Cited by 189Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesEmergency and Acute Care StudiesPsychiatric care and mental health services

Improving Suicide Risk Screening and Detection in the Emergency Department

Open access
Boudreaux, Edwin D., Camargo, Carlos A., Arias, Sarah A., Sullivan, Ashley F., Allen, Michael H., Goldstein, Amy B., Manton, Anne P., Espinola, Janice A. +1 more·2016·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Introduction The Emergency Department Safety Assessment and Follow-up Evaluation Screening Outcome Evaluation examined whether universal suicide risk screening is feasible and effective at improving suicide risk detection in the emergency department (ED).Methods A three-phase interrupted time series design was used: Treatment as Usual (Phase 1), Universal Screening (Phase 2), and Universal Screening + Intervention (Phase 3). Eight EDs from seven states participated from 2009 through 2014. Data collection spanned peak hours and 7 days of the week. Chart reviews established if screening for intentional self-harm ideation/behavior (screening) was documented in the medical record and whether the individual endorsed intentional self-harm ideation/behavior (detection). Patient interviews determined if the documented intentional self-harm was suicidal. In Phase 2, universal suicide risk screening was implemented during routine care. In Phase 3, improvements were made to increase screening rates and fidelity. Chi-square tests and generalized estimating equations were calculated. Data were analyzed in 2014.Results Across the three phases (N=236,791 ED visit records), documented screenings rose from 26% (Phase 1) to 84% (Phase 3) (χ(2) [2, n=236,789]=71,000, p<0.001). Detection rose from 2.9% to 5.7% (χ(2) [2, n=236,789]=902, p<0.001). The majority of detected intentional self-harm was confirmed as recent suicidal ideation or behavior by patient interview.Conclusions Universal suicide risk screening in the ED was feasible and led to a nearly twofold increase in risk detection. If these findings remain true when scaled, the public health impact could be tremendous, because identification of risk is the first and necessary step for preventing suicide.Trial registration Emergency Department Safety Assessmentand Follow-up Evaluation (ED-SAFE) ClinicalTrials.gov: (NCT01150994). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01150994?term=ED-SAFE&rank=1.

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.amepre.2015.09.029

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Nearly half of individuals who screen positive for suicide risk in the ED do not spontaneously communicate suicidal ideation.

    “In addition, other reasons for visiting the ED can increase the risk for suicide (such as trauma or alcohol intoxication), and nearly half of individuals who screen positive for suicide risk in the ED do not spontaneously communicate suicidal ideation 211,212 .”

    From Suicide and suicide risk (2019) · cites this paper as [212]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that universal screening nearly doubled documented suicide-risk detection, from 2.9% to 5.7%, supporting the point that many patients' risks would otherwise go undetected. The paper does not measure whether patients spontaneously communicated suicidal ideation; its detection measure also includes past attempts and other intentional self-harm. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The role and efficacy of pharmacological antidepressant treatment among patients with cancer with depressive symptoms have not been well studied, particularly in elderly patients.

    “Also, the role and efficacy of pharmacological antidepressant treatment among patients with cancer with depressive symptoms have not been well studied, particularly in elderly patients 56,57 .”

    From Suicide risk and mortality among patients with cancer (2022) · cites this paper as [56]

  • In ED-SAFE 1, every site had already put in place clinical protocols to screen all patients for suicide risk using the Patient Safety Screener.

    “During ED-SAFE 1, all eight sites had adopted clinical protocols for universal suicide risk screening using the Patient Safety Screener [7].”
  • In ED-SAFE 1, the rise in screening almost doubled risk detection, from 2.9% to 5.7% of adults.

    “such an increase in screening nearly doubled risk detection, rising from 2.9% to 5.7% of adults [7]”
  • Historically, many patients at risk for suicide in routine clinical care are not detected, and those detected often do not receive suicide-specific intervention.

    “Historically, many patients with suicide risk are not detected during routine clinical care, and those who are often do not receive suicide-specific intervention.”

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: 2

  1. [5]Owens PL Mutter R Stocks C Healthcare cost and utilization project statistical brief #92: mental health and substance abuse-related emergency department visits among adults, 2007 2010 Rockville, MD Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Accessed March 22, 2015 www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb92.pdf. 21413214
  2. [22]Boudreaux ED Jaques ML Brady KM Matson A Allen MH Validation of the patient safety screener: results from the Psychiatric Emergency Research Collaboration (PERC)-3 Arch Suicide Res In press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boudreaux, E. D., Camargo, C. A., Arias, S. A., Sullivan, A. F., Allen, M. H., Goldstein, A. B., Manton, A. P., Espinola, J. A., & Miller, I. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Cape Cod Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Boudreaux, Edwin D.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-04
Volume
50
Issue
4
Pages
445-453
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2181951461
Cited by
189
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 5
FWCI
15.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (U01MH088278)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
suicide risk screening, emergency department, universal screening, suicide risk identification, intentional self-harm, suicidal ideation, suicide prevention
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Emergency Service, Hospital, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Suicide, Attempted, Self-Injurious Behavior, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Risk Assessment, Young Adult, Suicidal Ideation, Interrupted Time Series Analysis

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