Separation Practices in Children and Adolescents Admitted for Suicidal Behavior: A National Survey of French Psychiatrists.

Objectives: To assess practices of French psychiatrists regarding their management of children and adolescents with suicidal behaviors, focusing on the use of a separation protocol in which the youths are separated from their relatives. Methods: In 2017, we conducted an online cross-sectional survey of French psychiatrists caring for children and adolescents. Participants were asked to describe their practice of a separation protocol in children and adolescents admitted for suicidal behavior. Our main analysis followed a descriptive approach. We also explored whether participant characteristics were associated with the use of a separation protocol. Results: The response rate was 218/2403 (9,1%); 57.9 % of respondents worked in a University hospital, and 60% of respondents reported routinely hospitalizing children. A separation protocol was set up by 91.1% of survey participants (systematically 39.6%, on a case-by-case basis 51.5%). The mean age from which a separation protocol was indicated was above 11 years; 64% of participants reported a separation period of ≤ 48 h. The most common (87%) criterion cited for establishing a separation period was family relationship difficulties. The most common (80.9%) reason to justify the use of a separation protocol was to allow a better clinical assessment. Exploratory analyses did not identify any participant characteristics associated with the use of a separation protocol (p > 0.2 for all). Conclusion: The use of a separation protocol in children and adolescents admitted for suicidal behavior is a widespread practice in France, despite the deprivation of liberty it implies. This raises the question of the relevance and usefulness of such a practice.

The Bulle: Support and Prevention of Psychological Decompensation of Health Care Workers During the Trauma of the COVID-19 Epidemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic presents unprecedented challenges for the health care system. The pressure on health care staff continues to intensify, accentuated by the confinement (lockdown) of the population and the unprecedented duration of this emergency. Separately and especially together, overwork, degraded conditions of care because of the never-ending emergency, and the risk of exposure to the virus can lead to acute psychological distress or signs of burnout. This original program was developed at Cochin Hospital in Paris, France to prevent these potentially dramatic psychological consequences, support the medical staff, and identify those most affected to offer them specific care. A program and a space for relaxation and support for hospital caregivers by hospital caregivers, the Port Royal Bulle (the Bubble) offers these workers help in decompression and relaxation. It combines a warm and caring welcome that promotes attention, listening, conversations, and exchanges as needed, empathetic support, and the ability to participate in soothing, relaxing, or low-impact physical activities. It takes care of caregivers. The Bubble is a program that is simple to set up and that appears to meet professionals' expectations. Making it permanent and enlarging its scale, as a complement to existing programs, might help to support health care personnel in their work.

Association between suicide behaviours in children and adolescents and the COVID-19 lockdown in Paris, France: a retrospective observational study.

This retrospective observational study conducted in Necker Hospital for Sick Children, France (January 2018-June 2020) evaluated a potential temporal association between admissions for suicide behaviours in children and adolescents and the national COVID-19 lockdown (March-May 2020). During the study period, 234 patients were admitted for suicide behaviours (28% male; mean age 13.4 years). Using Poisson regression, we found a significant decrease in the incidence of admissions for suicide behaviour during the lockdown (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 0.46; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.86). This association might result from reduced help-seeking and decreased hospital admission rates during the lockdown, as well as cognitive and environmental factors. Further multicentre studies should be conducted to confirm these findings and investigate whether a compensatory rise in admissions for suicide behaviour occurred in the postlockdown period.

Development and evaluation of a pedagogical tool to improve understanding of a quality checklist: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a pedagogical tool to enhance the understanding of a checklist that evaluates reports of nonpharmacological trials (CLEAR NPT). DESIGN: Paired randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians and systematic reviewers. INTERVENTIONS: We developed an Internet-based computer learning system (ICLS). This pedagogical tool used many examples from published randomised controlled trials to demonstrate the main coding difficulties encountered when using this checklist. Randomised participants received either a specific Web-based training with the ICLS (intervention group) or no specific training. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of correct answers compared to a criterion standard for coding a report of randomised controlled trials with the CLEAR NPT. RESULTS: Between April and June 2006, 78 participants were randomly assigned to receive training with the ICLS (39) or no training (39). Participants trained by the ICLS did not differ from the control group in performance on the CLEAR NPT. The mean paired difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval was 0.5 (-5.1 to 6.1). The rate of correct answers did not differ between the two groups regardless of the CLEAR NPT item. Combining both groups, the rate of correct answers was high or items related to allocation sequence (79.5%), description of the intervention (82.0%), blinding of patients (79.5%), and follow-up schedule (83.3%). The rate of correct answers was low for items related to allocation concealment (46.1%), co-interventions (30.3%), blinding of outcome assessors (53.8%), specific measures to avoid ascertainment bias (28.6%), and intention-to-treat analysis (60.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Although we showed no difference in effect between the intervention and control groups, our results highlight the gap in knowledge and urgency for education on important aspects of trial conduct.