Suicide and Life Insurance.

Much has been written about the history of suicide and, notably, about societies that condemned both the act and the actor, resulting in a perpetuation of suicide being stigmatized in many cultures. One aspect of this perceived stigmatization involves exclusionary clauses in life insurance policies that reject paying benefits to survivor-beneficiaries of the decedent if the decedent has died by suicide within a prescribed time frame. From the perspective of the individual, life insurance is designed to protect the estate of a decedent from a significant financial burden. From the insurer's perspective, there are essentially 2 reasons for having a suicide exclusion clause: limiting risk and preventing or discouraging fraud. This column examines these rationales in light of the estimated few suicides that do occur during exclusionary clause time frames. Observations are made about the effect of these clauses on those impacted by the loss of a loved one who died by suicide within the exclusionary time frame. An examination of the perspectives of both the life insurance industry and the impacted survivors of suicide decedents raises questions about what are reasonable and appropriate exclusionary clause time frames that protect both the insurer and survivor-beneficiaries. The forensic expert consulting on such cases should be cognizant of these competing perspectives and engage in therapeutic assessment whenever possible, identifying opportunities to promote thoughtful suicide postvention.

Hospital-Based Suicides: Challenging Existing Myths.

Myths are widely held and often based on false beliefs. To improve patient safety and speed the translation of research to clinical practice, we highlight and then debunk 10 common myths regarding the assessment, treatment, and management of hospitalized patients at risk for suicide. Myths regarding hospital-based suicides are examined and empirical evidence that counters each myth is offered. Ten common myths regarding hospital-based suicides are found to be untrue or unsupported based on existing empirical evidence. Rethinking common beliefs and practices that lack empirical support and seeking alternatives based on research evidence is consistent with an emphasis on evidence-based practices leading to improved patient care and protection.

Suicide Prevention in the Americas.

The Americas encompass the entirety of the continents of North America and South America, representing 49 countries. Together, they make up most of Earth's western hemisphere. The population is over 1 billion (2006 figure), with over 65 % living in one of the three most populated countries (the United States, Brazil, and Mexico). The Americas have low-, middle-, and high-income countries. Data from this region have not been readily and consistently available. There are several English-speaking Caribbean nations and countries in South America that have not had updated information. This chapter will focus on suicide prevention within North America (United States and Canada), some countries in the Caribbean region, and some countries in South America. Guyana, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago have severe issues with pesticide suicide, with average rates of 44.2 (global rank 1); 27.8 (global rank 5) and 13.0 (global rank 41) per 100,000 respectively. Jamaica, however, had one of the lowest rates: 1.2 per 100,000 (global rank 166). General, regional, and country-specific prevention proposals are suggested, highlighting intersectoral, private collaboration, attention to at-risk persons, substance abuse and mental health interventions, training, and reducing access to lethal means.

Near Term Suicide Risk Assessment: A Commentary on the Clinical Relevance of Protective Factors.

In this article we examine the clinical relevance of protective factors to the assessment and formulation of near-term risk of death by suicide. Contrary to current clinical belief and practice, we posit that there is no evidence base to support these factors as mitigating or buffering risk for suicide for the individual patient, especially in the near-term assessment of that suicide risk. We show that evidence-based protective factors derive from population-based studies and, applicably, have relevance to public health promotion/primary prevention and are significant in informing treatment/secondary prevention, but they lack evidence to support their often-proposed role in mitigating or buffering risk for suicide on an individual basis, especially when applied to the assessment of near-term risk of suicide. Accordingly, we argue for the need for empirical study of the role protective factors may or may not play in the formulation of a patient's risk for suicide and, in the interim, for clinical caution in assuming that protective factors have any significant buffering effect on a patient's level of near-term risk.

The Potential Perils of a Suicide-specific Diagnosis.

The clinical and scientific challenges inherent in treating and investigating suicide warrant novel approaches to this public health issue of paramount importance. The implementation of suicide-specific diagnoses has been proposed as one possible way to address this problem and was described in the first column of this special 2-part series. This second column explores potential unintended consequences related to such proposed diagnoses and alternative solutions that might afford greater benefits. The idea of suicide-specific diagnoses represents a novel approach, and one worthy of further discussion and consideration; the debate featured in this series represents a joint effort to advance the dialogue about suicide and to promote innovation.

Predictive utility of an emergency department decision support tool in patients with active suicidal ideation.

Emergency department (ED) clinicians routinely decide the disposition of patients with suicidal ideation, with potential consequences for patient safety, liability, and system costs and resources. An expert consensus panel recently created a 6-item decision support tool for patients with passive or active suicidal ideation. Individuals scoring a 0 (exhibiting none of the tool's 6 items) are considered "lower risk" and suitable for discharge, while those with non-0 scores are considered "elevated risk" and should receive further evaluation. The current study tested the predictive utility of this tool using existing data from the Emergency Department Safety Assessment and Follow-up Evaluation. ED patients with active suicide ideation (n = 1368) were followed for 12 months after an index visit using telephone assessment and medical chart review. About 1 in 5 patients had attempted suicide during follow-up. Because of the frequency of serious warning signs and risk factors in this population, only three patients met tool criteria for "lower risk" at baseline. The tool had perfect sensitivity, but exceptionally low specificity, in predicting suicidal behavior within 6 weeks and 12 months. In logistic regression analyses, several tool items were significantly associated with suicidal behavior within 6 weeks (suicide plan, past attempt) and 12 months (suicide plan, past attempt, suicide intent, significant mental health condition, irritability/agitation/aggression). Although the tool did not perform well as a binary instrument among those with active suicidal ideation, having a suicide plan identified almost all attempters while suicide plan and past attempt identified over four-fifths of near-term attempts. (PsycINFO Database Record

Assessment of Suicidal Ideation and Behavior: Report of the International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology Consensus Meeting.

OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus recommendations for assessment of suicidal ideation/suicidal behavior (SI/SB) in clinical trials. PARTICIPANTS: Stakeholders from academia, industry, regulatory agencies, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health, and patient advocacy organizations participated in a consensus meeting that was sponsored by the International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology and held November 17-18, 2015. Prior to the meeting, teams of experts identified key areas of consensus and dissent related to SI/SB. The most critical issues were presented and discussed in the consensus meeting. EVIDENCE: Literature reviews and a pre-meeting survey were conducted. Findings were discussed in pre-meeting working group sessions and at the consensus meeting. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Five pre-meeting working groups reviewed (1) nomenclature and classification schemes for SI/SB, (2) detection and assessment of SI/SB, (3) analysis of SI/SB data, (4) design of clinical trials for new treatments of SI/SB, and (5) public health approaches to SI/SB. A modification of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to combine review of scientific evidence with the collective views of experts and stakeholders to reach the final consensus statements. After discussion, all attendees voted using an electronic interactive audience response system. Areas of agreement and areas of continuing dissent were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: All 5 working groups agreed that a major barrier to advancement of the field of SI/SB research and the development of new treatments for SI/SB remains the lack of a universally accepted standardized nomenclature and classification system. Achieving alignment on definitions and classification of suicide-related phenomena is critical to improving the detection and assessment of SI/SB, the design of clinical trials for new treatments, and effective public health interventions.

Suicide and Suicidal Attempts in the United States: Costs and Policy Implications.

The national cost of suicides and suicide attempts in the United States in 2013 was $58.4 billion based on reported numbers alone. Lost productivity (termed indirect costs) represents most (97.1%) of this cost. Adjustment for under-reporting increased the total cost to $93.5 billion or $298 per capita, 2.1-2.8 times that of previous studies. Previous research suggests that improved continuity of care would likely reduce the number of subsequent suicidal attempts following a previous nonfatal attempt. We estimate a highly favorable benefit-cost ratio of 6 to 1 for investments in additional medical, counseling, and linkage services for such patients.

Reformulating Suicide Risk Formulation: From Prediction to Prevention.

Psychiatrists-in-training typically learn that assessments of suicide risk should culminate in a probability judgment expressed as "low," "moderate," or "high." This way of formulating risk has predominated in psychiatric education and practice, despite little evidence for its validity, reliability, or utility. We present a model for teaching and communicating suicide risk assessments without categorical predictions. Instead, we propose risk formulations which synthesize data into four distinct judgments to directly inform intervention plans: (1) risk status (the patient's risk relative to a specified subpopulation), (2) risk state (the patient's risk compared to baseline or other specified time points), (3) available resources from which the patient can draw in crisis, and (4) foreseeable changes that may exacerbate risk. An example case illustrates the conceptual shift from a predictive to a preventive formulation, and we outline steps taken to implement the model in an academic psychiatry setting. Our goal is to inform educational leaders, as well as individual educators, who can together cast a prevention-oriented vision in their academic programs.

Suicide risk assessment and suicide risk formulation: essential components of the therapeutic risk management model.

Suicide and other suicidal behaviors are often associated with psychiatric disorders and dysfunctions. Therefore, psychiatrists have significant opportunities to identify at-risk individuals and offer treatment to reduce that risk. Although a suicide risk assessment is a core competency requirement, many clinical psychiatrists lack the requisite training and skills to appropriately assess for suicide risk. Moreover, the standard of care requires psychiatrists to foresee the possibility that a patient might engage in suicidal behavior, hence to conduct a suicide risk formulation sufficient to guide triage and treatment planning. Based on data collected via a suicide risk assessment, a suicide risk formulation is a process whereby the psychiatrist forms a judgment about a patient's foreseeable risk of suicidal behavior in order to inform triage decisions, safety and treatment planning, and interventions to reduce risk. This paper addresses the components of this process in the context of the model for therapeutic risk management of the suicidal patient developed at the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 19 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center by Wortzel et al.

Suicide risk assessment and risk formulation part I: a focus on suicide ideation in assessing suicide risk.

The main procedure used by clinicians to determine whether an individual may be at risk of suicidal behaviors is the suicide risk assessment (SRA). The purpose of the SRA is to identify risk and protective factors that then provide the data for the formulation of suicide risk. The suicide risk formulation (SRF) assigns a level of suicide risk that ideally leads to triage and treatment deemed appropriate for that level of risk. Some of the problems with the SRA are explored here, with an emphasis on addressing the over reliance on communicated suicide ideation, and recommendations are made for improvements. Part II of this article (Berman & Silverman, 2013, also appears in this issue of STLB) examines the process of an SRF and, similarly, makes recommendations to improve clinical practice toward the desired end of saving lives.