Evaluating the Risk of Suicide and Violence in Severe Mental Illness: A Feasibility Study of Two Risk Assessment Tools (OxMIS and OxMIV) in General Psychiatric Settings.

OxMIS OxMIV bipolar disorder prediction model risk assessment schizophrenia suicide violence

Journal

Frontiers in psychiatry
ISSN: 1664-0640
Titre abrégé: Front Psychiatry
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101545006

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 07 02 2022
accepted: 30 05 2022
entrez: 18 7 2022
pubmed: 19 7 2022
medline: 19 7 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Two OxRisk risk assessment tools, the Oxford Mental Illness and Suicide (OxMIS) and the Oxford Mental Illness and Violence (OxMIV), were developed and validated using national linked registries in Sweden, to assess suicide and violence risk in individuals with severe mental illness (schizophrenia-spectrum disorders and bipolar disorders). In this study, we aim to examine the feasibility and acceptability of the tools in three different clinical services. We employed a two-step mixed-methods approach, by combining quantitative analyses of risk scores of 147 individual patients, and thematic analyses of qualitative data. First, 38 clinicians were asked to use OxMIS and OxMIV when conducting their routine risk assessments in patients with severe mental illness. The risk scores for each patient (which provide a probability of the outcome over 12 months) were then compared to the unstructured clinical risk assessment made by the treating clinician. Second, we carried out semi-structured interviews with the clinicians on the acceptability and utility of the tools. Thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative data to identify common themes, in terms of the utility, accuracy, and acceptability of the tools. The investigations were undertaken in three general adult psychiatric clinics located in the cities of Barcelona and Sevilla (Spain), and Changsha (China). Median risk probabilities over 12 months for OxMIS were 1.0% in the Spanish patient sample and 1.9% in the Chinese sample. For OxMIV, they were 0.7% (Spanish) and 0.8% (Chinese). In the thematic analysis, clinicians described the tools as easy to use, and thought that the risk score improved risk management. Potential additions to predictors were suggested, including family history and the patient's support network. Concordance rates of risk estimates between the tools and clinicians was high for violence (94.4%; 68/72) and moderate for suicide (50.0%; 36/72). Both OxMIS and OxMIV are feasible and practical in different general adult psychiatric settings. Clinicians interviewed found that both tools provide a useful structured approach to estimate the risk of suicide and violence. Risk scores from OxMIS and OxMIV can also be used to assist clinical decision-making for future management.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Two OxRisk risk assessment tools, the Oxford Mental Illness and Suicide (OxMIS) and the Oxford Mental Illness and Violence (OxMIV), were developed and validated using national linked registries in Sweden, to assess suicide and violence risk in individuals with severe mental illness (schizophrenia-spectrum disorders and bipolar disorders). In this study, we aim to examine the feasibility and acceptability of the tools in three different clinical services.
Method UNASSIGNED
We employed a two-step mixed-methods approach, by combining quantitative analyses of risk scores of 147 individual patients, and thematic analyses of qualitative data. First, 38 clinicians were asked to use OxMIS and OxMIV when conducting their routine risk assessments in patients with severe mental illness. The risk scores for each patient (which provide a probability of the outcome over 12 months) were then compared to the unstructured clinical risk assessment made by the treating clinician. Second, we carried out semi-structured interviews with the clinicians on the acceptability and utility of the tools. Thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative data to identify common themes, in terms of the utility, accuracy, and acceptability of the tools. The investigations were undertaken in three general adult psychiatric clinics located in the cities of Barcelona and Sevilla (Spain), and Changsha (China).
Results UNASSIGNED
Median risk probabilities over 12 months for OxMIS were 1.0% in the Spanish patient sample and 1.9% in the Chinese sample. For OxMIV, they were 0.7% (Spanish) and 0.8% (Chinese). In the thematic analysis, clinicians described the tools as easy to use, and thought that the risk score improved risk management. Potential additions to predictors were suggested, including family history and the patient's support network. Concordance rates of risk estimates between the tools and clinicians was high for violence (94.4%; 68/72) and moderate for suicide (50.0%; 36/72).
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
Both OxMIS and OxMIV are feasible and practical in different general adult psychiatric settings. Clinicians interviewed found that both tools provide a useful structured approach to estimate the risk of suicide and violence. Risk scores from OxMIS and OxMIV can also be used to assist clinical decision-making for future management.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35845463
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.871213
pmc: PMC9280292
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

871213

Subventions

Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 202836/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Beaudry, Canal-Rivero, Ou, Matharu, Fazel and Yu.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

SF was part of the study team that first developed OxMIV and OxMIS. He has not received any compensation in relation to their development, use or translation. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Arch Public Health. 2019 Oct 10;77:37
pubmed: 31624592
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Nov;103:131-133
pubmed: 30063954
Int J Psychiatry Med. 2014;48(3):217-28
pubmed: 25492715
Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2013 Jul;26(4):349-54
pubmed: 23722099
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2002 Dec;36(6):717-32
pubmed: 12406114
Front Psychiatry. 2021 May 05;12:645927
pubmed: 34025475
J Psychopharmacol. 2010 Nov;24(4 Suppl):81-90
pubmed: 20923923
Stat Med. 2016 Jan 30;35(2):214-26
pubmed: 26553135
Front Psychiatry. 2019 Apr 23;10:264
pubmed: 31065245
Eur Psychiatry. 2012 Feb;27(2):129-41
pubmed: 22137775
Evid Based Ment Health. 2018 May;21(2):41-43
pubmed: 29269440
Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2017 Jun;82(2):13-30
pubmed: 28475254
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jan;68(1):25-34
pubmed: 25441703
Br J Psychiatry. 2014 Mar;204(3):180-7
pubmed: 24590974
Br J Psychiatry. 2013 May;202(5):365-71
pubmed: 23520222
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2014 Dec;130(6):418-26
pubmed: 25230813
BMJ. 2012 Jul 24;345:e4692
pubmed: 22833604
World Psychiatry. 2014 Jun;13(2):153-60
pubmed: 24890068
Schizophr Res. 2020 Aug;222:382-388
pubmed: 32507375
Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Jun;4(6):461-468
pubmed: 28479143
Psychol Med. 2021 May 24;:1-7
pubmed: 34024292
Lancet Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;3(9):882-99
pubmed: 27528098
Transl Psychiatry. 2019 Feb 25;9(1):98
pubmed: 30804323
Psychiatr Q. 2019 Sep;90(3):533-541
pubmed: 31134419
Lancet Psychiatry. 2014 Jun;1(1):44-54
pubmed: 25110636
Schizophr Bull. 2021 Mar 16;47(2):284-297
pubmed: 32914178
Front Psychiatry. 2019 Dec 13;10:901
pubmed: 31920751
JAMA Psychiatry. 2022 Feb 1;79(2):120-132
pubmed: 34935869
Int J Drug Policy. 2021 Jun;92:103063
pubmed: 33303344
Acad Emerg Med. 2006 Apr;13(4):413-20
pubmed: 16531607
Lancet Psychiatry. 2021 Feb;8(2):150-161
pubmed: 33096045
Psychol Assess. 2014 Sep;26(3):990-1002
pubmed: 24796344
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 May;58(5):475-83
pubmed: 15845334
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Nov;61(11):1085-94
pubmed: 19208371
PLoS Med. 2021 Mar 11;18(3):e1003545
pubmed: 33705376
Lancet. 2009 Jun 13;373(9680):2041-53
pubmed: 19524780
BMJ Open. 2016 Feb 12;6(2):e009297
pubmed: 26873046
Diagn Progn Res. 2018 Jun 12;2:11
pubmed: 31093561
Am J Psychiatry. 2012 Mar;169(3):340
pubmed: 22407122
Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893-1907
pubmed: 29937585
J Clin Psychiatry. 2014 Aug;75(8):e809-16
pubmed: 25191918
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003 Aug;35(3):379-83
pubmed: 14587545
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Apr;62(4):427-32
pubmed: 15809410
Sci Rep. 2022 Jan 10;12(1):461
pubmed: 35013451
Front Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 15;11:268
pubmed: 32351413
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 21;18(1):148
pubmed: 30463515
Bipolar Disord. 2013 Aug;15(5):457-90
pubmed: 23755739
Epidemiol Rev. 2020 Jan 31;42(1):103-116
pubmed: 33005950

Auteurs

Gabrielle Beaudry (G)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Manuel Canal-Rivero (M)

Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain.
CIBER de Salud Mental, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBIS), Seville, Spain.

Jianjun Ou (J)

Hunan Key Laboratory of Psychiatry and Mental Health, National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders, Institute of Mental Health, National Technology Institute on Mental Disorders, Central South University, Changsha, China.

Jaskiran Matharu (J)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Seena Fazel (S)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Rongqin Yu (R)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Classifications MeSH