Self-harm in the general hospital

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guideline for the management of deliberate self-harm

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance for the organisation and delivery of clinical services and the clinical management of patients who deliberately self-harm, based on scientific evidence supplemented by expert clinical consensus and expressed as recommendations.

METHOD

Articles and information were sourced from search engines including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO for several systematic reviews, which were supplemented by literature known to the deliberate self-harm working group, and from published systematic reviews and guidelines for deliberate self-harm. Information was reviewed by members of the deliberate self-harm working group, and findings were then formulated into consensus-based recommendations and clinical guidance. The guidelines were subjected to successive consultation and external review involving expert and clinical advisors, the public, key stakeholders, professional bodies and specialist groups with interest and expertise in deliberate self-harm.

RESULTS

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for deliberate self-harm provide up-to-date guidance and advice regarding the management of deliberate self-harm patients, which is informed by evidence and clinical experience. The clinical practice guidelines for deliberate self-harm is intended for clinical use and service development by psychiatrists, psychologists, physicians and others with an interest in mental health care.

CONCLUSION

The clinical practice guidelines for deliberate self-harm address self-harm within specific population sub-groups and provide up-to-date recommendations and guidance within an evidence-based framework, supplemented by expert clinical consensus.

The co-occurrence of aggression and self-harm: systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological research supports an association between aggression and self-harm through data on the frequency with which individuals exhibit both behaviours. Unbiased evidence, however, is needed to draw conclusions about the nature and extent of co-occurrence.

METHOD

Systematic review of published studies was undertaken to evaluate whether or not the frequency with which aggression and self-harm co-occur is beyond that which would be expected by chance. Outcome measures included: (a) between-group differences on a standardised aggression/self-harm measure - the groups defined by scores on a measure of the other behaviour; (b) correlations between the two behaviours; (c) co-occurrence rates in populations defined by the presence of either behaviour; (d) co-occurrence rates in populations not defined by either behaviour. Odds ratios were calculated for studies presenting complete frequency data.

RESULTS

123 studies, some yielding more than one type of result, met the inclusion criteria. Most case-control studies found elevated levels of aggression in self-harming populations (or self-harm in aggressive populations) compared to controls. The majority of correlational, co-occurrence rate, and odds ratio data found aggression and self-harm to be associated.

LIMITATIONS

Results were subject to descriptive synthesis only and thus, unable to report an overall effect size.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that aggression and self-harm frequently co-occur. Such evidence necessitates more theoretical discussion and associated research on the source and nature of co-occurrence. Nonetheless, individuals who present with one behaviour may be considered an 'at-risk' group in terms of exhibiting the other. Such evidence holds implications for practice (e.g. risk assessment).

Assessing the risk of self-harm in an adult offender population: an incidence cohort study

BACKGROUND

Self-harm is common among prisoners, particularly female prisoners. In 2007, concerned about the rising incidence, the prison service introduced a care-planning system called Assessment, Care in Custody, and Teamwork (ACCT). To date, it does not incorporate a standardised diagnostic test to estimate the risk of future self-harm.

OBJECTIVE

To identify potential screening instruments, or items from those instruments, to predict the risk of self-harm among prisoners.

PARTICIPANTS

Prisoners who had been assigned to an ACCT during the recruitment period.

DESIGN

A multistage prospective cohort study. Following a pilot study, instruments were administered to prisoners by interview at baseline, and followed up for 6 months (or until point of release if this was sooner) to ascertain self-harm status. Instruments were assessed for unidimensionality, scalability (Mokken) and quantitative structure (Rasch). Area under the curve (AUC) analysis was used to examine the ability of instruments and/or their items to predict future self-harm. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine the multivariate predictive ability of the scales and various sociodemographic and sentencing factors.

SETTING

Three prisons (including one women's prison) in northern England.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A set of standardised questionnaires, including the Prison Screening Questionnaire (PriSnQuest), Revised Borderline Symptom List-23 (frequency-based responses) (BSL-23-F), Self-Harm Inventory (SHI), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), together with sociodemographic and sentencing data.

RESULTS

In total, 450 prisoners consented to participate in the study, of whom 26% were female. The mean age of participants was 31.2 years. Over half of male prisoners recruited were on remand, compared with just over one-fifth (22.6%) of female prisoners. The average tariff of those sentenced was 41 months, of which 14.7 months, on average, had been served. Just over one-third of ACCTs had been initiated because of a known self-harm event, and over one-quarter (27.8%) of participants self-harmed during the follow-up period. Thus, almost half (46.7%) of those entered into the study were reported to have self-harmed, either from their index ACCT, or subsequently, or both. Cutting was the most frequent behaviour (51%). All screening instruments showed some evidence of unidimensionality, and four out of five showed scaling criteria consistent with ordinal scaling, so verifying the validity of the cut points. However, many showed gender bias and failure to fit the Rasch measurement model. While a resolution was made in most cases, both ordinal raw scores and latent interval scale estimates failed to show predictive value when applied within AUC analysis (0.491-0.566) or adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. However, good predictive values were shown for gender-specific sets of items, thus providing easily applied screening indexes.

CONCLUSIONS

While four out of five potential screening instruments were found to have acceptable psychometric properties within this setting, their predictive validity of all instruments was poor under AUC analysis. Gender-specific item sets were put together to form two screening indexes with formative indicators which gave reasonable AUC values, particularly so for females. The indexes provide identification of low-medium-high risk of self-harm, and so may help to inform potential care pathways and decisions to sign prisoners off from the ACCT. Future work should concentrate on refining a set of predictive screening items among different offender populations and investigating the time point at which this set of items should be administered. Future work may also look at the different magnitudes of risk as indicators for care pathways.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.