Self-harm During Visits to the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Some patients engage in self-harm behaviors while in the emergency department, both suicidal and nonsuicidal self-harm. Little is known about what motivates these behaviors. This gap in the empirical literature limits efforts to develop early identification and risk mitigation strategies. OBJECTIVE: To describe methods and motivations when patients self-harm in the emergency department. METHOD: Authors reviewed self-harm incident reports and medical records from two urban academic emergency departments. Event timing and self-harm methods were extracted. Authors performed a qualitative content analysis of self-harm narratives to examine the question, "Which factors motivate patients to engage in deliberate (nonaccidental) self-harm in the emergency department?" RESULTS: The sample included 184 self-harm incidents involving 118 unique patients. A wide variety of self-harm methods were present in the data. Suicidal intent was present in a minority of incidents. Other motives included psychosis, intoxication, aggression, managing distress, communication, and manipulation. CONCLUSIONS: Self-harm behaviors in the emergency department encompassed a variety of methods and motivations. These findings suggest risk mitigation strategies that emphasize suicide screening, reducing environmental hazards, and increasing observation are unlikely to achieve the goal of zero harm. Strategies focusing on engagement may create more fruitful opportunities to improve patient safety.

Coercion and the Inpatient Treatment Alliance.

OBJECTIVE: The importance of building a strong treatment alliance is widely accepted and uncontroversial. Quantitative research suggests that coercive experiences during psychiatric treatment negatively affect the treatment alliance, but reveals little about how this happens or how patients navigate treatment relationships while experiencing coercion during psychiatric treatment. METHODS: Fifty psychiatric inpatients were interviewed at two hospitals. Patients were asked open-ended questions about the relationship between the treatment alliance and a set of coercive treatment experiences (court-mandated treatment, involuntary hospitalization, locked facilities) and whether such hospital experiences affected the patients' plans for future adherence. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: Many participants reported events where coercion made it difficult to form a treatment alliance. An imbalance of power, lack of control, and insufficient participation in treatment planning were described as experiences that interfered with the treatment alliance. Other participants felt the treatment alliance was maintained despite coercive experiences and spoke of good communication with the psychiatrist, understanding the rationale behind interventions, and feeling the psychiatrist was trying to keep the patient's best interests in mind. CONCLUSIONS: Coercive experiences remain undesirable and are frequently detrimental to the treatment alliance. Nevertheless, patients and clinicians should continue to seek a strong treatment alliance even when treatment plans include coercive elements. Efforts to improve communication, to explain the rationale for treatment plans, and to show that clinicians are trying to act in the patient's best interests may help to preserve a therapeutic alliance.

Use of Security Officers on Inpatient Psychiatry Units.

OBJECTIVE: Violent and aggressive behaviors are common among psychiatric inpatients. Hospital security officers are sometimes used to address such behaviors. Research on the role of security in inpatient units is scant. This study examined when security is utilized and what happens when officers arrive. METHODS: The authors reviewed the security logbook and the medical records for all patients discharged from an inpatient psychiatry unit over a six-month period. Authors recorded when security calls happened, what behaviors triggered security calls, what outcomes occurred, and whether any patient characteristics were associated with security calls. RESULTS: A total of 272 unique patients were included. A total of 49 patients (18%) generated security calls (N=157 calls). Security calls were most common in the first week of hospitalization (N=45 calls), and roughly half of the patients (N=25 patients) had only one call. The most common inciting behavior was "threats to persons" (N=34 calls), and the most common intervention was intramuscular antipsychotic injection (N=49 calls). The patient variables associated with security calls were having more than one prior hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]=4.56, p=.001, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.80-11.57), involuntary hospitalization (OR=5.09, p<.001, CI=2.28-11.33), and going to court for any reason (OR=5.80, p=.004, CI=1.75-19.15). CONCLUSIONS: Security officers were often called for threats of violence and occasionally called for actual violence. Patient variables associated with security calls are common among inpatients, and thus clinicians should stay attuned to patients' moment-to-moment care needs.