Young people who self-harm: a prospective 1-year follow-up study

Secondary mental health service utilisation following emergency department contact for suicidal behaviour: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Engagement with secondary mental health services after an emergency department presentation with suicidal behaviours may be an important strategy for reducing the risk of repeat attempts. Our aim was to examine secondary mental health service contact following a presentation to emergency department with suicidal behaviours.

METHODS

A systematic review of papers published between 2000 and 2020 was undertaken. This identified 56 papers relating to 47 primary studies. Data were extracted and summarised separately by age group: (1) young people, (2) older adults and (3) adults and studies with participants of 'all ages'.

RESULTS

Studies in young people (n = 13) showed, on average, 44.8% were referred and 33.7% had contact with secondary mental health services within 4 weeks of emergency department discharge. In comparison, in adult/all ages studies (n = 34), on average, 27.1% were referred to and 26.2% had mental health service contact within 4 weeks. Only three studies presented data on contact with mental health services for older adults, and proportions ranged from 49.0% to 86.0%.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights poor utilisation of secondary mental health service following emergency department presentation for suicidal behaviours, and further research is needed to identify the reasons for this. Crucially, this information could assist in the allocation of resources to facilitate the timely implementation of suicide prevention services.

Predictive accuracy of risk scales following self-harm: multicentre, prospective cohort study

BackgroundScales are widely used in psychiatric assessments following self-harm. Robust evidence for their diagnostic use is lacking.AimsTo evaluate the performance of risk scales (Manchester Self-Harm Rule, ReACT Self-Harm Rule, SAD PERSONS scale, Modified SAD PERSONS scale, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale); and patient and clinician estimates of risk in identifying patients who repeat self-harm within 6 months.MethodA multisite prospective cohort study was conducted of adults aged 18 years and over referred to liaison psychiatry services following self-harm. Scale a priori cut-offs were evaluated using diagnostic accuracy statistics. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to determine optimal cut-offs and compare global accuracy.ResultsIn total, 483 episodes of self-harm were included in the study. The episode-based 6-month repetition rate was 30% (n = 145). Sensitivity ranged from 1% (95% CI 0-5) for the SAD PERSONS scale, to 97% (95% CI 93-99) for the Manchester Self-Harm Rule. Positive predictive values ranged from 13% (95% CI 2-47) for the Modified SAD PERSONS Scale to 47% (95% CI 41-53) for the clinician assessment of risk. The AUC ranged from 0.55 (95% CI 0.50-0.61) for the SAD PERSONS scale to 0.74 (95% CI 0.69-0.79) for the clinician global scale. The remaining scales performed significantly worse than clinician and patient estimates of risk (P<0.001).ConclusionsRisk scales following self-harm have limited clinical utility and may waste valuable resources. Most scales performed no better than clinician or patient ratings of risk. Some performed considerably worse. Positive predictive values were modest. In line with national guidelines, risk scales should not be used to determine patient management or predict self-harm.