Cited by 65Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesHealth Policy Implementation ScienceInjury Epidemiology and Prevention

Implementing Suicide Risk Screening in a Pediatric Primary Care Setting: From Research to Practice

Open access
Horowitz, Lisa M., Bridge, Jeffrey A., Tipton, Mary V., Abernathy, Ted, Mournet, Annabelle M., Snyder, Deborah J., Lanzillo, Elizabeth C., Powell, Daniel +3 more·2022·Academic Pediatrics

Abstract

Objective: To describe the methodological development and feasibility of real-world implementation of suicide risk screening into a pediatric primary care setting. Methods: A suicide risk screening quality improvement project (QIP) was implemented by medical leadership from a suburban-based pediatric (ages 12 to 25 years) primary care practice in collaboration with a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) suicide prevention research team. A pilot phase to acclimate office staff to screening procedures preceded data collection. A convenience sample of 271 pediatric medical outpatients was screened for suicide risk. Patients, their parents, and medical staff reported their experiences and opinions of the screening procedures. Results: Thirty-one (11.4%) patients screened positive for suicide risk, with one patient endorsing imminent suicide risk (3% of positive screens; 0.4% of total sample). Over half of the patients who screened positive reported a past suicide attempt. Most patients, parents, and medical staff supported the implementation of suicide risk screening procedures into standard care. A mental health clinical pathway for suicide risk screening in outpatient settings was developed to provide outpatient medical settings with guidance for screening. Conclusions: Screening for suicide risk in pediatric primary care is feasible and acceptable to patients, their families, and medical staff. A clinical pathway used as guidance for pediatric healthcare providers to implement screening programs can aid with efficiently detecting and managing patients who are at risk for suicide.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.acap.2021.10.012

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous studies describing opinions for screening show that most pediatric patients and parents/guardians support screening for suicide risk in healthcare settings.

    “Moreover, previous studies describing opinions for screening show that most pediatric patients and parents/ guardians support screening for suicide risk in healthcare settings.”
  • Disposition based on screening alone can fail to respond appropriately to real suicide risk and result in inefficient use of resources.

    “Once a patient screens positive for suicide risk, a follow-up assessment is a critical best practice, as disposition based on screening alone can fail to respond appropriately to real suicide risk and result in inefficient use of resources.”
  • The outpatient clinical pathway for screening was developed by the AACAP PaCC workgroup to assist hospitals, EDs, and inpatient units implementing suicide risk screening, with subsequent versions for outpatient primary and specialty care modified by NIMH.

    “The outpatient clinical pathway was developed by the Pathways in Clinical Care (PaCC) workgroup from within the Physically 111 Child committee of the AACAP to assist hospitals and EDS, and inpatient medical/surgical units implementing suicide risk screening to pediatric patients,98 with subsequent versions developed for outpatient primary and specialty care modified by NIMH.99”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [29]Pao M, Mournet AM, Horowitz LM. Implementation challenges of universal suicide risk screening in adult patients in general medical and surgical settings. 2020; 37(7): 25– 27.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Horowitz, L. M., Bridge, J. A., Tipton, M. V., Abernathy, T., Mournet, A. M., Snyder, D. J., Lanzillo, E. C., Powell, D., Schoenbaum, M., Brahmbhatt, K., & Pao, M.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Abigail Wexner Research Institute (US)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Horowitz, Lisa M.
Venue
Academic Pediatrics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-03
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
217-226
ISSN
1876-2859 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4214948380
Cited by
64
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3
FWCI
12.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Academic Pediatrics (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 MH999999)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (ZIAMH002922)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Injury Epidemiology and Prevention
Keywords
suicide risk screening, pediatric primary care, adolescents and young adults, implementation feasibility, suicide prevention, quality improvement, care pathways, suicide attempts, medical staff attitudes
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Adolescent, Adult, Child, Disease Susceptibility, Humans, Mass Screening, Outpatients, Primary Health Care, Young Adult, Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review