Suicide and Self-Harm Outcomes Among Psychiatric Emergency Service Patients Diagnosed As Malingering.

BACKGROUND: Malingering is a common and challenging clinical presentation in emergency departments (EDs). OBJECTIVE: This study describes characteristics and outcomes among patients diagnosed as malingering in a psychiatric emergency service. METHODS: Index psychiatric ED encounters were identified for all adult patients seen during a 27-month period. Mortality data were obtained for patients from the state public health authority, and repeat ED visits for self-harm were obtained from the state hospital association. Patients with a diagnosis of malingering were compared with those without a malingering diagnosis using correlative statistics and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Of 4710 encounters analyzed, 236 (5%) had a malingering diagnosis. No patients diagnosed as malingering died of suicide within 365 days of discharge, compared with 16 (0.4%) nonmalingering patients. Self-harm outcomes were available for 2689 encounters; 129 (5%) had a malingering diagnosis. Malingering was significantly associated with a repeat ED visit for self-harm within 365 days in multivariable analyses (adjusted odds ratio 2.52; 95% confidence interval 1.35-4.70); p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: No psychiatric emergency service patients diagnosed as malingering died by suicide after discharge. New clinical approaches must balance malingering patients' apparent low suicide risk with their other substantial comorbidities and risk for self-harm.

Use of an Agitation Measure to Screen for Suicide and Self-Harm Risk Among Emergency Department Patients.

BACKGROUND: Suicidality alone is insensitive to suicide risk among emergency department (ED) patients. OBJECTIVE: We describe the performance of adding an objective assessment of agitation to a suicide screening instrument for predicting suicide and self-harm after an ED encounter. METHODS: We tested the performance of a novel screener combining the presence of suicidality or agitation for predicting suicide within 90 days or a repeat ED visit for self-harm within 30 days using retrospective data from all patients seen in an urban safety net ED over 27 months. Patients were assessed for suicidality using the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale-Clinical Practice Screener and for agitation using either the Behavioral Activity Rating Scale or Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale. We hypothesized that a screener based on the presence of either suicidality or agitation would be more sensitive to suicide risk than the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale-Clinical Practice Screener alone. The screener's performance is described, and multivariable regression evaluates the correlations between screening and outcomes. RESULTS: The sample comprised 16,467 patients seen in the ED who had available suicide screening and agitation data. Thirteen patients (0.08%) died by suicide within 90 days after ED discharge. The sensitivity and specificity of the screener combining suicidality and agitation for predicting suicide was 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.94) and 0.74 (0.44-0.94), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for agitation combined with positive suicide screening for self-harm within 30 days were 0.95 (0.89-1.00) and 0.73 (0.73-0.74). For both outcomes, augmenting the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale-Clinical Practice Screener with a measure of agitation improved both sensitivity and overall performance compared to historical performance of the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale-Clinical Practice Screener alone. CONCLUSIONS: Combining a brief objective measure of agitation with a common suicide screening instrument improved sensitivity and predictive performance for suicide and self-harm risk after ED discharge. These findings speak to the importance of assessing agitation not only for imminent safety risk during the patient encounter but also for reducing the likelihood of future adverse events. This work can improve the detection and management of suicide risk in emergency settings.

The Military Women's Health Delphi Study: A Research Agenda for the Next Decade.

INTRODUCTION: As the burgeoning roles of women afford them the opportunities to perform in all combat and combat support assignments, the impact of all environmental, occupational, physical, and psychosocial factors inherent in military training and operations on their health must be considered. A robust foundation of knowledge is necessary to ascertain, prevent, and treat the potential impacts on women's health. However, a systematic review of the literature from 2000-2015 revealed widespread gaps in scientific knowledge of the musculoskeletal, psychological, occupational, and reproductive health of military women. The purpose of this study is to determine priorities for military women's health (MWH) research that will serve to fill these gaps in knowledge. METHODS: An advisory group of 11 senior military and women's health experts conducted a structured gap analysis of the results of a scoping review of literature from 2000 to 2015 and Military Health System utilization data to identify 15 topics for prioritization in MWH research. A modified e-Delphi study was conducted and consensus was achieved after two rounds. Participants (N = 32) included subject matter experts (SME) representing various professions enrolled, 23 completed both rounds. In round 1, topics were rated on forced Likert scales for relevance and feasibility to medical readiness and comments were elicited from the SMEs. Relevance and feasibility scores and themes from the comments guided the development of the round 2 survey, in which SMEs categorized the topics in terms of urgency and forced-choice ranked the priority of each topic. The quantitative data were analyzed using multilevel regression methods. Linear mixed models were fit separately on the numeric outcomes for feasibility, relevance, and urgency with research topic as the primary predictor. To analyze the rankings of research topic priority, crude and adjusted linear regression models were fit on the numeric outcome rank. RESULTS: The adjusted top five topics for research priorities as indicated by ranking were: genitourinary health, sleep, physical assault, behavioral health, and menstrual cycle research. The advisory group reviewed the findings in the context of Department of Defense strategic priorities and provided guidance on the design and dissemination of the MWH research agenda. CONCLUSIONS: The MWH research agenda is a validated research agenda of high-priority research topics that will promote enduring efforts to ensure evidence-based practices and health policies for military women through research.

Suicidal ideation is insensitive to suicide risk after emergency department discharge: Performance characteristics of the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale Screener.

OBJECTIVES: We describe the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS)-Clinical Practice Screener's ability to predict suicide and emergency department (ED) visits for self-harm in the year following an ED encounter. METHODS: Screening data from adult patients' first ED encounter during a 27-month study period were analyzed. Patients were excluded if they died during the encounter or left without being identified. The outcomes were suicide as reported by the state health department and a recurrent ED visit for suicide attempt or self-harm reported by the state hospital association. Multivariable regression examined the screener's correlation with these outcomes. RESULTS: Among 92,643 patients analyzed, eleven (0.01%) patients died by suicide within a month after ED visit. The screener's sensitivity and specificity for suicide by 30 days were 0.18 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.00 to 0.41) and 0.99 (95% CI = 0.99 to 0.99). Sensitivity and specificity were better for predicting self-harm by 30 days: 0.53 (95% CI = 0.42 to 0.64) and 0.97 (95% CI = 0.97 to 0.97), respectively. Multivariable regression demonstrated that screening risk remained associated with both suicide and self-harm outcomes in the presence of covariates. Suicide risk was not mitigated by hospitalization or psychiatric intervention in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: The C-SSRS screener is insensitive to suicide risk after ED discharge. Most patients who died by suicide screened negative and did not receive psychiatric services in the ED. Moreover, most patients with suicidal ideation died by causes other than suicide. The screener was more sensitive for predicting nonfatal self-harm and may inform a comprehensive risk assessment. These results compel us to reimagine the provision of emergency psychiatric services.