Lethal means counseling for suicide prevention: Views of emergency department clinicians

Increasing the Acceptability of Lethal Means Safety Counseling for Firearms: Tips and Scripts

In lethal means safety counseling (LMSC), clinicians encourage patients to limit their access to common and lethal means of suicide, especially firearms. However, previous studies have shown that clinicians may hesitate to deliver this evidence-based intervention, in part because of concerns that patients might not find such discussions acceptable. Based on a published review of 18 qualitative studies examining diverse perspectives on LMSC, we discuss strategies that may help clinicians increase the acceptability of LMSC among their patients and present supporting scripts, rationales, and resources. The studies included in the review examined the perspectives of clinicians, patients, firearm owners, and other relevant groups across a wide range of clinical settings on LMSC for firearms. The authors of these studies recommend that clinicians approach LMSC in a nonjudgmental manner with awareness of their own biases, demonstrate cultural competency by acknowledging the role of firearms in patients' lives, and adapt LMSC to patients' previous experiences with firearms, safety, and injury. Clinicians may also want to contextualize and provide a rationale for LMSC, decide whether or not to directly ask about access to firearms, and recommend a range of storage options tailored to the patient. Free locking devices or discount coupons for purchasing such devices may increase the acceptability and efficacy of these discussions. The strategies recommended in this paper are the first to be based on a comprehensive set of relevant studies. Future research is needed to examine whether these strategies do in fact increase the acceptability of LMSC and promote other outcomes such as increased feasibility and efficacy.

Factors Influencing Emergency Department Staff Decision-Making for People Attending in Suicidal Crisis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Emergency department (ED) staff are often the first point of contact for individuals in suicidal crisis. Despite this, there is no published research systematically examining the factors influencing decision-making for this patient group.

METHODS

MedLine, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched for three key concepts: (1) suicide, (2) accident and emergency department and (3) decision-making. Three reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full papers independently against the eligibility criteria. Data synthesis was achieved by extracting and analyzing study characteristics and findings. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of included studies.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this systematic review. Studies were published from 2004 to 2020 and were of good methodological quality. A number of patient (method of self-harm, age, gender), contextual (availability of services and staff) and staff-related factors (attitudes, training, knowledge) were reported to influence decision-making for patients in suicidal crisis presenting to EDs.

CONCLUSION

Decision-making in the ED is complex and is influenced by patient, contextual and staff-related factors. These decisions can have an impact on the future care and clinical pathways of patients in suicidal crisis. Additional training is needed for ED staff specifically related to suicide prevention.

"Your son needs help … and we're gonna help him": A qualitative study of the experiences of gun-owning caregivers of adolescents receiving lethal means counseling in the emergency department

Suicide attempts in adolescents are often transient and unpredictable, making preventative approaches crucial in reducing suicide deaths. One important approach is lethal means counseling (LMC), in which clinicians counsel caregivers to reduce access to methods used in suicide, specifically firearms and medications. Research on LMC has increasingly encouraged the use of the shared decision-making (SDM) model, which emphasizes information exchange, collaborative deliberation, and joint planning between caregivers and clinicians. We examine caregivers' experiences with LMC, using the SDM model as our analytic framework. We conducted qualitative interviews with 21 firearm-owning caregivers of adolescents who came to emergency departments (EDs) in Colorado for a behavioral health complaint. The implementation of LMC at these institutions had three central components: training for clinicians, materials (e.g., lockboxes and pamphlets) to support LMC, and the protocolization of LMC at the institution. Our semi-structured, hour-long interviews examined participants' reflections on and reactions to LMC provided in the ED and how that related to changes in their understanding of their medication and gun storage practices. We analyzed interviews using a phenomenological approach, focusing on experiences with LMC and informed by the tenets of the SDM model. Our analysis revealed that caregivers were receptive to the idea of LMC in the pediatric emergency care setting. Caregivers' engagement in LMC was reinforced by experiences with clinicians who sought to understand the circumstances of their household, shared the motivation behind LMC, and facilitated conversation around a shared concern for the child's safety. In contrast, counseling delivered mechanically and without considering the household context was tied to caregivers' confusion and alienation, both for LMC and their consideration of changes to home storage practices. These findings provide insight into adolescent caregivers' experiences with LMC implemented in EDs and how LMC may best be approached.

A scoping review of nursing education for firearm safety

BACKGROUND

Firearm violence, whether intentional or accidental, affects families worldwide. Nurses often encounter firearm-related injury and death with little knowledge or preparation for dealing with firearm safety issues.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to locate published research on nurse education in firearm safety and examine the preparation of nurses to deal with issues of firearm safety as a deterrent toward decreasing violence. The review included nurse perceptions of barriers and facilitators related to firearm safety in clinical situations.

DESIGN

A literature scoping review for article identification, examination, and reporting was structured on the extended form of Arksey and O'Malley's 5-step design framework.

DATA SOURCES

Databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, Sociological Abstracts, PsychInfo, and ERIC were searched for articles in English language published between 2010 and 2021 that included nurses in the studies' samples.

REVIEW METHODS

Searches were managed via Covidence®, a literature screening and data extraction tool. Two independent reviewers screened the articles retrieved from the databases by title, abstract, and full-text review. Data from selected articles were extracted onto a spreadsheet and critically appraised for eligibility.

RESULTS

A search of healthcare databases resulted in identification of 645 articles, of which 15 met inclusion criteria. Seven of the 15 articles addressed nurse firearm safety preparation, and seven related to counseling firearm safety for suicide prevention. Main barriers included lack of standardized guidelines, inadequate knowledge, and discomfort discussing firearm safety with patients and families.

CONCLUSIONS

The scoping review findings show a noticeable gap: nurse education addressing firearm safety is, for all purposes, non-existent. A need exists for evidence-based training within academic curricula and across acute and behavioral healthcare settings.

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.

Taking Aim at the Injury Prevention Curriculum: Educating Residents on Talking to Patients About Firearm Injury

The medical community recognizes that firearm injury is a public health problem. Yet we lack both the tools for and the implementation of evidence-based firearm injury screening and counseling techniques. One reason for these deficits is the lack of clinical training related to engaging patients in firearm injury risk reduction. In this issue, Rickert et al describe a pre-post evaluation of a 2-part firearm injury prevention training curriculum for first-year medical residents at a single academic medical center. Their manuscript serves an important, but still preliminary, step forward for the field of postgraduate medical education on firearm injury and its prevention. Important elements of this project and paper consist of the inclusion of multiple medical disciplines and the use of standardized patients to evaluate participants' learning. This project also points to the need for further growth. We must commit to consistently and conscientiously framing injuries from guns not as "gun violence" but rather as "firearm injuries" to ensure that they are considered squarely in both the public health space and the clinical space. An ideal curriculum would also highlight the importance of trauma-informed care, cultural competency, and antiracist medical practice while countering implicit biases (e.g., toward gun owners, victims of firearm violence, perpetrators of violence). It should address barriers, as well as facilitators, to change. And most importantly, future educational work must evaluate the effect of these trainings on actual clinical practice-and, even better, the efficacy of education in changing behavior and patient-level outcomes.

“Lock to Live” for firearm and medication safety: Feasibility and acceptability of a suicide prevention tool in a learning healthcare system

Objective

Few patients with suicide risk are counseled on lethal means safety by health providers. This study tested the feasibility of different delivery methods for Lock to Live (L2L), a web-based decision aid of safe storage options for firearms and medications.

Methods

Patients reporting suicide ideation on the PHQ9 depression screener during outpatient health visits were included. Invitation messages to visit L2L were sent via combinations of email, text, Electronic Health Record (EHR) message, mailed letter, or provider referral, followed by a survey about storage behavior and acceptability. Provider interviews evaluated logistical considerations and acceptability.

Results

The population-based method reached 2,729 patients and the best method (EHR message plus 2 email reminders) had 11% uptake (L2L visitation rate). Provider referral had small reach (14 patients) and 100% uptake (all visited). Provider interviews identified several strategies to promote uptake including: EHR reminders, provider training, quality metrics with accountability, a clearly communicated lethal means screening/counseling policy, and strong organizational leadership support.

Conclusion

Despite the low uptake for population-based (11%), far more patients with suicide risk were engaged in the L2L tool through population-based outreach than provider-referral over the same time frame.

Variation in Left Ventricular Assist Device Postdischarge Caregiver Requirements: Results From a Mixed-Methods Study With Equity Implications

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) evaluation includes a psychosocial assessment, conducted by social workers (SWs) on the advanced heart failure multidisciplinary team. Postdischarge caregiving plans are central to psychosocial evaluation. Caregiving's relationship with LVAD outcomes is mixed, and testing patients' social resources may disadvantage those from historically undertreated groups. We describe variation in policies defining adequate caregiving plans post-LVAD implant and possible impacts on patients from marginalized groups.

METHODS

This was a 2-phase sequential mixed-methods study: (1) phase 1, survey of US-based LVAD SWs, describing assessment structure and policies guiding candidacy outcomes; and (2) phase 2, individual interviews with SWs to further describe how caregiving plan adequacy impacts LVAD candidacy.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven SWs returned surveys (rr=47%) from unique programs. Caregiving plan inadequacy (n=30) was the most common psychosocial dealbreaker. When asked what duration of caregiving is required, 23% indicated ≥3 months, 27% 4 to 12 weeks, and 30% <4 weeks. Two reported no duration requirement, 6 stated an indefinite 24/7 commitment was necessary. Across 22 interviews, SWs mirrored that caregiving plans were the most common psychosocial contraindication. How caregiving is operationalized varied. Participants voiced a tension between extended caregiving improving outcomes and the sense that some people of color, women, or low socioeconomic status patients struggle to meet stringent requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

Policies regarding adequate duration of 24/7 caregiving vary, but inadequate caregiving plans are the most common psychosocial contraindication. Participants worry about patients' ability to meet restrictive requirements, particularly from historically undertreated groups. This highlights a need to operationalize quality caregiving, standardize assessment, and support medically appropriate patients with strained social resources.

Stakeholder perceptions of lethal means safety counseling: A qualitative systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Lethal means safety counseling (LMSC) is an evidence-based suicide prevention intervention during which providers encourage patients to limit their access to lethal means (e.g., firearms, medications). Despite agreement about the importance of LMSC, it is underutilized in clinical practice.

METHODS

To better understand the individual and contextual factors that influence LMSC and its implementation, we conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies examining stakeholder perceptions of the intervention. PubMed and PsycInfo were searched up to February 2021 using terms related to: (1) LMSC, firearms, or medications; (2) suicide, safety, or injury; and (3) qualitative methodology. Two coders used thematic synthesis to analyze findings from eligible papers, including developing a codebook and coding using an inductive and iterative approach (reliability k > 0.70). Confidence in review findings were evaluated using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) Approach. Subthemes were assigned to domains in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

FINDINGS

Of the 19 papers identified, 18 discussed LMSC for firearms and 1 focused exclusively on LMSC for medications. The firearm-related studies explored perspectives of a variety of stakeholders (patients, providers, members of the firearms community, healthcare leaders, and family members) across multiple settings (emergency departments, pediatric and adult primary care, and outpatient mental health). Seven overarching themes emerged, including the: (1) importance of firearms to owners' identities and perceptions of ownership as a value and right, which can lead to perceived cultural tensions in clinical settings; (2) importance of patients understanding the context and rationale for LMSC; (3) value of providers showing cultural competency when discussing firearms; (4) influence of safety and risk beliefs on firearm behaviors; (5) need to navigate logistical concerns when implementing LMSC; (6) value of individualizing LMSC; (7) potential for trusted family members and friends to be involved in implementing LMSC.

CONCLUSION

This synthesis of the qualitative literature informs clinical, operational, and research endeavors aimed at increasing the reach and effectiveness of LMSC. Future research should address the perspectives of individuals underrepresented in the literature (e.g., those from racial/ethnic minority groups) and further examine stakeholders' perceptions of LMSC for medication. [-2pt].

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021237515], identifier [CRD42021237515].

"Lock and Protect": Development of a Digital Decision Aid to Support Lethal Means Counseling in Parents of Suicidal Youth

Objective: Reducing access to lethal methods is an effective suicide prevention strategy that is often neglected in routine care. Digital interventions have shown promise for addressing such gaps in care; and decision aids have proven useful for supporting complicated health-related decisions, like those involving lethal means restriction. This article describes a parent/caregiver-facing web-based decision aid, the development process, and user testing. Method: A user-centered, participatory, mixed methods development design was employed. Beginning with an adult-focused decision aid developed by members of our team, we assessed ten iterations of the parent/caregiver decision aid with stakeholders (N = 85) using qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys. Stakeholders included: parents/caregivers whose children had histories of suicidal episodes before age 25, young adults with histories of suicidal thoughts/behaviors, firearm owners/representatives from firearm stores/ranges/groups, mental and medical health care providers, and emergency responders. Results: The final "Lock and Protect" decision aid was viewed as "useful for changing access to lethal means" by 100% of participants. Ninety-four percent of participants rated the information on reducing access to lethal means as good to excellent, and 91% rated the information on storage options as good to excellent. Qualitative feedback underscored a preference for offering this digital tool with a "human touch," as part of safety and discharge planning. Conclusions: "Lock and Protect" is a user-friendly web-based tool with potential for improving rates of lethal means counseling for parents/caregivers of suicidal youth and ultimately reducing pre-mature deaths by suicide.