Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Aug;15(3):270-278.
doi: 10.1037/ser0000236.

Predictive utility of an emergency department decision support tool in patients with active suicidal ideation

Affiliations

Predictive utility of an emergency department decision support tool in patients with active suicidal ideation

Edwin D Boudreaux et al. Psychol Serv. 2018 Aug.

Abstract

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

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Decision Tree for Suicide Risk during the first 6 weeks
Figure 2
Figure 2
Decision Tree for Suicide Risk any time during the study

References

    1. Ahmedani BK, Simon GE, Stewart C, Beck A, Waitzfelder BE, Rossom R, Solberg LI. Health care contacts in the year before suicide death. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(6):870–877. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2767-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Allen MH, Abar BW, McCormick M, Barnes DH, Haukoos J, Garmel GM, Boudreaux ED. Screening for suicidal ideation and attempts among emergency department medical patients: Instrument and results from the Psychiatric Emergency Research Collaboration. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. 2013;43(3):313–323. doi: 10.1111/sltb.12018. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arias SA, Miller I, Camargo CA, Jr, Sullivan AF, Goldstein AB, Allen MH, Boudreaux ED. Factors associated with suicide outcomes 12 months after screening positive for suicide risk in the emergency department. Psychiatric Services. 2016;67(2):206–213. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201400513. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle JC, Saunders JB, Monteiro MG, World Health Organization . AUDIT: The alcohol use disorders identification test: Guidelines for use in primary health care. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
    1. Boudreaux ED, Camargo CA, Jr, Arias SA, Sullivan AF, Allen MH, Goldstein AB, Miller IW. Improving suicide risk screening and detection in the emergency department. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2016;50(4):445–453. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.09.029. - DOI - PMC - PubMed