Services for self-harm: progress and promise?

Suicide risk following ED presentation with self-harm varies by hospital

BACKGROUND

Patients presenting to Emergency Department (ED) with self-harm are recognized to be at high risk of suicide and other causes of death in the immediate period following ED presentation. It is also recognized that there is a large variation in the management and care pathways that these patients experience at EDs.

AIMS

This study asks if there is a significant variation in mortality risk according to hospital attended and if this is explained by differences in care management.

METHODS

Population-wide data from the Northern Ireland Registry of Self-Harm from April 2012 were linked with centrally held mortality records to December 2019, providing data on self-harm type and ED care. Cox proportional hazards models analyzed mortality risk, coded as suicide, all-external causes and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Analysis of the 64,350 ED presentations for self-harm by 30,011 individuals confirmed a marked variation across EDs in proportion of patients receiving mental health assessment and likelihood of admission to general and psychiatric wards. There was a significant variation in suicide risk following attendance according to ED attended with the three-fold range between the lowest (HRadj 0.32 95% CIs 0.16, 0.67) and highest. These differences persisted even after adjustment for patient characteristics, variation in types of self-harm, and care management at the ED.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that while the management of self-harm cases in the ED is important, it is the availability and access to, and level of engagement with, the subsequent management and care in the community rather than the immediate care at EDs that is most critical for patients presenting to ED with self-harm. However, the initial care in ED is an important gateway in initiating referrals to these services.

Self-Reported and Agency-Notified Child Abuse as Contributors to Suicidal Behaviour in a Population-Based Birth Cohort Study at 30-Year-Follow-Up

This was a record-linkage analysis of a birth cohort to examine the association between self-reported self-harm in adulthood and childhood maltreatment (CM) as prospectively notified to authorities and self-reported on the Child Trauma Questionnaire. There were 2507 participants at 30-year follow-up with data on both CM and self-reported self-harm including an intent to die. Of the participants, 304 (12.1%) had self-harmed at some time in their lives while 150 (4.2%) had wanted to die. The prevalence of self- and agency-reported maltreatment was 513 (20.5%) and 143 (5.7%) respectively. On adjusted analyses, CM irrespective of reporting source showed significant associations with both suicidal outcomes. Physical and emotional abuse showed the strongest associations while findings for neglect were mixed. The only association for sexual abuse was for self-reported maltreatment and intent to die but numbers may have been under-powered.

Factors within the clinical encounter that impact upon risk assessment within child and adolescent mental health services: a rapid realist synthesis

Background

Risk assessment is a key process when a child or adolescent presents at risk for self-harm or suicide in a mental health crisis or emergency. Risk assessment by a healthcare professional should be included within a biopsychosocial assessment. However, the predictive value of risk-screening tools for self-harm and suicide in children and adolescents is consistently challenged. A review is needed to explore how best to undertake risk assessment and the appropriate role for tools/checklists within the assessment pathway.

Aims

To map research relating to risk assessment for child and adolescent mental health and to identify features that relate to a successful risk assessment.

Objectives

To review factors within the clinical encounter that impact upon risk assessments for self-harm and suicide in children and adolescents: i. to conduct a realist synthesis to understand mechanisms for risk assessment, why they occur and how they vary by context ii. to conduct a mapping review of primary studies/reviews to describe available tools of applicability to the UK.

Data sources

Databases, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO®, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, Science and Social Sciences Citation Index and the Cochrane Library, were searched (September 2021). Searches were also conducted for reports from websites.

Review methods

A resource-constrained realist synthesis was conducted exploring factors that impact upon risk assessments for self-harm and suicide. This was accompanied by a mapping review of primary studies/reviews describing risk-assessment tools and approaches used in UK child and adolescent mental health. Following piloting, four reviewers screened retrieved records. Items were coded for the mapping and/or for inclusion in the realist synthesis. The review team examined the validity and limitations of risk-screening tools. In addition, the team identified structured approaches to risk assessment. Reporting of the realist synthesis followed RAMESES guidelines.

Results

From 4084 unique citations, 249 papers were reviewed and 41 studies (49 tools) were included in the mapping review. Eight reviews were identified following full-text screening. Fifty-seven papers were identified for the realist review. Findings highlight 14 explanations (programme theories) for a successful risk assessment for self-harm and suicide. Forty-nine individual assessment tools/approaches were identified. Few tools were developed in the UK, specifically for children and adolescents. These lacked formal independent evaluation. No risk-screening tool is suitable for risk prediction; optimal approaches incorporate a relationship of trust, involvement of the family, where appropriate, and a patient-centred holistic approach. The objective of risk assessment should be elicitation of information to direct a risk formulation and care plan.

Limitations

Many identified tools are well-established but lack scientific validity, particularly predictive validity, or clinical utility. Programme theories were generated rapidly from a survey of risk assessment.

Conclusions

No single checklist/approach meets the needs of risk assessment for self-harm and suicide. A whole-system approach is required, informed by structured clinical judgement. Useful components include a holistic assessment within a climate of trust, facilitated by family involvement.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021276671.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135079) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Liaison psychiatry practitioners' views on accessing aftercare and psychological therapies for patients who present to hospital following self-harm: multi-site interview study

BACKGROUND

Timely provision of aftercare following self-harm may reduce risks of repetition and premature death, but existing services are frequently reported as being inadequate.

AIMS

To explore barriers and facilitators to accessing aftercare and psychological therapies for patients presenting to hospital following self-harm, from the perspective of liaison psychiatry practitioners.

METHOD

Between March 2019 and December 2020, we interviewed 51 staff members across 32 liaison psychiatry services in England. We used thematic analyses to interpret the interview data.

RESULTS

Barriers to accessing services may heighten risk of further self-harm for patients and burnout for staff. Barriers included: perceived risk, exclusionary thresholds, long waiting times, siloed working and bureaucracy. Strategies to increase access to aftercare included: (a) improving assessments and care plans via input from skilled staff working in multidisciplinary teams (e.g. including social workers and clinical psychologists); (b) supporting staff to focus on assessments as therapeutic intervention; (c) probing boundaries and involving senior staff to negotiate risk and advocate for patients; and (d) building relationships and integration across services.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight practitioners' views on barriers to accessing aftercare and strategies to circumvent some of these impediments. Provision of aftercare and psychological therapies as part of the liaison psychiatry service were deemed as an essential mechanism for optimising patient safety and experience and staff well-being. To close treatment gaps and reduce inequalities, it is important to work closely with staff and patients, learn from experiences of good practice and implement change more widely across services.

‘Wasn’t offered one, too poorly to ask for one’ – Reasons why some patients do not receive a psychosocial assessment following self-harm: Qualitative patient and carer survey

OBJECTIVE

Psychosocial assessment following self-harm presentations to hospital is an important aspect of care. However, many people attending hospital following self-harm do not receive an assessment. We sought to explore reasons why some patients do not receive a psychosocial assessment following self-harm from the perspective of patients and carers.

METHODS

Between March and November 2019, we recruited 88 patients and 14 carers aged ⩾18 years from 16 mental health trusts and community organisations in the United Kingdom, via social media, to a co-designed qualitative survey. Thematic analyses were used to interpret the data.

RESULTS

Patients' reasons for refusing an assessment included long waiting times, previous problematic interactions with staff and feeling unsafe when in the emergency department. Two people refused an assessment because they wanted to harm themselves again. Participants reported organisational reasons for non-assessment, including clinicians not offering assessments and exclusion due to alcohol intoxication. Other patients felt they did not reach clinically determined thresholds because of misconceptions over perceived heightened fatality risk with certain self-harm methods (e.g. self-poisoning vs self-cutting).

CONCLUSION

Our results provide important insights into some of the reasons why some people may not receive a psychosocial assessment following self-harm. Parallel assessments, compassionate care and specialist alcohol services in acute hospitals may help reduce the number of people who leave before an assessment. Education may help address erroneous beliefs that self-injury and self-harm repetition are not associated with greatly raised suicide risk.

Evaluation of the impact and implementation of a national clinical programme for the management of self-harm in hospital emergency departments: study protocol for a natural experiment

BACKGROUND

A National Clinical Programme for the Management of Hospital-Presenting Self-Harm (NCP-SH) was introduced in Ireland in 2014. This involved the development of a model of care to standardise the management of self-harm in emergency departments, to be delivered by dedicated clinical nurse specialists. The core components of the programme were to: ensure an empathic and timely response, conduct a biopsychosocial assessment, involve family members in assessment and discharge planning, and provide a bridge to next care. The overall aim of the programme was to reduce the rate of repeat self-harm. This multistage study will evaluate the impact of the NCP-SH on hospital-presenting self-harm and to identify determinants influencing its implementation.

METHODS

Employing a sequential mixed methods design, the first stage will use data from the National Self-Harm Registry Ireland to examine the impact of the NCP-SH on self-harm repetition, along with other aspects of care, including provision of psychosocial assessments and changes in admissions and postdischarge referrals. A cost-effectiveness analysis will assess the cost per repeat self-harm attendance avoided as a result of the NCP-SH. The second stage will identify the influences of implementation fidelity-adherence to the programme's core components-using a combination of document analysis and semistructured interviews with staff of the programme, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has received full ethical approval and will run until August 2023. This study is novel in that it will identify important factors influencing successful implementation of complex programmes. It is expected that the findings will provide important learnings for the integration of mental health services in general hospital settings and will be disseminated via peer-review publications along with reports for clinicians and policy-makers.

'Relieved to be seen'-patient and carer experiences of psychosocial assessment in the emergency department following self-harm: qualitative analysis of 102 free-text survey responses

OBJECTIVES

We sought to explore patient and carer experiences of psychosocial assessments following presentations to hospital after self-harm.

DESIGN

Thematic analysis of free-text responses to an open-ended online survey.

SETTING

Between March and November 2019, we recruited 88 patients (82% women) and 14 carers aged ≥18 years from 16 English mental health trusts, community organisations, and via social media.

RESULTS

Psychosocial assessments were experienced as helpful on some occasions but harmful on others. Participants felt better, less suicidal and less likely to repeat self-harm after good-quality compassionate and supportive assessments. However, negative experiences during the assessment pathway were common and, in some cases, contributed to greater distress, less engagement and further self-harm. Participants reported receiving negative and stigmatising comments about their injuries. Others reported that they were refused medical care or an anaesthetic. Stigmatising attitudes among some mental health staff centred on preconceived ideas over self-harm as a 'behavioural issue', inappropriate use of services and psychiatric diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight important patient experiences that can inform service provision and they demonstrate the value of involving patients/carers throughout the research process. Psychosocial assessments can be beneficial when empathetic and collaborative but less helpful when overly standardised, lacking in compassion and waiting times are unduly long. Patient views are essential to inform practice, particularly given the rapidly changing service context during and after the COVID-19 emergency.

Healthcare professionals' implementation of national guidelines with patients who self-harm

BACKGROUND

National guidelines for the short-term management of self-harm are aimed at healthcare professionals who may be involved in the care of people who have self-harmed. However, evidence from small-scale studies globally suggest there is a lack of awareness of such guidelines among some groups of healthcare professionals. For the first time in a large representative sample of patient-facing healthcare professionals, we aimed to identify: (a) which healthcare professionals are aware of guidelines for the management of self-harm; (b) the perceived availability of training; (c) the use of risk screening tools; and (d) the extent to which healthcare professionals implement guidelines for the management of self-harm.

METHODS

1020 UK healthcare professionals completed a cross-sectional survey online.

RESULTS

85.6% (873/1020) of the sample had heard of the national guidelines, but only 24.3% (248/1020) knew "a fair amount" or more about them. Of the respondents who had previously encountered a patient who had self-harmed or was at risk of repeat self-harm, the guidelines were implemented in fewer than 50% (M = 43.89%, SD = 38.79) of encounters. 31% (312/1020) of the sample had received training in managing self-harm and, contrary to guidelines, 2.25% (23/1020) of the sample had used self-harm risk screening tools.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight a need to improve knowledge of self-harm management guidelines, and identifies professional groups where awareness and knowledge is currently low. Further work is required to develop interventions to change healthcare professional practice with respect to the implementation of self-harm management guidelines.