Suicide risk assessment tools, predictive validity findings and utility today: time for a revamp?

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 483-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Roos ◽  
Jitender Sareen ◽  
James M Bolton
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Suicide Risk ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Suicide Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

Suicide risk assessment in a large public mental health service: do suicide risk classifications identify those at risk?

2021 ◽  
pp. 103985622098403
Author(s):  
Marianne Wyder ◽  
Manaan Kar Ray ◽  
Samara Russell ◽  
Kieran Kinsella ◽  
David Crompton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Suicide Risk ◽  
Public Mental Health ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Suicide Risk Assessment ◽  
Public Mental Health Service ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

Introduction: Risk assessment tools are routinely used to identify patients at high risk. There is increasing evidence that these tools may not be sufficiently accurate to determine the risk of suicide of people, particularly those being treated in community mental health settings. Methods: An outcome analysis for case serials of people who died by suicide between January 2014 and December 2016 and had contact with a public mental health service within 31 days prior to their death. Results: Of the 68 people who had contact, 70.5% had a formal risk assessment. Seventy-five per cent were classified as low risk of suicide. None were identified as being at high risk. While individual risk factors were identified, these did not allow to differentiate between patients classified as low or medium. Discussion: Risk categorisation contributes little to patient safety. Given the dynamic nature of suicide risk, a risk assessment should focus on modifiable risk factors and safety planning rather than risk prediction. Conclusion: The prediction value of suicide risk assessment tools is limited. The risk classifications of high, medium or low could become the basis of denying necessary treatment to many and delivering unnecessary treatment to some and should not be used for care allocation.

Improving Risk Assessment with Suicidal Patients

Crisis ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 231-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Nelson ◽  
Megan Johnston ◽  
Amresh Shrivastava
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Suicide Risk ◽  
Function Analysis ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Suicide Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Admission Status ◽  
Suicidal Patients ◽  
New Strategies

Background: Although a number of suicide-risk assessment tools are available to clinicians, the high levels of suicide still evident in society suggest a clear need for new strategies in order to facilitate the prevention of suicidal behaviors. Aims: The present study examined the utilization of a new structured clinical interview called the Scale for Impact of Suicidality Management, Assessment, and Planning of Care (SIS-MAP). Methods: SIS-MAP ratings were obtained from a group of incoming psychiatric patients over a 6-month period at Regional Mental Health Care, St. Thomas, Canada. Results: A canonical discriminant function analysis resulted in a total 74.0% of original grouped cases correctly classified based on admission status (admitted or not; Wilks λ = .749, p < .001). The specificity of the scale was 78.1%, while the sensitivity of the scale was 66.7%. Additionally, mean total scores on the scale were used to establish clinical cutoffs to facilitate future level of care decisions. Conclusions: Preliminary analysis suggests the SIS-MAP is a valid and reliable tool for determining the level of psychiatric care needed for adults with suicidal ideation.

scholarly journals Suicide risk assessment: tools and challenges

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria A. Oquendo ◽  
Joel A. Bernanke
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Suicide Risk ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Suicide Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document