An implementation evaluation of "Zero Suicide" using normalization process theory to support high-quality care for patients at risk of suicide

Adolescents Who Do Not Endorse Risk via the Patient Health Questionnaire Before Self-Harm or Suicide

Importance

Given that the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) item 9 is commonly used to screen for risk of self-harm and suicide, it is important that clinicians recognize circumstances when at-risk adolescents may go undetected.

Objective

To understand characteristics of adolescents with a history of depression who do not endorse the PHQ item 9 before a near-term intentional self-harm event or suicide.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective cohort study design using electronic health record and claims data from January 2009 through September 2017. Settings included primary care and mental health specialty clinics across 7 integrated US health care systems. Included in the study were adolescents aged 13 to 17 years with history of depression who completed the PHQ item 9 within 30 or 90 days before self-harm or suicide. Study data were analyzed September 2022 to April 2023.

Exposures

Demographic, diagnostic, treatment, and health care utilization characteristics.

Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)

Responded "not at all" (score = 0) to PHQ item 9 regarding thoughts of death or self-harm within 30 or 90 days before self-harm or suicide.

Results

The study included 691 adolescents (mean [SD] age, 15.3 [1.3] years; 541 female [78.3%]) in the 30-day cohort and 1024 adolescents (mean [SD] age, 15.3 [1.3] years; 791 female [77.2%]) in the 90-day cohort. A total of 197 of 691 adolescents (29%) and 330 of 1024 adolescents (32%), respectively, scored 0 before self-harm or suicide on the PHQ item 9 in the 30- and 90-day cohorts. Adolescents seen in primary care (odds ratio [OR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.1; P = .03) and older adolescents (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.3; P = .02) had increased odds of scoring 0 within 90 days of a self-harm event or suicide, and adolescents with a history of inpatient hospitalization and a mental health diagnosis had twice the odds (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.0; P = .001) of scoring 0 within 30 days. Conversely, adolescents with diagnoses of eating disorders were significantly less likely to score 0 on item 9 (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.8; P = .007) within 90 days.

Conclusions and Relevance

Study results suggest that older age, history of an inpatient mental health encounter, or being screened in primary care were associated with at-risk adolescents being less likely to endorse having thoughts of death and self-harm on the PHQ item 9 before a self-harm event or suicide death. As use of the PHQ becomes more widespread in practice, additional research is needed for understanding reasons why many at-risk adolescents do not endorse thoughts of death and self-harm.

Reducing Firearm Access for Suicide Prevention: Implementation Evaluation of the Web-Based "Lock to Live" Decision Aid in Routine Health Care Encounters

Background

"Lock to Live" (L2L) is a novel web-based decision aid for helping people at risk of suicide reduce access to firearms. Researchers have demonstrated that L2L is feasible to use and acceptable to patients, but little is known about how to implement L2L during web-based mental health care and in-person contact with clinicians.

Objective

The goal of this project was to support the implementation and evaluation of L2L during routine primary care and mental health specialty web-based and in-person encounters.

Methods

The L2L implementation and evaluation took place at Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA)-a large, regional, nonprofit health care system. Three dimensions from the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) model-Reach, Adoption, and Implementation-were selected to inform and evaluate the implementation of L2L at KPWA (January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021). Electronic health record (EHR) data were used to purposefully recruit adult patients, including firearm owners and patients reporting suicidality, to participate in semistructured interviews. Interview themes were used to facilitate L2L implementation and inform subsequent semistructured interviews with clinicians responsible for suicide risk mitigation. Audio-recorded interviews were conducted via the web, transcribed, and coded, using a rapid qualitative inquiry approach. A descriptive analysis of EHR data was performed to summarize L2L reach and adoption among patients identified at high risk of suicide.

Results

The initial implementation consisted of updates for clinicians to add a URL and QR code referencing L2L to the safety planning EHR templates. Recommendations about introducing L2L were subsequently derived from the thematic analysis of semistructured interviews with patients (n=36), which included (1) "have an open conversation," (2) "validate their situation," (3) "share what to expect," (4) "make it accessible and memorable," and (5) "walk through the tool." Clinicians' interviews (n=30) showed a strong preference to have L2L included by default in the EHR-based safety planning template (in contrast to adding it manually). During the 2-year observation period, 2739 patients reported prior-month suicide attempt planning or intent and had a documented safety plan during the study period, including 745 (27.2%) who also received L2L. Over four 6-month subperiods of the observation period, L2L adoption rates increased substantially from 2% to 29% among primary care clinicians and from <1% to 48% among mental health clinicians.

Conclusions

Understanding the value of L2L from users' perspectives was essential for facilitating implementation and increasing patient reach and clinician adoption. Incorporating L2L into the existing system-level, EHR-based safety plan template reduced the effort to use L2L and was likely the most impactful implementation strategy. As rising suicide rates galvanize the urgency of prevention, the findings from this project, including L2L implementation tools and strategies, will support efforts to promote safety for suicide prevention in health care nationwide.

Suicide Screening, Risk Assessment, and Lethal Means Counseling During Zero Suicide Implementation

OBJECTIVE

The authors measured implementation of Zero Suicide (ZS) clinical practices that support identification of suicide risk and risk mitigation, including screening, risk assessment, and lethal means counseling, across mental health specialty and primary care settings.

METHODS

Six health care systems in California, Colorado, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington participated. The sample included members ages ≥13 years from 2010 to 2019 (N=7,820,524 patients). The proportions of patients with suicidal ideation screening, suicide risk assessment, and lethal means counseling were estimated.

RESULTS

In 2019, patients were screened for suicidal ideation in 27.1% (range 5.0%-85.0%) of mental health visits and 2.5% (range 0.1%-35.0%) of primary care visits among a racially and ethnically diverse sample (44.9% White, 27.2% Hispanic, 13.4% Asian, and 7.7% Black). More patients screened positive for suicidal ideation in the mental health setting (10.2%) than in the primary care setting (3.8%). Of the patients screening positive for suicidal ideation in the mental health setting, 76.8% received a risk assessment, and 82.4% of those identified as being at high risk received lethal means counseling, compared with 43.2% and 82.4%, respectively, in primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

Six health systems that implemented ZS showed a high level of variation in the proportions of patients receiving suicide screening and risk assessment and lethal means counseling. Two opportunities emerged for further study to increase frequency of these practices: expanding screening beyond patients with regular health care visits and implementing risk assessment with lethal means counseling in the primary care setting directly after a positive suicidal ideation screening.

Community Collaboration for Suicide and Overdose Prevention: Attitudes, Perceptions, and Practices of Community-Based Professionals and County Leadership in New York State

Deaths by overdose and suicide have been steadily rising, yet efforts to jointly address them have been limited despite shared risk and protective factors. The purpose of this study was to explore ways of jointly addressing these two significant public health issues at the community level. To accomplish this goal, we distributed an electronic survey via email to all 58 Local Mental Hygiene Directors (LMHDs) and 184 substance use and 57 suicide prevention coalition leads in New York State in March 2019 to better understand attitudes, perceptions, and practice of community-based overdose and suicide prevention. A total of 140 unique individuals completed the survey for a 47% usable response rate. Participants overwhelmingly reported that suicide and overdose are preventable and that individuals with risky substance use would benefit most from suicide prevention services compared to other populations. In addition, substance use prevention coalition leads reported less awareness of key suicide prevention programs than suicide prevention coalition leads and LMHDs; LMHDs were generally most familiar with suicide prevention programs. Finally, substance use and suicide prevention coalition leads were interested in collaborating to raise awareness, provide training, and implement community-based activities. These findings demonstrate a consensus among county leadership and substance use and suicide prevention coalition leads that suicide and overdose are prevalent in their communities and that increased collaboration to address these two public health issues is warranted. Results suggest a need for education, training, and technical assistance to support collaboration.

Stability of Suicide Risk Prediction Models During Changes in Health Care Delivery

OBJECTIVE

The authors aimed to use health records data to examine how the accuracy of statistical models predicting self-harm or suicide changed between 2015 and 2019, as health systems implemented suicide prevention programs.

METHODS

Data from four large health systems were used to identify specialty mental health visits by patients ages ≥11 years, assess 311 potential predictors of self-harm (including demographic characteristics, historical risk factors, and index visit characteristics), and ascertain fatal or nonfatal self-harm events over 90 days after each visit. New prediction models were developed with logistic regression with LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) in random samples of visits (65%) from each calendar year and were validated in the remaining portion of the sample (35%).

RESULTS

A model developed for visits from 2009 to mid-2015 showed similar classification performance and calibration accuracy in a new sample of about 13.1 million visits from late 2015 to 2019. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) ranged from 0.840 to 0.849 in the new sample, compared with 0.851 in the original sample. New models developed for each year for 2015-2019 had classification performance (AUC range 0.790-0.853), sensitivity, and positive predictive value similar to those of the previously developed model. Models selected similar predictors from 2015 to 2019, except for more frequent selection of depression questionnaire data in later years, when questionnaires were more frequently recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

A self-harm prediction model developed with 2009-2015 visit data performed similarly when applied to 2015-2019 visits. New models did not yield superior performance or identify different predictors.

Examining the Feasibility of Implementing Digital Mental Health Innovations Into Hospitals to Support Youth in Suicide Crisis: Interview Study With Young People and Health Professionals

BACKGROUND

Hospitals are insufficiently resourced to appropriately support young people who present with suicidal crises. Digital mental health innovations have the potential to provide cost-effective models of care to address this service gap and improve care experiences for young people. However, little is currently known about whether digital innovations are feasible to integrate into complex hospital settings or how they should be introduced for sustainability.

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative study explored the potential benefits, barriers, and collective action required for integrating digital therapeutics for the management of suicidal distress in youth into routine hospital practice. Addressing these knowledge gaps is a critical first step in designing digital innovations and implementation strategies that enable uptake and integration.

METHODS

We conducted a series of semistructured interviews with young people who had presented to an Australian hospital for a suicide crisis in the previous 12 months and hospital staff who interacted with these young people. Participants were recruited from the community nationally via social media advertisements on the web. Interviews were conducted individually, and participants were reimbursed for their time. Using the Normalization Process Theory framework, we developed an interview guide to clarify the processes and conditions that influence whether and how an innovation becomes part of routine practice in complex health systems.

RESULTS

Analysis of 29 interviews (n=17, 59% young people and n=12, 41% hospital staff) yielded 4 themes that were mapped onto 3 Normalization Process Theory constructs related to coherence building, cognitive participation, and collective action. Overall, digital innovations were seen as a beneficial complement to but not a substitute for in-person clinical services. The timing of delivery was important, with the agreement that digital therapeutics could be provided to patients while they were waiting to be assessed or shortly before discharge. Staff training to increase digital literacy was considered key to implementation, but there were mixed views on the level of staff assistance needed to support young people in engaging with digital innovations. Improving access to technological devices and internet connectivity, increasing staff motivation to facilitate the use of the digital therapeutic, and allowing patients autonomy over the use of the digital therapeutic were identified as other factors critical to integration.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrating digital innovations into current models of patient care for young people presenting to hospital in acute suicide crises is challenging because of several existing resource, logistical, and technical barriers. Scoping the appropriateness of new innovations with relevant key stakeholders as early as possible in the development process should be prioritized as the best opportunity to preemptively identify and address barriers to implementation.

Veteran Perspectives on Population-Based Suicide Risk Screening in VHA Primary Care: Mixed-Methods Study

BACKGROUND

In late 2018, VHA implemented a multi-stage suicide risk screening and evaluation initiative, Suicide Risk Identification Strategy, or "Risk ID," in primary care settings.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study was to characterize VHA primary care patient perspectives regarding population-based suicide risk screening through the Risk ID program.

DESIGN

Mixed methods; survey and qualitative interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Veterans screened for suicide risk using Risk ID in primary care (n = 868) participated in a survey of veteran attitudes about screening (45% response rate); thirty additionally participated in follow-up qualitative interviews.

MAIN MEASURES

The quantitative survey consisted of three questions on attitudes about screening for suicidal thoughts in primary care. In qualitative interviews, veterans were asked about their experiences with the Risk ID processes and recommendations for improving Risk ID.

KEY RESULTS

Over 90% of veterans reported that it is appropriate for primary care providers or nurses/medical assistants to ask veterans about thoughts of suicide during primary care visits. Approximately half of veterans indicated that veterans should be asked about suicidal thoughts at every visit. Qualitative findings revealed that while most veterans were generally supportive and appreciated VHA screening for suicidal thoughts, they also expressed concern for the potential for inadvertent harm. Participants expressed conflicting preferences for how screening should be handled and delivered.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that most veterans support the integration of standardized suicide risk assessment into routine primary care visits. However, findings also suggest that population-based suicide risk assessment should further consider patient experiences and preferences. Specifically, additional guidance or training for staff conducting suicide risk screening may be warranted to ensure patients feel heard (e.g., eye contact, expressing empathy) and increase patient understanding of the purpose of the screening and potential outcomes. These patient-centered approaches may improve patient experience and facilitate disclosure of suicidal thoughts.

Patient and Clinician Perspectives of a Standardized Question About Firearm Access to Support Suicide Prevention: A Qualitative Study

Importance

US residents report broad access to firearms, which are the most common means of suicide death in the US. Standardized firearm access questions during routine health care encounters are uncommon despite potential benefits for suicide prevention.

Objective

To explore patient and clinician experiences with a standard question about firearm access on a self-administered mental health questionnaire routinely used prior to primary care and mental health specialty encounters.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted from November 18, 2019, to October 8, 2020, at Kaiser Permanente Washington, a large integrated care delivery system and insurance provider. Electronic health record data identified adult patients with a documented mental health diagnosis who had received a standard question about firearm access ("Do you have access to guns? yes/no") within the prior 2 weeks. A stratified sampling distribution selected 30% who answered "yes," 30% who answered "no," and 40% who left the question blank. Two groups of clinicians responsible for safety planning with patients at risk of suicide were also sampled: (1) licensed clinical social workers (LICSWs) in primary and urgent care settings and (2) consulting nurses (RNs).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Participants completed semistructured telephone interviews, which were recorded and transcribed. Directive (deductive) and conventional (inductive) content analyses were used to apply knowledge from prior research and describe new information. Thematic analysis was used to organize key content, and triangulation was used to describe the intersections between patient and clinician perspectives.

Results

Thirty-six patients were interviewed (of 76 sampled; mean [SD] age, 47.3 [17.9] years; 19 [53%] were male; 27 [75%] were White; 3 [8%] were Black; and 1 [3%] was Latinx or Hispanic. Sixteen participants had reported firearm access and 15 had reported thoughts of self-harm on the questionnaire used for sampling. Thirty clinicians were interviewed (of 51 sampled) (mean [SD] age, 44.3 [12.1] years; 24 [80%] were female; 18 [60%] were White; 5 [17%] were Asian or Pacific Islander; and 4 [13%] were Latinx or Hispanic) including 25 LICSWs and 5 RNs. Key organizing themes included perceived value of standardized questions about firearm access, challenges of asking and answering, and considerations for practice improvement. Clinician interview themes largely converged and/or complemented patient interviews.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this qualitative study using semistructured interviews with patients and clinicians, a standardized question about firearm access was found to encourage dialogue about firearm access. Respondents underscored the importance of nonjudgmental acknowledgment of patients' reasons for firearm access as key to patient-centered practice improvement.

Machine Learning Prediction of Suicide Risk Does Not Identify Patients Without Traditional Risk Factors

Objective: To determine whether predictions of suicide risk from machine learning models identify unexpected patients or patients without medical record documentation of traditional risk factors.

Methods: The study sample included 27,091,382 outpatient mental health (MH) specialty or general medical visits with a MH diagnosis for patients aged 11 years or older from January 1, 2009, to September 30, 2017. We used predicted risk scores of suicide attempt and suicide death, separately, within 90 days of visits to classify visits into risk score percentile strata. For each stratum, we calculated counts and percentages of visits with traditional risk factors, including prior self-harm diagnoses and emergency department visits or hospitalizations with MH diagnoses, in the last 3, 12, and 60 months.

Results: Risk-factor percentages increased with predicted risk scores. Among MH specialty visits, 66%, 88%, and 99% of visits with suicide attempt risk scores in the top 3 strata (respectively, 90th-95th, 95th-98th, and ≥ 98th percentiles) and 60%, 77%, and 93% of visits with suicide risk scores in the top 3 strata represented patients who had at least one traditional risk factor documented in the prior 12 months. Among general medical visits, 52%, 66%, and 90% of visits with suicide attempt risk scores in the top 3 strata and 45%, 66%, and 79% of visits with suicide risk scores in the top 3 strata represented patients who had a history of traditional risk factors in the last 12 months.

Conclusions: Suicide risk alerts based on these machine learning models coincide with patients traditionally thought of as high-risk at their high-risk visits.