ-9, SCS items improved screening efficiency by identifying those patients who are most likely to engage in suicidal behavior within the next 30 days.

SUBMITTER: Bryan C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8575515 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIn 2018, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented the Veterans Affairs (VA) Suicide Risk Identification Strategy to improve the identification and management of suicide risk among veterans receiving VHA care.ObjectivesTo examine the prevalence of positive suicide screening results among veterans in ambulatory care and emergency departments (EDs) or urgent care clinics (UCCs) and to compare acuity of suicide risk among patients screened in these settings.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used data from the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) to assess veterans with at least 1 ambulatory care visit (n = 4 101 685) or ED or UCC visit (n = 1 044 056) at 140 VHA medical centers from October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019.ExposuresStandardized suicide risk screening and evaluation tools.Main outcomes and measuresOne-year rate of suicide risk screening and evaluation, prevalence of positive primary and secondary suicide risk screening results, and levels of acute and chronic risk based on the VHA's Comprehensive Suicide Risk Evaluation.ResultsA total of 4 101 685 veterans in ambulatory care settings (mean [SD] age, 62.3 [16.4] years; 3 771 379 [91.9%] male; 2 996 974 [73.1%] White) and 1 044 056 veterans in ED or UCC settings (mean [SD] age, 59.2 [16.2] years; 932 319 [89.3%] male; 688 559 [66.0%] White) received the primary suicide screening. The prevalence of positive suicide screening results was 3.5% for primary screening and 0.4% for secondary screening in ambulatory care and 3.6% for primary screening and 2.1% in secondary screening for ED and UCC settings. Compared with veterans screened in ambulatory care, those screened in the ED or UCC were more likely to endorse suicidal ideation with intent (odds ratio [OR], 4.55; 95% CI, 4.37-4.74; P < .001), specific plan (OR, 3.16; 95% CI, 3.04-3.29; P < .001), and recent suicidal behavior (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.87-2.03; P < .001) during secondary screening. Among the patients who received a Comprehensive Suicide Risk Evaluation, those in ED or UCC settings were more likely than those in ambulatory care settings to be at high acute risk (34.1% vs 8.5%; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, population-based suicide risk screening and evaluation in VHA ambulatory care and ED or UCC settings may help identify risk among patients who may not be receiving mental health treatment. Higher acuity of risk among veterans in ED or UCC settings compared with those in ambulatory care settings highlights the importance of scaling up implementation of brief evidence-based interventions in the ED or UCC to reduce suicidal behavior.

Project description:BackgroundChild tuberculosis (TB) contact management is recommended for preventing TB in children but its implementation is suboptimal in high TB/HIV-burden settings. The PREVENT Study was a mixed-methods, clustered-randomized implementation study that evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of a community-based intervention (CBI) to improve child TB contact management in Lesotho, a high TB burden country.MethodsTen health facilities were randomized to CBI or standard of care (SOC). CBI holistically addressed the complex provider-, patient-, and caregiver-related barriers to prevention of childhood TB. Routine TB program data were abstracted from TB registers and cards for all adult TB patients aged >18 years registered during the study period, and their child contacts. Primary outcome was yield (number) of child contacts identified and screened per adult TB patient. Generalized linear mixed models tested for differences between study arms. CBI acceptability was assessed via semi-structured in-depth interviews with a purposively selected sample of 20 healthcare providers and 28 caregivers. Qualitative data were used to explain and confirm quantitative results. We used thematic analysis to analyze the data.ResultsFrom 01/2017-06/2018, 973 adult TB patients were recorded, 490 at CBI and 483 at SOC health facilities; 64% male, 68% HIV-positive. At CBI and SOC health facilities, 216 and 164 child contacts were identified, respectively (p = 0.16). Screening proportions (94% vs. 62%, p = 0.13) were similar; contact yield per TB case (0.40 vs. 0.20, p = 0.08) was higher at CBI than SOC health facilities, respectively. CBI was acceptable to caregivers and healthcare providers.ConclusionIdentification and screening for TB child contacts were similar across study arms but yield was marginally higher at CBI compared with SOC health facilities. CBI scale-up may enhance the ability to reach and engage child TB contacts, contributing to efforts to improve TB prevention among children.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care provides most of the evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening services offered by the healthcare system. However, there remains a gap between recommended preventive services and actual practice. This trial (the BETTER Trial) aimed to improve preventive care of heart disease, diabetes, colorectal, breast and cervical cancers, and relevant lifestyle factors through a practice facilitation intervention set in primary care.MethodsPragmatic two-way factorial cluster RCT with Primary Care Physicians' practices as the unit of allocation and individual patients as the unit of analysis. The setting was urban Primary Care Team practices in two Canadian provinces. Eight Primary Care Team practices were randomly assigned to receive the practice-level intervention or wait-list control; 4 physicians in each team (32 physicians) were randomly assigned to receive the patient-level intervention or wait-list control. Patients randomly selected from physicians' rosters were stratified into two groups: 1) general and 2) moderate mental illness. The interventions involved a multifaceted, evidence-based, tailored practice-level intervention with a Practice Facilitator, and a patient-level intervention involving a one-hour visit with a Prevention Practitioner where patients received a tailored 'prevention prescription'. The primary outcome was a composite Summary Quality Index of 28 evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening actions with pre-defined targets, expressed as the ratio of eligible actions at baseline that were met at follow-up. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted.Results789 of 1,260 (63%) eligible patients participated. On average, patients were eligible for 8.96 (SD 3.2) actions at baseline. In the adjusted analysis, control patients met 23.1% (95% CI: 19.2% to 27.1%) of target actions, compared to 28.5% (95% CI: 20.9% to 36.0%) receiving the practice-level intervention, 55.6% (95% CI: 49.0% to 62.1%) receiving the patient-level intervention, and 58.9% (95% CI: 54.7% to 63.1%) receiving both practice- and patient-level interventions (patient-level intervention versus control, P < 0.001). The benefit of the patient-level intervention was seen in both strata. The extra cost of the intervention was $26.43CAN (95% CI: $16 to $44) per additional action met.ConclusionsA Prevention Practitioner can improve the implementation of clinically important prevention and screening for chronic diseases in a cost-effective manner.