Suicide risk management: development and analysis of a telephone-based approach to patient safety

Research-based queries about patients’ experiences often uncover suicidal thoughts. Human subjects review requires suicide risk management (SRM) protocols to protect patients, yet minimal information exists to guide researchers’ protocol development and implementation efforts. The purpose of this study was to examine the development and implementation of an SRM protocol employed during telephone-based screening and data collection interviews of depressed primary care patients. We describe an SRM protocol development process and employ qualitative analysis of de-identified documentation to characterize protocol-driven interactions between research clinicians and patients. Protocol development required advance planning, training, and team building. Three percent of screened patients evidenced suicidal ideation; 12% of these met protocol standards for study clinician assessment/intervention. Risk reduction activities required teamwork and extensive collaboration. Research-based SRM protocols can facilitate patient safety by (1) identifying and verifying local clinical site approaches and resources and (2) integrating these features into prevention protocols and training for research teams

Hopelessness and Suicidal Ideation in Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans Reporting Subthreshold and Threshold Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Abstract: We examined hopelessness and suicidal ideation in association with subthreshold and threshold posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in a sample of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans (U.S., N 275) assessed within a specialty VA postdeployment health clinic. Veterans completed paper-and-pencil questionnaires at intake. The military version of the PTSD Checklist was used to determine PTSD levels (No PTSD; subthreshold PTSD; PTSD), and endorsement of hopelessness or suicidal ideation were used as markers of elevated suicide risk. Veterans were also asked if they received mental health treatment in the prior 6 months. Veterans reporting subthreshold PTSD were 3 times more likely to endorse these markers of elevated suicide risk relative to the Veterans without PTSD. We found no significant differences in likelihood of endorsing hopelessness or suicidal ideation comparing subthreshold and threshold PTSD groups, although the subthreshold PTSD group was less likely to report prior mental health treatment. Clinicians should be attentive to suicide risk in returned Veterans reporting both subthreshold and threshold PTSD

Learning from national implementation of the Veterans Affairs Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program for improving access to care: protocol for a six year evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program aims to improve patient access to care by implementing time-limited, regionally based primary or mental health staffing support to cover local staffing vacancies. VAs Office of Primary Care (OPC) designed CRH to support more than 1000 geographically disparate VA outpatient sites, many of which are in rural areas, by providing virtual contingency clinical staffing for sites experiencing primary care and mental health staffing deficits. The subsequently funded CRH evaluation, carried out by the VA Primary Care Analytics Team (PCAT), partnered with CRH program leaders and evaluation stakeholders to develop a protocol for a six-year CRH evaluation. The objectives for developing the CRH evaluation protocol were to prospectively: 1) identify the outcomes CRH aimed to achieve, and the key program elements designed to achieve them; 2) specify evaluation designs and data collection approaches for assessing CRH progress and success; and 3) guide the activities of five geographically dispersed evaluation teams. METHODS: The protocol documents a multi-method CRH program evaluation design with qualitative and quantitative elements. The evaluations overall goal is to assess CRHs return on investment to the VA and Veterans at six years through synthesis of findings on program effectiveness. The evaluation includes both observational and quasi-experimental elements reflecting impacts at the national, regional, outpatient site, and patient levels. The protocol is based on program evaluation theory, implementation science frameworks, literature on contingency staffing, and iterative review and revision by both research and clinical operations partners. DISCUSSION: Health systems increasingly seek to use data to guide management and decision-making for newly implemented clinical programs and policies. Approaches for planning evaluations to accomplish this goal, however, are not well-established. By publishing the protocol, we aim to increase the validity and usefulness of subsequent evaluation findings. We also aim to provide an example of a program evaluation protocol developed within a learning health systems partnership