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

Reducing Firearm Access for Suicide Prevention: Implementation Evaluation of the Web-Based "Lock to Live" Decision Aid in Routine Health Care Encounters

Background

"Lock to Live" (L2L) is a novel web-based decision aid for helping people at risk of suicide reduce access to firearms. Researchers have demonstrated that L2L is feasible to use and acceptable to patients, but little is known about how to implement L2L during web-based mental health care and in-person contact with clinicians.

Objective

The goal of this project was to support the implementation and evaluation of L2L during routine primary care and mental health specialty web-based and in-person encounters.

Methods

The L2L implementation and evaluation took place at Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA)-a large, regional, nonprofit health care system. Three dimensions from the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) model-Reach, Adoption, and Implementation-were selected to inform and evaluate the implementation of L2L at KPWA (January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021). Electronic health record (EHR) data were used to purposefully recruit adult patients, including firearm owners and patients reporting suicidality, to participate in semistructured interviews. Interview themes were used to facilitate L2L implementation and inform subsequent semistructured interviews with clinicians responsible for suicide risk mitigation. Audio-recorded interviews were conducted via the web, transcribed, and coded, using a rapid qualitative inquiry approach. A descriptive analysis of EHR data was performed to summarize L2L reach and adoption among patients identified at high risk of suicide.

Results

The initial implementation consisted of updates for clinicians to add a URL and QR code referencing L2L to the safety planning EHR templates. Recommendations about introducing L2L were subsequently derived from the thematic analysis of semistructured interviews with patients (n=36), which included (1) "have an open conversation," (2) "validate their situation," (3) "share what to expect," (4) "make it accessible and memorable," and (5) "walk through the tool." Clinicians' interviews (n=30) showed a strong preference to have L2L included by default in the EHR-based safety planning template (in contrast to adding it manually). During the 2-year observation period, 2739 patients reported prior-month suicide attempt planning or intent and had a documented safety plan during the study period, including 745 (27.2%) who also received L2L. Over four 6-month subperiods of the observation period, L2L adoption rates increased substantially from 2% to 29% among primary care clinicians and from <1% to 48% among mental health clinicians.

Conclusions

Understanding the value of L2L from users' perspectives was essential for facilitating implementation and increasing patient reach and clinician adoption. Incorporating L2L into the existing system-level, EHR-based safety plan template reduced the effort to use L2L and was likely the most impactful implementation strategy. As rising suicide rates galvanize the urgency of prevention, the findings from this project, including L2L implementation tools and strategies, will support efforts to promote safety for suicide prevention in health care nationwide.

Patients' Perspectives on Medication-Related Suicide Prevention Interventions Delivered in Emergency Settings

OBJECTIVE

Encouraging patients at risk for suicide to reduce access to potentially lethal medications and drugs is a key component of evidence-based suicide prevention. However, little research has been done to inform interventions for reducing intentional self-harm.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 28 U.S. veterans who sought emergency care from the Veterans Health Administration between 2021 and 2023 to explore veterans' perspectives on medication-related interventions, including opinions on intervention components (e.g., medication return envelopes). Matrix analysis was used to aggregate data into categories, which were predefined by using constructs from the health belief model (e.g., perceived benefits).

RESULTS

The participating veterans generally endorsed interventions as acceptable and were particularly supportive of distributing medication return envelopes. However, they often conceptualized these efforts as steps to prevent unintentional overdose or theft-not necessarily to prevent suicide-and rarely indicated that such interventions were appropriate for themselves. Across the interviews, participants identified important facilitators to care, such as ensuring that interventions were convenient and accounted for the perceived cost of disposing medications. Perspectives on engaging family or friends in interventions were mixed. The importance of the interventions was more readily acknowledged among participants with previous opioid use exposure-perspectives that appeared to stem from lived experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

This study contributes important foundational knowledge that can be used to inform research and clinical initiatives aimed at preventing medication- and drug-related suicides.

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.

Women Veterans' perspectives, experiences, and preferences for firearm lethal means counseling discussions

AIMS

Firearms have become an increasingly common method of suicide among women Veterans, yet this population has rarely been a focus in firearm suicide prevention research. Limited knowledge is available regarding the preferences, experiences, or needs of women Veterans with respect to firearm lethal means counseling (LMC), an evidence-based suicide prevention strategy. Understanding is necessary to optimize delivery for this population.

METHOD

Our sample included forty women Veterans with lifetime suicidal ideation or suicide attempt(s) and firearm access following military separation, all enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration. Participants were interviewed regarding their perspectives, experiences, and preferences for firearm LMC. Data were analyzed using a mixed inductive-deductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Women Veterans' firearm and firearm LMC perspectives were shaped by their military service histories and identity, military sexual trauma, spouses/partners, children, rurality, and experiences with suicidal ideation and attempts. Half reported they had not engaged in firearm LMC previously. For those who had, positive aspects included a trusting, caring relationship, direct communication of rationale for questions, and discussion of exceptions to confidentiality. Negative aspects included conversations that felt impersonal, not sufficiently comprehensive, and Veterans' fears regarding implications of disclosure, which impeded conversations. Women Veterans' preferences for future firearm LMC encompassed providers communicating why such conversations are important, how they should be framed (e.g., around safety and genuine concern), what they should entail (e.g., discussing concerns regarding disclosure), whom should initiate (e.g., trusted caring provider) and where they should occur (e.g., safe spaces, women-specific groups comprised of peers).

DISCUSSION

This study is the first to examine women Veterans' experiences with, and preferences for, firearm LMC. Detailed inquiry of the nuances of how, where, why, and by whom firearms are stored and used may help to facilitate firearm LMC with women Veterans.

"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.

Beliefs Among Veteran Firearm Owners Regarding Whether Clinicians Should Discuss Firearm Safety With Patients

Importance

Veterans are at increased risk of suicide, and guidelines recommend assessing firearm access and counseling to reduce access among patients with elevated suicide risk. How veterans view such discussions is critical to the effectiveness of these interactions.

Objective

To assess whether veteran firearm owners believe clinicians should deliver firearm counseling when patients or their family members are being cared for in specific clinical contexts that suggest heightened risk of firearm injury.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, data were from a probability-based online survey of self-identified veterans who reported owning at least 1 firearm (National Firearms Survey, July 1 to August 31, 2019) and were weighted to generate nationally representative estimates. Data were analyzed from June 2022 to March 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Participants were asked, "As part of routine care, should physicians and/or other health care professionals talk with their patients about firearms and firearm safety if their patient or their patient's family member (is at risk of suicide; has mental health or behavioral problems; is abusing or addicted to alcohol or drugs; is a victim of domestic violence; has Alzheimer's disease or another dementia; or is going through a hard time)." Response options included "No," "Yes, sometimes," and "Yes, always." In addition, responses were dichotomized as "Yes, at least sometimes" and "No."

Results

Of 4030 adults who completed the survey (65% completion rate), 678 (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [13.1] years; 638 [92.9%] male) identified as veteran firearm owners. Across the 6 clinical contexts, support for clinicians "at least sometimes" discussing firearm safety as part of routine care ranged from 73.4% (95% CI, 69.1%-77.3%) when someone is "going through a hard time" to 88.2% (95% CI, 84.8%-90.9%) when someone has "mental health or behavioral problems." When a patient or family member is at risk for suicide, 79.4% (95% CI, 75.5%-82.8%) of veteran firearm owners responded that clinicians should "at least sometimes" discuss firearms and firearm safety.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study's findings suggest that most veteran firearm owners believe that clinicians should provide firearm counseling during routine care when a patient or family member is at heightened risk of firearm injury. These findings belie concerns that discussing firearm access with veteran firearm owners is an unacceptable practice.

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.