Cited by 39Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesMental Health and PsychiatryPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Whether Called Acute Suicidal Affective Disturbance or Suicide Crisis Syndrome, a Suicide-specific Diagnosis Would Enhance Clinical Care, Increase Patient Safety, and Mitigate Clinician Liability

Abstract

Separate research groups have independently argued the need for a suicide-specific diagnosis within the psychiatric diagnostic nomenclature. Although a suicide-specific diagnosis could possibly enhance clinical care and improve patient safety, some clinicians have expressed concerns regarding the legal risk of utilizing a suicide-specific diagnosis. In this column, the first of a 2-part series exploring the potential risks and benefits of a suicide-specific diagnosis, the authors draw from their decades of experience in clinical work, legal consulting, as well as the litigation of suicide and wrongful death lawsuits and contend that the bona fide use of a suicide-specific diagnosis would mitigate legal liability to clinicians.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/pra.0000000000000315

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Rogers, 2017, Acute suicidal affective disturbance: factorial structure and initial validation across psychiatric outpatient and inpatient samples, J Affect Disord, 211, 1, 10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.057 · DOI
  2. Galynker, 2017, Prediction of suicidal behavior in high risk psychiatric patients using an assessment of acute suicidal state: the Suicide Crisis Inventory, Depress Anxiety, 34, 147, 10.1002/da.22559 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Oquendo, 2014, Suicidal behavior disorder as a diagnostic entity in the DSM-5 classification system: advantages outweigh limitations, World Psychiatry, 13, 128, 10.1002/wps.20116 · DOI
  4. Chung, 2017, Suicide rates after discharge from psychiatric facilities, JAMA Psychiatry, 74, 694, 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.1044 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Rogers, 2017, An overview and comparison of two proposed suicide-specific diagnoses: Acute Suicidal Affective Disturbance (ASAD) and Suicide Crisis Syndrome (SCS), Psychiatr Ann, 47, 416, 10.3928/00485713-20170630-01 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Stanley, 2012, Safety planning intervention: a brief intervention to mitigate suicide risk, Cogn Behav Pract, 19, 256, 10.1016/j.cbpra.2011.01.001 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 2016, Detecting and treating suicide ideation in all settings, Sentinel Event Alert, 56, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
JOINER, T. E., SIMPSON, S., ROGERS, M. L., STANLEY, I. H., & GALYNKER, I. I.
Affiliations
Florida State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric Practice
Published
2018-07
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
274-278
ISSN
  • 1527-4160 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-1145
OpenAlex
W2914531989
Cited by
39
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychiatric Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Keywords
suicide crisis syndrome, medical malpractice litigation, suicide, patient safety
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Adult, Mental Disorders, Humans, Suicide, Risk Assessment, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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