Support for Relatives Bereaved by Psychiatric Patient Suicide: National Confidential Inquiry Into Suicide and Homicide Findings

OBJECTIVES: International suicide prevention strategies recommend providing support to families bereaved by suicide. The study objectives were to measure the proportion of cases in which psychiatric professionals contact next of kin after a patient’s suicide and to investigate whether specific, potentially stigmatizing patient characteristics influence whether the family is contacted. METHODS: Annual survey data from England and Wales (2003–2012) were used to identify 11,572 suicide cases among psychiatric patients. Multivariate regression analysis was used to describe the association between specific covariates (chosen on the basis of clinical judgment and the published literature) and the probability that psychiatric staff would contact bereaved relatives of the deceased. RESULTS: Relatives were not contacted after the death in 33% of cases. Contrary to the hypothesis, a violent method of suicide was independently associated with greater likelihood of contact with relatives (adjusted odds ratio=1.67). Four patient factors (forensic history, unemployment, and primary diagnosis of alcohol or drug dependence or misuse) were independently associated with less likelihood of contact with relatives. Patients’ race-ethnicity and recent alcohol or drug misuse were not associated with contact with relatives. CONCLUSIONS: Four stigmatizing patient-related factors reduced the likelihood of contacting next of kin after patient suicide, suggesting inequitable access to support after a potentially traumatic bereavement. Given the association of suicide bereavement with suicide attempt, and the possibility of relatives’ shared risk factors for suicide, British psychiatric services should provide more support to relatives after patient suicide

Which are the most useful scales for predicting repeat self-harm?:A systematic review evaluating risk scales using measures of diagnostic accuracy

The aims of this review were to calculate the diagnostic accuracy statistics of risk scales following self-harm and consider which might be the most useful scales in clinical practice.Systematic review.We based our search terms on those used in the systematic reviews carried out for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence self-harm guidelines (2012) and evidence update (2013), and updated the searches through to February 2015 (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO). Methodological quality was assessed and three reviewers extracted data independently. We limited our analysis to cohort studies in adults using the outcome of repeat self-harm or attempted suicide. We calculated diagnostic accuracy statistics including measures of global accuracy. Statistical pooling was not possible due to heterogeneity.The eight papers included in the final analysis varied widely according to methodological quality and the content of scales employed. Overall, sensitivity of scales ranged from 6% (95% CI 5% to 6%) to 97% (CI 95% 94% to 98%). The positive predictive value (PPV) ranged from 5% (95% CI 3% to 9%) to 84% (95% CI 80% to 87%). The diagnostic OR ranged from 1.01 (95% CI 0.434 to 2.5) to 16.3 (95%CI 12.5 to 21.4). Scales with high sensitivity tended to have low PPVs.It is difficult to be certain which, if any, are the most useful scales for self-harm risk assessment. No scales perform sufficiently well so as to be recommended for routine clinical use. Further robust prospective studies are warranted to evaluate risk scales following an episode of self-harm. Diagnostic accuracy statistics should be considered in relation to the specific service needs, and scales should only be used as an adjunct to assessment

Does clinical management improve outcomes following self-Harm? Results from the multicentre study of self-harm in England

Background Evidence to guide clinical management of self-harm is sparse, trials have recruited selected samples, and psychological treatments that are suggested in guidelines may not be available in routine practice. Aims To examine how the management that patients receive in hospital relates to subsequent outcome. Methods We identified episodes of self-harm presenting to three UK centres (Derby, Manchester, Oxford) over a 10 year period (2000 to 2009). We used established data collection systems to investigate the relationship between four aspects of management (psychosocial assessment, medical admission, psychiatric admission, referral for specialist mental health follow up) and repetition of self-harm within 12 months, adjusted for differences in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Results 35,938 individuals presented with self-harm during the study period. In two of the three centres, receiving a psychosocial assessment was associated with a 40% lower risk of repetition, Hazard Ratios (95% CIs): Centre A 0.99 (0.90–1.09); Centre B 0.59 (0.48–0.74); Centre C 0.59 (0.52–0.68). There was little indication that the apparent protective effects were mediated through referral and follow up arrangements. The association between psychosocial assessment and a reduced risk of repetition appeared to be least evident in those from the most deprived areas. Conclusion These findings add to the growing body of evidence that thorough assessment is central to the management of self-harm, but further work is needed to elucidate the possible mechanisms and explore the effects in different clinical subgroups

Suicide and the 2008 economic recession: Who is most at risk? Trends in suicide rates in England and Wales 2001–2011

AbstractThe negative impacts of previous economic recessions on suicide rates have largely been attributed to rapid rises in unemployment in the context of inadequate social and work protection programmes. We have investigated trends in indicators of the 2008 economic recession and trends in suicide rates in England and Wales in men and women of working age (16–64 years old) for the period 2001–2011, before, during and after the economic recession, our aim was to identify demographic groups whose suicide rates were most affected. We found no clear evidence of an association between trends in female suicide rates and indicators of economic recession. Evidence of a halt in the previous downward trend in suicide rates occurred for men aged 16–34 years in 2006 (95% CI Quarter 3 (Q3) 2004, Q3 2007 for 16–24 year olds & Q1 2005, Q4 2006 for 25–34 year olds), whilst suicide rates in 35–44 year old men reversed from a downward to upward trend in early 2010 (95% CI Q4 2008, Q2 2011). For the younger men (16–34 years) this change preceded the sharp increases in redundancy and unemployment rates of early 2008 and lagged behind rising trends in house repossessions and bankruptcy that began around 2003. An exception were the 35–44 year old men for whom a change in suicide rate trends from downwards to upwards coincided with peaks in redundancies, unemployment and rises in long-term unemployment. Suicide rates across the decade rose monotonically in men aged 45–64 years. Male suicide in the most-to-medium deprived areas showed evidence of decreasing rates across the decade, whilst in the least-deprived areas suicide rates were fairly static but remained much lower than those in the most-deprived areas. There were small post-recession increases in the proportion of suicides in men in higher management/professional, small employer/self-employed occupations and fulltime education. A halt in the downward trend in suicide rates amongst men aged 16–34 years, may have begun before the 2008 economic recession whilst for men aged 35–44 years old increased suicide rates mirrored recession related unemployment. This evidence suggests indicators of economic strain other than unemployment and redundancies, such as personal debt and house repossessions may contribute to increased suicide rates in younger-age men whilst for men aged 35–44 years old job loss and long-term unemployment is a key risk factor

Psychosocial assessment of self-harm patients and risk of repeat presentation:An instrumental variable analysis using time of hospital presentation

BACKGROUND:Clinical guidelines have recommended psychosocial assessment of self-harm patients for years, yet estimates of its impact on the risk of repeat self-harm vary. Assessing the association of psychosocial assessment with risk of repeat self-harm is challenging due to the effects of confounding by indication. METHODS:We analysed data from a cohort study of 15,113 patients presenting to the emergency departments of three UK hospitals to investigate the association of psychosocial assessment with risk of repeat hospital presentation for self-harm. Time of day of hospital presentation was used as an instrument for psychosocial assessment, attempting to control for confounding by indication. RESULTS:Conventional regression analysis suggested psychosocial assessment was not associated with risk of repeat self-harm within 12 months (Risk Difference (RD) 0.00 95% confidence interval (95%CI) -0.01 to 0.02). In contrast, IV analysis suggested risk of repeat self-harm was reduced by 18% (RD -0.18, 95%CI -0.32 to -0.03) in those patients receiving a psychosocial assessment. However, the instrument of time of day did not remove all potential effects of confounding by indication, suggesting the IV effect estimate may be biased. CONCLUSIONS:We found that psychosocial assessments reduce risk of repeat self-harm. This is in-line with other non-randomised studies based on populations in which allocation to assessment was less subject to confounding by indication. However, as our instrument did not fully balance important confounders across time of day, the IV effect estimate should be interpreted with caution

Risk assessment scales to predict risk of hospital treated repeat self-harm: A cost-effectiveness modelling analysis

Background: Risk scales are used widely for assessing individuals presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) following self-harm. There is growing evidence that risk scales have limited clinical utility in identifying episodes at highest risk of repeat self-harm. However, their cost-effectiveness in terms of treatment allocation and subsequent repeat self-harm is unknown. We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of five risk scales (SAD PERSONS Scale, Modified SAD PERSONS Scale, ReACT Self-Harm Rule, Manchester Self-Harm Rule, Barratt Impulsivity Scale) and single item clinician and patient ratings of risk. Method: Quality-Adjusted Life Years were estimated for each episode. The five risk scales and the patient rating were compared to the clinician rating. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for each scale, using a range of ICER thresholds. Sensitivity analysis explored different model assumptions. Results: The formal scales were less cost-effective than the clinician and patient ratings across a range of ICER thresholds (£0-£30,000). The five scales were also less cost-effective than the clinician rating in most alternative scenario analyses. However, the clinician rating would be likely to result in unnecessary treatment costs for over half of patients identified as high risk. Limitations: Our primary model depended on the assumption that high-intensity care reduced patients’ risk of further self-harm. Conclusion: The use of formal assessment tools for managing self-harm presentations to EDs did not appear to be cost-effective. While the judgement of a mental health clinician was found to be slightly more cost-effective, it still resulted in incorrect allocation of costs and missed treatment opportunities

New standard of proof for suicide at inquests in England and Wales

Suicide can now be concluded on “balance of probabilities”