Population-based analysis of health care contacts among suicide decedents: identifying opportunities for more targeted suicide prevention strategies

The objective of this study was to detail the nature and correlates of mental health and non-mental health care contacts prior to suicide death. We conducted a systematic extraction of data from records at the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario of each person who died by suicide in the city of Toronto from 1998 to 2011. Data on 2,835 suicide deaths were linked with provincial health administrative data to identify health care contacts during the 12 months prior to suicide. Sub-populations of suicide decedents based on the presence and type of mental health care contact were described and compared across socio-demographic, clinical and suicide-specific variables. Time periods from last mental health contact to date of death were calculated and a Cox proportional hazards model examined covariates. Among suicide decedents, 91.7% had some type of past-year health care contact prior to death, 66.4% had a mental health care contact, and 25.3% had only non-mental health contacts. The most common type of mental health contact was an outpatient primary care visit (54.0%), followed by an outpatient psychiatric visit (39.8%), an emergency department visit (31.1%), and a psychiatric hospitalization (21.0%). The median time from last mental health contact to death was 18 days (interquartile range 5-63). Mental health contact was significantly associated with female gender, age 25-64, absence of a psychosocial stressor, diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, past suicide attempt, self-poisoning method and absence of a suicide note. Significant differences between sub-populations of suicide decedents based on the presence and nature of their health care contacts suggest the need for targeting of community and clinical-based suicide prevention strategies. The predominance of ambulatory mental health care contacts, often close to the time of death, reinforce the importance of concentrating efforts on embedding risk assessment and care pathways into all routine primary and specialty clinical care, and not only acute care settings.

Hepatitis C virus antibody positivity and predictors among previously undiagnosed adult primary care outpatients: cross-sectional analysis of a multisite retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing guidance issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1998 recommends HCV antibody (anti-HCV) testing for persons with specified risk factors. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence and predictors of anti-HCV positivity among primary care outpatients and estimate the proportion of unidentified anti-HCV-positive (anti-HCV+) persons using risk-based testing.

METHODS

We analyzed electronic medical record data from a 4-site retrospective study. Patients were aged ≥18 years, utilized ≥1 outpatient primary care service(s) between 2005 and 2010, and had no documented evidence of prior HCV diagnosis. Among persons tested for anti-HCV, we fit a multilevel logistic regression model to identify patient-level independent predictors of anti-HCV positivity. We estimated the proportion of unidentified anti-HCV+ persons by using multiple imputation to assign anti-HCV results to untested patients.

RESULTS

We observed 209 076 patients for a median of 5 months (interquartile range, 1-23 months). Among 17 464 (8.4%) patients who were tested for anti-HCV, 6.4% (n=1115) were positive. We identified history of injection drug use (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 6.3 [5.2-7.6]), 1945-1965 birth cohort (4.4 [3.8-5.1]), and elevated alanine aminotransferase levels (4.8 [4.2-5.6]) as independently associated with anti-HCV positivity. We estimated that 81.5% (n=4890/6005) of anti-HCV+ patients were unidentified using risk-based testing.

CONCLUSIONS

In these outpatient primary care settings, risk-based testing may have missed 4 of 5 newly enrolled patients who are anti-HCV+. Without knowing their status, unidentified anti-HCV+ persons cannot receive further clinical evaluation or antiviral treatment, and are unlikely to benefit from secondary prevention recommendations to limit disease progression and mortality.