Provider opinions of the acceptability of Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) Tool and the ASQ Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA) for universal suicide risk screening in community healthcare: Potential barriers and necessary elements for future implementation.

A convenience sample of community health care providers (N = 19) was asked to preview and rate the acceptability of the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) tool and the ASQ Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA) guide. Providers were also asked about potential barriers to implementation. The majority of participants stated they would be comfortable screening for suicide with the ASQ tool (78.9%; N = 15), that they would recommend the ASQ tool and the BSSA to colleagues (84.2%; N = 16), and that they were "satisfied" or "highly satisfied" with the ASQ and BSSA (88.2%; N = 13). Barriers to implementation reported included a lack of knowledge regarding suicide risk screening and lack of access to behavioral health resources. Education regarding the ASQ, the BSSA, and suicide risk screening are highlighted as crucial elements for future implementation.

Universal suicide risk screening: Views of rural adults on acceptability and implementation in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: This study gathered data from rural adult primary care patients regarding the acceptability of universal suicide risk screening and preferred methods of implementation. METHOD: Patients from a rural primary care clinic in southern West Virginia participating in a pilot test of a suicide risk screening program were administered a Screening Opinions Survey and resulting data were evaluated using descriptive and content analyses. RESULTS: The majority of participants (96%) believed that primary care providers (PCPs) should screen patients for suicide and noted multiple benefits to screening. Most participants described the experience of screening in primary care as positive or neutral and preferred a personalized screening process where the provider asked questions directly. Demographic analyses indicated that males and older adults were less likely to report being previously screened for suicide and that older adults were less likely to support the practice of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide support for the acceptability of universal suicide risk screening programs to patients in rural primary care and suggest that PCP involvement in the screening process may encourage patient participation. Additional training for PCPs and psychoeducational interventions for older adults may help to address demographic influences on screening practices and engagement.

PCP Opinions of Universal Suicide Risk Screening in Rural Primary Care: Current Challenges and Strategies for Successful Implementation.

PURPOSE: Universal suicide risk screening has the potential to address the disproportionately high rates of suicide in the rural United States, as 83% of people who have died by suicide have visited a health care provider in the year prior to their deaths, and rural patients are more likely to visit medical professionals than behavioral health professionals for mental health concerns. This study describes the opinions of primary care providers (PCPs) practicing in a primarily rural state regarding universal suicide risk screening, barriers to implementation, and strategies to increase the feasibility of screening in their practices. METHODS: In-depth, individual semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with a sample of PCPs practicing in West Virginia (N = 15). Applied thematic analysis of the data was completed by a team of 3 coders using a consensus-coding methodology. FINDINGS: The majority of PCPs supported the practice of screening, but they identified multiple barriers, including a lack of access to mental health and crisis support services, concerns about clinic flow and follow-up with suicidal patients, cultural beliefs specific to rural Appalachia, and provider discomfort with screening. Strategies suggested to address these barriers included the use of technology for screening, a multidisciplinary team approach, streamlined methods for screening and risk assessment, co-located behavioral health, and additional trainings for PCPs on the topic of suicide. CONCLUSION: Future research should examine the efficacy of universal suicide risk screening programs in rural adult primary care that utilize these strategies in diverse samples with longitudinal data.

The Feasibility and Impact of a Suicide Risk Screening Program in Rural Adult Primary Care: A Pilot Test of the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions Toolkit.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and impact of a suicide risk screening program in a rural West Virginia primary care practice. METHODS: Patients presenting for routine and sick visits were asked to participate in electronic suicide risk screening using the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions tool; screen positive individuals were assessed with the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions Brief Suicide Safety Assessment. Screening program feasibility was evaluated by the proportion of patients consenting to participate, participant Ask Suicide-Screening Questions and Brief Suicide Safety Assessment completion rates, and response to a question asking whether primary care providers should ask about suicide. Screening impact was evaluated quasi-experimentally by comparing electronic medical record documentation of suicide risk screening, assessment, and risk determination in practice patients before and after implementing the screening program. RESULTS: Over half of the patients approached agreed to participate in a research study about suicide (N = 196; 57.7%). Feasibility of the screening program was demonstrated by the high completion rates for the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (99.0%) and the Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (100.0%) among study participants. Additionally, 95.4% (N = 187) of participants agreed primary care providers should screen patients for suicide. Suicide screening rates rose significantly between the baseline and intervention phases (5.8% to 61.0%; X2 = 200.61, P < 0.001), as did suicide risk detection rates (0.7% to 6.2%; X2 = 12.58, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Suicide risk screening was feasible and well accepted by adult patients in rural primary care and has potential to improve suicide risk detection in this setting.

Administrators' Perceptions of Oral Health Care and Cancer Screening in Long-Term Care Nursing Facilities.

An estimated 1.7 million adults in the United States more than the age of 65 reside in long-term care nursing facilities (LTCNFs), and only 17% of them receive dental care. More than 83% of LTCNF residents require assistance with oral care. Adequate dental care is a preventative behavior for oral cancer. Adults more than age 65 will account for 60% of oral cancer-related deaths, despite an 80% cure rate for early diagnosis. This study sought to expand knowledge of the perceived benefits, barriers, and ability to perform or provide for oral health care and oral cancer screening as reported by Administrators and Directors of Nursing in LTCNFs. Findings indicate that competing demands for resources make oral health a low priority issue and low knowledge about oral cancer risk among nursing home residents, family members, and staff is a barrier. Potential interventions suggested by participants are discussed.

Oral health and cancer screening in long-term care nursing facilities: Motivation and opportunity as intervention targets.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to propose empirically and conceptually supported interventions that might increase the capability and opportunity to provide of oral hygiene care and oral cancer screening in long-term nursing care facilities. BACKGROUND: Improving the oral health in the older adult population is a priority of the Healthy People 2020 initiative. Poor oral health disproportionably affects older populations, which indicates lower participation in regular oral health care (OHC) that includes screening and early detection of oral cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A rigorous recruitment protocol yielded a purposive sample of nursing home Administrators and Directors of Nursing who participated in nine discrete focus groups (n = 34) in several regions of Massachusetts. Interview data were integrated with a conceptual framework of the Health Belief Model and the "capability," "opportunity," "motivation" and "behavior" of the COM-B system to identify potential interventions to increase oral health and oral cancer screening. We used NVivo to identify conceptual themes related to potential intervention targets. RESULTS: Participants identified several impediments to oral hygiene and cancer screening in the context of the conceptual model. High barriers, low opportunities and low motivation were themes identified as potential targets for intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the intervention likely to increase OHC and consequently oral cancer screening include: training certified nurses' aides using dental students and volunteers; educating family members about OHC and oral cancer screening, and increasing oral cancer awareness.