Cited by 107Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesPsychiatric care and mental health servicesHealth Policy Implementation Science

Assessing Variability and Implementation Fidelity of Suicide Prevention Safety Planning in a Regional VA Healthcare System

Open access
Gamarra, Jennifer M., Luciano, Matthew T., Gradus, Jaimie L., Wiltsey Stirman, Shannon·2015·Crisis

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 2008, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented the use of safety planning for suicide prevention. A safety plan is a list of strategies, developed collaboratively with a provider, for a patient to use when suicide risk is elevated. Despite the use of safety plans in VHA, little is known about implementation fidelity, the extent to which safety plans are delivered as intended, or patient-level outcomes of safety planning. AIMS: This study aimed to explore the implementation fidelity of safety planning in a regional VHA hospital and examine the associations between safety plan quality and completeness with patient outcomes. METHOD: A comprehensive chart review was conducted for patients who were flagged as high risk for suicide (N = 200). Completeness and quality were coded, as well as information about patient and provider interactions regarding safety plan use. RESULTS: Safety plans were mostly complete and of moderate quality, although variability existed, particularly in quality. Limited evidence of follow-up regarding safety planning was found in the medical charts. Higher quality was associated with fewer subsequent psychiatric hospitalizations. CONCLUSION: Variability in implementation fidelity and infrequent follow-up suggest a need for additional training and support regarding the use of safety plans for suicide prevention.

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 · 10.1027/0227-5910/a000345

Cites

16 of 16 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gamarra, J. M., Luciano, M. T., Gradus, J. L., & Wiltsey Stirman, S.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • VA Boston Healthcare System (US)
  • National Center for PTSD, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA
Venue
Crisis
Published
2015-11
Volume
36
Issue
6
Pages
433-439
ISSN
  • 0227-5910 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-2396
OpenAlex
W2196257019
Cited by
107
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Crisis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R00MH080100, R21MH099169, R25MH080916)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
suicide prevention, safety planning, implementation fidelity, Veterans Health Administration, veterans, suicide risk, psychiatric hospitalization, follow-up, provider-patient interaction, implementation variability
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Quality of Health Care, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans, Advance Care Planning, Young Adult

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