Factors influencing suicide risk assessment clinical practice: protocol for a scoping review.
clinical decision making
cognitive bias
organizational factors
risk assessment
suicide
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 02 2019
18 02 2019
Historique:
entrez:
21
2
2019
pubmed:
21
2
2019
medline:
26
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Every year, suicide accounts for nearly 800 000 deaths worldwide. Appropriate risk assessment and intervention are imperative since evidence demonstrates that a large proportion of those who die by suicide visit health professionals prior to their death. Much previous research has focused on identifying patient-level risk factors that can improve the risk assessment process through scales and algorithms. However, the best practice guidelines emphasise the importance of clinical interviews and prioritise the clinician's final judgement. The purpose of this review is to (1) understand the clinician and organisational level barriers and facilitators that influence a clinician's assessment of suicide risk, (2) identify the types of biases that exist within this process and (3) list any evidence-based training protocols and educational initiatives to aid (or support) clinicians with this process. This scoping review protocol uses the Arksey and O'Malley framework, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines for scoping reviews. Literature will be identified using a multidatabase search strategy developed in consultation with a medical librarian. The proposed screening process consists of a title and abstract scan, followed by a full-text review by two reviewers to determine the eligibility of articles. Studies outlining any factors that affect a clinician's suicide risk assessment process, ranging from individual experience and behaviours to organisational level influences, will be included. A tabular synthesis of the general study details will be provided, as well as a narrative synthesis of the extracted data, organised into themes using the Situated Clinical Decision-Making framework. Ethical approval is not required for this review. Results will be translated into educational materials and presentations for dissemination to appropriate knowledge users. Knowledge outputs will also include academic presentations at relevant conferences, and a published, peer-reviewed journal article.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30782946
pii: bmjopen-2018-026566
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026566
pmc: PMC6398626
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e026566Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2017 Mar;24(2):401-410
pubmed: 28401708
Nurs Educ Perspect. 2009 May-Jun;30(3):164-70
pubmed: 19606659
Am J Psychiatry. 2002 Jun;159(6):909-16
pubmed: 12042175
Psychol Bull. 2017 Feb;143(2):187-232
pubmed: 27841450
Psychosomatics. 1983 Apr;24(4):343-5, 348-9
pubmed: 6867245
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
BMJ. 2015 Nov 09;351:h4978
pubmed: 26552947
Death Stud. 2015;39(7):433-41
pubmed: 25674940
Eur Psychiatry. 2012 Feb;27(2):129-41
pubmed: 22137775
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2004 Aug;11(4):393-400
pubmed: 15255912
World Psychiatry. 2017 Feb;16(1):28-29
pubmed: 28127916
Psychiatry J. 2014;2014:943574
pubmed: 24804190
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Dec;67(12):1291-4
pubmed: 25034198
Acad Med. 2003 Aug;78(8):775-80
pubmed: 12915363
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 20;5:69
pubmed: 20854677
Psychol Assess. 2000 Mar;12(1):19-30
pubmed: 10752360
Nurse Educ Pract. 2010 Nov;10(6):333-40
pubmed: 20356794
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571