Suicide Screening, Risk Assessment, and Lethal Means Counseling During Zero Suicide Implementation.

OBJECTIVE: The authors measured implementation of Zero Suicide (ZS) clinical practices that support identification of suicide risk and risk mitigation, including screening, risk assessment, and lethal means counseling, across mental health specialty and primary care settings. METHODS: Six health care systems in California, Colorado, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington participated. The sample included members ages ≥13 years from 2010 to 2019 (N=7,820,524 patients). The proportions of patients with suicidal ideation screening, suicide risk assessment, and lethal means counseling were estimated. RESULTS: In 2019, patients were screened for suicidal ideation in 27.1% (range 5.0%-85.0%) of mental health visits and 2.5% (range 0.1%-35.0%) of primary care visits among a racially and ethnically diverse sample (44.9% White, 27.2% Hispanic, 13.4% Asian, and 7.7% Black). More patients screened positive for suicidal ideation in the mental health setting (10.2%) than in the primary care setting (3.8%). Of the patients screening positive for suicidal ideation in the mental health setting, 76.8% received a risk assessment, and 82.4% of those identified as being at high risk received lethal means counseling, compared with 43.2% and 82.4%, respectively, in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Six health systems that implemented ZS showed a high level of variation in the proportions of patients receiving suicide screening and risk assessment and lethal means counseling. Two opportunities emerged for further study to increase frequency of these practices: expanding screening beyond patients with regular health care visits and implementing risk assessment with lethal means counseling in the primary care setting directly after a positive suicidal ideation screening.

Patient Perspectives on Mental Health and Pain Management Support Needed Versus Received During Opioid Deprescribing.

Prescription opioid tapering has increased significantly over the last decade. Evidence suggests that tapering too quickly or without appropriate support may unintentionally harm patients. The aim of this analysis was to understand patients' experiences with opioid tapering, including support received or not received for pain control or mental health. Patients with evidence of opioid tapering from 6 health care systems participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews; family members of suicide decedents with evidence of opioid tapering were also interviewed. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants included 176 patients and 16 family members. Results showed that 24% of the participants felt their clinicians checked in with them about their taper experiences while 41% reported their clinicians did not. A majority (68%) of individuals who experienced suicide behavior during tapering reported that clinicians did check in about mood and mental health changes specifically; however, 27% of that group reported no such check-in. More individuals reported negative experiences (than positive) with pain management clinics-where patients are often referred for tapering and pain management support. Patients reporting successful tapering experiences named shared decision-making and ability to adjust taper speed or pause tapering as helpful components of care. Fifty-six percent of patients reported needing more support during tapering, including more empathy and compassion (48%) and an individualized approach to tapering (41%). Patient-centered approaches to tapering include reaching out to monitor how patients are doing, involving patients in decision-making, supporting mental health changes, and allowing for flexibility in the tapering pace. PERSPECTIVE: Patients tapering prescription opioids desire more provider-initiated communication including checking in about pain, setting expectations for withdrawal and mental health-related changes, and providing support for mental health. Patients preferred opportunities to share decisions about taper speed and to have flexibility with pausing the taper as needed.

Association of initial opioid prescription duration and an opioid refill by pain diagnosis: Evidence from outpatient settings in ten US health systems.

OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain cautioned that inflexible opioid prescription duration limits may harm patients. Information about the relationship between initial opioid prescription duration and a subsequent refill could inform prescribing policies and practices to optimize patient outcomes. We assessed the association between initial opioid duration and an opioid refill prescription. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults ≥19 years of age in 10 US health systems between 2013 and 2018 from outpatient care with a diagnosis for back pain without radiculopathy, back pain with radiculopathy, neck pain, joint pain, tendonitis/bursitis, mild musculoskeletal pain, severe musculoskeletal pain, urinary calculus, or headache. Generalized additive models were used to estimate the association between opioid days' supply and a refill prescription. RESULTS: Overall, 220,797 patients were prescribed opioid analgesics upon an outpatient visit for pain. Nearly a quarter (23.5%) of the cohort received an opioid refill prescription during follow-up. The likelihood of a refill generally increased with initial duration for most pain diagnoses. About 1 to 3 fewer patients would receive a refill within 3 months for every 100 patients initially prescribed 3 vs. 7 days of opioids for most pain diagnoses. The lowest likelihood of refill was for a 1-day supply for all pain diagnoses, except for severe musculoskeletal pain (9 days' supply) and headache (3-4 days' supply). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term prescription opioid use increased modestly with initial opioid prescription duration for most but not all pain diagnoses examined.

Impact of Opioid Dose Reductions on Patient-Reported Mental Health and Suicide-Related Behavior and Relationship to Patient Choice in Tapering Decisions.

Mental health and suicide-related harms resulting from prescription opioid tapering are poorly documented and understood. Six health systems contributed opioid prescribing data from January 2016 to April 2020. Patients 18 to 70 years old with evidence of opioid tapering participated in semi-structured interviews. Individuals who experienced suicide attempts were oversampled. Family members of suicide decedents who had experienced opioid tapering were also interviewed. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. The study participants included 176 patients and 16 family members. Patients were 68% female, 80% White, and 15% Hispanic, mean age 58. All family members were female spouses of White, non-Hispanic male decedents. Among the subgroup (n = 60) who experienced a documented suicide attempt, reported experiencing suicidal ideation during tapering, or were family members of suicide decedents, 40% reported that opioid tapering exacerbated previously recognized mental health issues, and 25% reported that tapering triggered new-onset mental health concerns. Among participants with suicide behavior, 47% directly attributed it to opioid tapering. Common precipitants included increased pain, reduced life engagement, sleep problems, withdrawal, relationship dissolution, and negative consequences of opioid substitution with other substances for pain relief. Most respondents reporting suicide behavior felt that the decision to taper was made by the health care system or a clinician (67%) whereas patients not reporting suicide behavior were more likely to report it was their own decision (42%). This study describes patient-reported mental health deterioration or suicide behavior while tapering prescription opioids. Clinicians should screen for, monitor, and treat suicide behavior while assisting patients in tapering opioids. PERSPECTIVE: This work describes changes in patient-reported mental health and suicide behavior while tapering prescription opioids. Recommendations for improving care include mental health and suicide risk screening during and following opioid tapering.

Suicide-related care among patients who have experienced an opioid-involved overdose.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to describe suicide prevention care for individuals prescribed opioids or with opioid use disorder (OUD) and identify opportunities for improving this care. METHODS: Adult patients (n = 65) from four health systems with an opioid-involved overdose and clinicians (n = 21) who had contact with similar patients completed 30-60-min semi-structured interviews. A community advisory board contributed to development of all procedures, and interpretation and summary of findings. RESULTS: Patients were mostly female (59%), White (63%) and non-Hispanic (77%); 52 were prescribed opioids, 49% had diagnosed OUD, and 42% experienced an intentional opioid-involved overdose. Findings included: 1) when prescribed an opioid or treated for OUD, suicide risks were typically not discussed; 2) 35% of those with an intentional opioid-involved overdose and over 80% with an unintentional overdose reported no discussion of suicidal ideation when treated for the overdose; and 3) suicide-related follow-up care was uncommon among those with unintentional overdoses despite suicidal ideation being reported by >20%. Clinicians reported that when prescribing opioids or treating OUD, post-overdose suicide-related screening or counseling was not done routinely. CONCLUSIONS: There were several opportunities to tailor suicide prevention care for patients who were treated for opioid-involved overdoses within health systems.

The association between buprenorphine treatment duration and mortality: a multi-site cohort study of people who discontinued treatment.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Buprenorphine is an effective medication for opioid use disorder that reduces mortality; however, many patients are not retained in buprenorphine treatment, and an optimal length of treatment after which patients can safely discontinue treatment has not been identified. This study measured the association between buprenorphine treatment duration and all-cause mortality among patients who discontinued treatment. Secondary objectives were to measure the association between treatment duration and drug overdose and opioid-related overdoses. DESIGN: Multi-site cohort study. SETTING: Eight US health systems. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who initiated and discontinued buprenorphine treatment between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2018 (n = 6550). Outcomes occurring after patients discontinued buprenorphine treatment were compared between patients who initiated and discontinued treatment after 8-30, 31-90, 91-180, 181-365 and > 365 days. MEASUREMENTS: Covariate data were obtained from electronic health records (EHRs). Mortality outcomes were derived from EHRs and state vital statistics. Non-fatal opioid and drug overdoses were obtained from diagnostic codes. Four sites provided cause-of-death data to identify fatal drug and opioid-related overdoses. Adjusted frailty regression was conducted on a propensity-weighted cohort to assess associations between duration of the final treatment episode and outcomes. FINDINGS: The mortality rate after buprenorphine treatment was 1.82 per 100 person-years (n = 191 deaths). In regression analyses with > 365 days as the reference group, treatment duration was not associated with all-cause mortality and drug overdose (P > 0.05 for both). However, compared with > 365 days of treatment, 91-180 days of treatment was associated with increased opioid overdose risk (hazard ratio = 2.94, 95% confidence interval = 1.11-7.79). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who discontinue buprenorphine treatment, there appears to be no treatment duration period associated with a reduced risk for all-cause mortality. Patients who discontinue buprenorphine treatment after 91-180 days appear to be at heightened risk for opioid overdose compared with patients who discontinue after > 365 days of treatment.

A Stakeholder-Informed Ethical Framework to Guide Implementation of Suicide Risk Prediction Models Derived from Electronic Health Records.

OBJECTIVE: Develop a stakeholder-informed ethical framework to provide practical guidance to health systems considering implementation of suicide risk prediction models. METHODS: In this multi-method study, patients and family members participating in formative focus groups (n = 4 focus groups, 23 participants), patient advisors, and a bioethics consultant collectively informed the development of a web-based survey; survey results (n = 1,357 respondents) and themes from interviews with stakeholders (patients, health system administrators, clinicians, suicide risk model developers, and a bioethicist) were used to draft the ethical framework. RESULTS: Clinical, ethical, operational, and technical issues reiterated by multiple stakeholder groups and corresponding questions for risk prediction model adopters to consider prior to and during suicide risk model implementation are organized within six ethical principles in the resulting stakeholder-informed framework. Key themes include: patients' rights to informed consent and choice to conceal or reveal risk (autonomy); appropriate application of risk models, data and model limitations and consequences including ambiguous risk predictors in opaque models (explainability); selecting actionable risk thresholds (beneficence, distributive justice); access to risk information and stigma (privacy); unanticipated harms (non-maleficence); and planning for expertise and resources to continuously audit models, monitor harms, and redress grievances (stewardship). CONCLUSIONS: Enthusiasm for risk prediction in the context of suicide is understandable given the escalating suicide rate in the U.S. Attention to ethical and practical concerns in advance of automated suicide risk prediction model implementation may help avoid unnecessary harms that could thwart the promise of this innovation in suicide prevention. HIGHLIGHTSPatients' desire to consent/opt out of suicide risk prediction models.Recursive ethical questioning should occur throughout risk model implementation.Risk modeling resources are needed to continuously audit models and monitor harms.

Clinical implementation of suicide risk prediction models in healthcare: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Suicide risk prediction models derived from electronic health records (EHR) are a novel innovation in suicide prevention but there is little evidence to guide their implementation. METHODS: In this qualitative study, 30 clinicians and 10 health care administrators were interviewed from one health system anticipating implementation of an automated EHR-derived suicide risk prediction model and two health systems piloting different implementation approaches. Site-tailored interview guides focused on respondents' expectations for and experiences with suicide risk prediction models in clinical practice, and suggestions for improving implementation. Interview prompts and content analysis were guided by Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs. RESULTS: Administrators and clinicians found use of the suicide risk prediction model and the two implementation approaches acceptable. Clinicians desired opportunities for early buy-in, implementation decision-making, and feedback. They wanted to better understand how this manner of risk identification enhanced existing suicide prevention efforts. They also wanted additional training to understand how the model determined risk, particularly after patients they expected to see identified by the model were not flagged at-risk and patients they did not expect to see identified were. Clinicians were concerned about having enough suicide prevention resources for potentially increased demand and about their personal liability; they wanted clear procedures for situations when they could not reach patients or when patients remained at-risk over a sustained period. Suggestions for making risk model workflows more efficient and less burdensome included consolidating suicide risk information in a dedicated module in the EHR and populating risk assessment scores and text in clinical notes. CONCLUSION: Health systems considering suicide risk model implementation should engage clinicians early in the process to ensure they understand how risk models estimate risk and add value to existing workflows, clarify clinician role expectations, and summarize risk information in a convenient place in the EHR to support high-quality patient care.

Implementation of Suicide Risk Estimation Analytics to Support Mental Health Care for Quality Improvement.

This quality improvement study describes use of estimation analytics to augment existing suicide prevention practices during routine mental health specialty encounters at a large US health care system.

Opioid-related variables did not improve suicide risk prediction models in samples with mental health diagnoses.

Background: Suicide risk prediction models derived from machine learning of electronic health records and insurance claims are an innovation in suicide prevention. Some models do not include opioid-related variables despite the relationship between opioids and suicide. This study evaluated whether inclusion of opioid-related variables improved suicide risk prediction models developed by the Mental Health Research Network. Methods: Approximately 630 opioid-related variables and interactions terms were introduced into existing suicide prediction models run in datasets of patient visits in mental health care (n = 27,755,401 visits) or primary care when a mental health diagnosis was given (n = 19,340,461 visits). Training and validation datasets were created. LASSO regression with 10-fold validation identified variables to be added to the models. Results: The new models predicting suicide attempts and suicide deaths in the mental health specialty visit sample performed as well as the existing models (new C-statistic for attempts model = 0.855, CI: 0.853-0.857 versus original C-statistic = 0.851, CI 0.848-0.853; death model = 0.868, CI: 0.856-0.879 versus 0.861, CI 0.848-0.875). The new model for suicide death in the primary care sample improved (0.855, CI: 0.837-0.874 versus 0.833, CI 0.813-0.853) while performance of the new model for suicide attempt in that sample degraded (0.843, CI: 0.839-0.847 versus 0.853, CI 0.849-0.857). Limitations: Analyses did not include patients without recent care, data did not include illicit opioid use or unrecognized opioid use disorder. Conclusions: Among patients with mental health diagnoses, inclusion of opioid-related variables did not improve prediction of suicide risk beyond mental health predictors.

Machine Learning Prediction of Suicide Risk Does Not Identify Patients Without Traditional Risk Factors.

Objective: To determine whether predictions of suicide risk from machine learning models identify unexpected patients or patients without medical record documentation of traditional risk factors.Methods: The study sample included 27,091,382 outpatient mental health (MH) specialty or general medical visits with a MH diagnosis for patients aged 11 years or older from January 1, 2009, to September 30, 2017. We used predicted risk scores of suicide attempt and suicide death, separately, within 90 days of visits to classify visits into risk score percentile strata. For each stratum, we calculated counts and percentages of visits with traditional risk factors, including prior self-harm diagnoses and emergency department visits or hospitalizations with MH diagnoses, in the last 3, 12, and 60 months.Results: Risk-factor percentages increased with predicted risk scores. Among MH specialty visits, 66%, 88%, and 99% of visits with suicide attempt risk scores in the top 3 strata (respectively, 90th-95th, 95th-98th, and ≥ 98th percentiles) and 60%, 77%, and 93% of visits with suicide risk scores in the top 3 strata represented patients who had at least one traditional risk factor documented in the prior 12 months. Among general medical visits, 52%, 66%, and 90% of visits with suicide attempt risk scores in the top 3 strata and 45%, 66%, and 79% of visits with suicide risk scores in the top 3 strata represented patients who had a history of traditional risk factors in the last 12 months.Conclusions: Suicide risk alerts based on these machine learning models coincide with patients traditionally thought of as high-risk at their high-risk visits.

Patient expectations of and experiences with a suicide risk identification algorithm in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Suicide risk prediction models derived from electronic health records (EHR) and insurance claims are a novel innovation in suicide prevention but patient perspectives on their use have been understudied. METHODS: In this qualitative study, between March and November 2020, 62 patients were interviewed from three health systems: one anticipating implementation of an EHR-derived suicide risk prediction model and two others piloting different implementation approaches. Site-tailored interview guides focused on patients' perceptions of this technology, concerns, and preferences for and experiences with suicide risk prediction model implementation in clinical practice. A constant comparative analytic approach was used to derive themes. RESULTS: Interview participants were generally supportive of suicide risk prediction models derived from EHR data. Concerns included apprehension about inducing anxiety and suicidal thoughts, or triggering coercive treatment, particularly among those who reported prior negative experiences seeking mental health care. Participants who were engaged in mental health care or case management expected to be asked about their suicide risk and largely appreciated suicide risk conversations, particularly by clinicians comfortable discussing suicidality. CONCLUSION: Most patients approved of suicide risk models that use EHR data to identify patients at-risk for suicide. As health systems proceed to implement such models, patient-centered care would involve dialogue initiated by clinicians experienced with assessing suicide risk during virtual or in person care encounters. Health systems should proactively monitor for negative consequences that result from risk model implementation to protect patient trust.

Sex Differences in Comorbid Mental and Substance Use Disorders Among Primary Care Patients With Opioid Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to characterize the 3-year prevalence of mental disorders and nonnicotine substance use disorders among male and female primary care patients with documented opioid use disorder across large U.S. health systems. METHODS: This retrospective study used 2014-2016 data from patients ages ≥16 years in six health systems. Diagnoses were obtained from electronic health records or claims data; opioid use disorder treatment with buprenorphine or injectable extended-release naltrexone was determined through prescription and procedure data. Adjusted prevalence of comorbid conditions among patients with opioid use disorder (with or without treatment), stratified by sex, was estimated by fitting logistic regression models for each condition and applying marginal standardization. RESULTS: Females (53.2%, N=7,431) and males (46.8%, N=6,548) had a similar prevalence of opioid use disorder. Comorbid mental disorders among those with opioid use disorder were more prevalent among females (86.4% vs. 74.3%, respectively), whereas comorbid other substance use disorders (excluding nicotine) were more common among males (51.9% vs. 60.9%, respectively). These differences held for those receiving medication treatment for opioid use disorder, with mental disorders being more common among treated females (83% vs. 71%) and other substance use disorders more common among treated males (68% vs. 63%). Among patients with a single mental health condition comorbid with opioid use disorder, females were less likely than males to receive medication treatment for opioid use disorder (15% vs. 20%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of comorbid conditions among patients with opioid use disorder indicates a strong need to supply primary care providers with adequate resources for integrated opioid use disorder treatment.

Development and implementation of a prescription opioid registry across diverse health systems.

Objective: Develop and implement a prescription opioid registry in 10 diverse health systems across the US and describe trends in prescribed opioids between 2012 and 2018. Materials and Methods: Using electronic health record and claims data, we identified patients who had an outpatient fill for any prescription opioid, and/or an opioid use disorder diagnosis, between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2018. The registry contains distributed files of prescription opioids, benzodiazepines and other select medications, opioid antagonists, clinical diagnoses, procedures, health services utilization, and health plan membership. Rates of outpatient opioid fills over the study period, standardized to health system demographic distributions, are described by age, gender, and race/ethnicity among members without cancer. Results: The registry includes 6 249 710 patients and over 40 million outpatient opioid fills. For the combined registry population, opioid fills declined from a high of 0.718 per member-year in 2013 to 0.478 in 2018, and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) per fill declined from 985 MMEs per fill in 2012 to 758 MMEs in 2018. MMEs per member declined from 692 MMEs per member in 2012 to 362 MMEs per member in 2018. Conclusion: This study established a population-based opioid registry across 10 diverse health systems that can be used to address questions related to opioid use. Initial analyses showed large reductions in overall opioid use per member among the combined health systems. The registry will be used in future studies to answer a broad range of other critical public health issues relating to prescription opioid use.

Connecting Research and Practice: Implementation of Suicide Prevention Strategies in Learning Health Care Systems.

The health care systems affiliated with the Mental Health Research Network strive to be learning health care systems that identify and address evidence gaps of importance to clinicians, patients, and funders. This column describes how research guides clinical care and clinical care guides research in the area of suicide prevention as well as some of the challenges of conducting embedded research.

Development of a Symptom-Focused Model to Guide the Prescribing of Antipsychotics in Children and Adolescents: Results of the First Phase of the Safer Use of Antipsychotics in Youth (SUAY) Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a new approach to prescribing guidelines as part of a pragmatic trial, Safer Use of Antipsychotics in Youth (SUAY; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03448575), which supports prescribers in delivering high-quality mental health care to youths. METHOD: A nominal group technique was used to identify first- to nth-line treatments for target symptoms and potential diagnoses. The panel included US pediatricians, child and adolescent psychiatrists, and psychopharmacology experts. Meeting materials included information about Medicaid review programs, systematic reviews, prescribing guidelines, and a description of the pragmatic trial. Afterward, a series of 4 webinar discussions were held to achieve consensus on recommendations. RESULTS: The panel unanimously agreed that the guideline should focus on target symptoms rather than diagnoses. Guidance included recommendations for first- to nth-line treatment of target mental health symptoms, environmental factors to be addressed, possible underlying diagnoses that should first be considered and ruled out, and general considerations for pharmacological and therapeutic treatments. CONCLUSION: Prescribing guidelines are often ignored because they do not incorporate the real-world availability of first-line psychosocial treatments, comorbid conditions, and clinical complexity. Our approach addresses some of these concerns. If the approach proves successful in our ongoing pragmatic trial, Safer Use of Antipsychotics in Youth (SUAY), it may serve as a model to state Medicaid programs and health systems to support clinicians in delivering high-quality mental health care to youths. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Safer Use of Antipsychotics in Youth; http://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT03448575.

Prediction of suicidal behavior using self-reported suicidal ideation among patients with bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: People with bipolar disorder have elevated suicide risk. We estimated the ability of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9) to predict suicide outcomes for outpatients with bipolar disorder. METHODS: Visits by adults with bipolar disorder who completed a PHQ9 were identified using electronic health record (EHR) data. Bipolar diagnoses and suicide attempts were ascertained from EHR and claims data, and suicide deaths from state and federal records. Depression severity was assessed via the first eight items of the PHQ9, while suicidal ideation was assessed by the ninth item. RESULTS: 37,243 patients made 126,483 visits. Patients reported at least moderate symptoms of depression in 49% and suicidal ideation in 30% of visits. Risk of suicide attempt was 4.21% in the subsequent 90 days for those reporting nearly daily suicidal ideation compared to 0.74% in those reporting none. Patients with nearly daily suicidal ideation were 3.85 (95% CI 3.32-4.47) times more likely to attempt suicide and 13.78 (95% CI 6.56-28.94) times more likely to die by suicide in the subsequent 90 days than patients reporting none. Patients with self-harm in the last year were 8.86 (95% 7.84-10.02) times more likely to attempt suicide in the subsequent 90 days than those without. LIMITATIONS: Our sample was limited to patients completing the PHQ9 and did not include data on some important social risk or protective factors. CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ9 was a robust predictor of suicide. Suicidal ideation reported on the PHQ9 should be considered a strong indicator of suicide risk and prompt further evaluation.

An implementation evaluation of "Zero Suicide" using normalization process theory to support high-quality care for patients at risk of suicide.

BACKGROUND: Suicide rates continue to rise across the United States, galvanizing the need for increased suicide prevention and intervention efforts. The Zero Suicide (ZS) model was developed in response to this need and highlights four key clinical functions of high-quality health care for patients at risk of suicide. The goal of this quality improvement study was to understand how six large health care systems operationalized practices to support these functions-identification, engagement, treatment and care transitions. METHODS: Using a key informant interview guide and data collection template, researchers who were embedded in each health care system cataloged and summarized current and future practices supporting ZS, including, (1) the function addressed; (2) a description of practice intent and mechanism of intervention; (3) the target patient population and service setting; (4) when/how the practice was (or will be) implemented; and (5) whether/how the practice was documented and/or measured. Normalization process theory (NPT), an implementation evaluation framework, was applied to help understand how ZS had been operationalized in routine clinical practices and, specifically, what ZS practices were described by key informants (coherence), the current state of norms/conventions supporting these practices (cognitive participation), how health care teams performed these practices (collective action), and whether/how practices were measured when they occurred (reflexive monitoring). RESULTS: The most well-defined and consistently measured ZS practices (current and future) focused on the identification of patients at high risk of suicide. Stakeholders also described numerous engagement and treatment practices, and some practices intended to support care transitions. However, few engagement and transition practices were systematically measured, and few treatment practices were designed specifically for patients at risk of suicide. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study will support large-scale evaluation of the effectiveness of ZS implementation and inform recommendations for implementation of high-quality suicide-related care in health care systems nationwide.

Receipt of medications for opioid use disorder among youth engaged in primary care: data from 6 health systems.

PURPOSE: Little is known about prevalence and treatment of OUD among youth engaged in primary care (PC). Medications are the recommended treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) for adolescents and young adults (youth). This study describes the prevalence of OUD, the prevalence of medication treatment for OUD, and patient characteristics associated with OUD treatment among youth engaged in PC. METHODS: This cross-sectional study includes youth aged 16-25 years engaged in PC. Eligible patients had ≥ 1 PC visit during fiscal years (FY) 2014-2016 in one of 6 health systems across 6 states. Data from electronic health records and insurance claims were used to identify OUD diagnoses, office-based OUD medication treatment, and patient demographic and clinical characteristics in the FY of the first PC visit during the study period. Descriptive analyses were conducted in all youth, and stratified by age (16-17, 18-21, 22-25 years). RESULTS: Among 303,262 eligible youth, 2131 (0.7%) had a documented OUD diagnosis. The prevalence of OUD increased by ascending age groups. About half of youth with OUD had documented depression or anxiety and one third had co-occurring substance use disorders. Receipt of medication for OUD was lowest among youth 16-17 years old (14%) and highest among those aged 22-25 (39%). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of youth engaged in 6 health systems across 6 states, there was low receipt of medication treatment, and high prevalence of other substance use disorders and mental health disorders. These findings indicate an urgent need to increase medication treatment for OUD and to integrate treatment for other substance use and mental health disorders.

Reconciling Statistical and Clinicians' Predictions of Suicide Risk.

Statistical models, including those based on electronic health records, can accurately identify patients at high risk for a suicide attempt or death, leading to implementation of risk prediction models for population-based suicide prevention in health systems. However, some have questioned whether statistical predictions can really inform clinical decisions. Appropriately reconciling statistical algorithms with traditional clinician assessment depends on whether predictions from these two methods are competing, complementary, or merely duplicative. In June 2019, the National Institute of Mental Health convened a meeting, "Identifying Research Priorities for Risk Algorithms Applications in Healthcare Settings to Improve Suicide Prevention." Here, participants of this meeting summarize key issues regarding the potential clinical application of suicide prediction models. The authors attempt to clarify the key conceptual and technical differences between traditional risk prediction by clinicians and predictions from statistical models, review the limited evidence regarding both the accuracy of and the concordance between these alternative methods of prediction, present a conceptual framework for understanding agreement and disagreement between statistical and clinician predictions, identify priorities for improving data regarding suicide risk, and propose priority questions for future research. Future suicide risk assessment will likely combine statistical prediction with traditional clinician assessment, but research is needed to determine the optimal combination of these two methods.