26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How do healthcare professionals interview patients to assess suicide risk?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          There is little evidence on how professionals communicate to assess suicide risk. This study analysed how professionals interview patients about suicidal ideation in clinical practice.

          Methods

          Three hundred nineteen video-recorded outpatient visits in U.K. secondary mental health care were screened. 83 exchanges about suicidal ideation were identified in 77 visits. A convenience sample of 6 cases in 46 primary care visits was also analysed. Depressive symptoms were assessed. Questions and responses were qualitatively analysed using conversation analysis. χ 2 tested whether questions were influenced by severity of depression or influenced patients’ responses.

          Results

          A gateway closed question was always asked inviting a yes/no response. 75% of questions were negatively phrased, communicating an expectation of no suicidal ideation, e.g., “No thoughts of harming yourself?”. 25% were positively phrased, communicating an expectation of suicidal ideation, e.g., “Do you feel life is not worth living?”. Comparing these two question types, patients were significantly more likely to say they were not suicidal when the question was negatively phrased but were not more likely to say they were suicidal when positively phrased ( χ 2 = 7.2, df = 1, p = 0.016). 25% patients responded with a narrative rather than a yes/no, conveying ambivalence. Here, psychiatrists tended to pursue a yes/no response. When the patient responded no to the gateway question, the psychiatrist moved on to the next topic. A similar pattern was identified in primary care.

          Conclusions

          Psychiatrists tend to ask patients to confirm they are not suicidal using negative questions. Negatively phrased questions bias patients’ responses towards reporting no suicidal ideation.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-017-1212-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia.

          The variable results of positive-negative research with schizophrenics underscore the importance of well-characterized, standardized measurement techniques. We report on the development and initial standardization of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for typological and dimensional assessment. Based on two established psychiatric rating systems, the 30-item PANSS was conceived as an operationalized, drug-sensitive instrument that provides balanced representation of positive and negative symptoms and gauges their relationship to one another and to global psychopathology. It thus constitutes four scales measuring positive and negative syndromes, their differential, and general severity of illness. Study of 101 schizophrenics found the four scales to be normally distributed and supported their reliability and stability. Positive and negative scores were inversely correlated once their common association with general psychopathology was extracted, suggesting that they represent mutually exclusive constructs. Review of five studies involving the PANSS provided evidence of its criterion-related validity with antecedent, genealogical, and concurrent measures, its predictive validity, its drug sensitivity, and its utility for both typological and dimensional assessment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Contact With Mental Health and Primary Care Providers Before Suicide: A Review of the Evidence

            Objective This study examined rates of contact with primary care and mental health care professionals by individuals before they died by suicide. Method The authors reviewed 40 studies for which there was information available on rates of health care contact and examined age and gender differences among the subjects. Results Contact with primary care providers in the time leading up to suicide is common. While three of four suicide victims had contact with primary care providers within the year of suicide, approximately one-third of the suicide victims had contact with mental health services. About one in five suicide victims had contact with mental health services within a month before their suicide. On average, 45% of suicide victims had contact with primary care providers within 1 month of suicide. Older adults had higher rates of contact with primary care providers within 1 month of suicide than younger adults. Conclusions While it is not known to what degree contact with mental health care and primary care providers can prevent suicide, the majority of individuals who die by suicide do make contact with primary care providers, particularly older adults. Given that this pattern is consistent with overall health-service-seeking, alternate approaches to suicide-prevention efforts may be needed for those less likely to be seen in primary care or mental health specialty care, specifically young men.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Reducing patients' unmet concerns in primary care: the difference one word can make.

              In primary, acute-care visits, patients frequently present with more than 1 concern. Various visit factors prevent additional concerns from being articulated and addressed. To test an intervention to reduce patients' unmet concerns. Cross-sectional comparison of 2 experimental questions, with videotaping of office visits and pre and postvisit surveys. Twenty outpatient offices of community-based physicians equally divided between Los Angeles County and a midsized town in Pennsylvania. A volunteer sample of 20 family physicians (participation rate = 80%) and 224 patients approached consecutively within physicians (participation rate = 73%; approximately 11 participating for each enrolled physician) seeking care for an acute condition. After seeing 4 nonintervention patients, physicians were randomly assigned to solicit additional concerns by asking 1 of the following 2 questions after patients presented their chief concern: "Is there anything else you want to address in the visit today?" (ANY condition) and "Is there something else you want to address in the visit today?" (SOME condition). Patients' unmet concerns: concerns listed on previsit surveys but not addressed during visits, visit time, unanticipated concerns: concerns that were addressed during the visit but not listed on previsit surveys. Relative to nonintervention cases, the implemented SOME intervention eliminated 78% of unmet concerns (odds ratio (OR) = .154, p = .001). The ANY intervention could not be significantly distinguished from the control condition (p = .122). Neither intervention affected visit length, or patients'; expression of unanticipated concerns not listed in previsit surveys. Patients' unmet concerns can be dramatically reduced by a simple inquiry framed in the SOME form. Both the learning and implementation of the intervention require very little time.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                r.mccabe@exeter.ac.uk
                imrenhassan@hotmail.com
                s.priebe@qmul.ac.uk
                Rebecca.Barnes@bristol.ac.uk
                richard.byng@plymouth.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-244X
                4 April 2017
                4 April 2017
                2017
                : 17
                : 122
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.8391.3, , University of Exeter Medical School, ; Room 1.05, College House, Exeter, EX1 2 LU UK
                [2 ]Live Well Suffolk, 8 Turret Lane, Ipswich, IP4 1DL UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.4868.2, Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry, , Queen Mary University of London, Newham Centre for Mental Health, ; London, E13 8SP UK
                [4 ]GRID grid.5337.2, , University of Bristol, ; Office Room 1.05 Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS UK
                [5 ]GRID grid.467855.d, , Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, ; N32, Tamar Science Park, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2041-7383
                Article
                1212
                10.1186/s12888-017-1212-7
                5379679
                28372553
                b073483a-b175-490c-a67c-a96109eee5b2
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 1 October 2016
                : 19 January 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272, National Institute for Health Research;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272, National Institute for Health Research;
                Funded by: East London NHS Foundation Trust
                Funded by: ESRC/MRC Interdisciplinary Studentship PTA
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                suicide,risk,communication,assessment,conversation analysis,mixed methods,mental health care

                Comments

                Comment on this article