Suicide Screening, Risk Assessment, and Lethal Means Counseling During Zero Suicide Implementation.

OBJECTIVE: The authors measured implementation of Zero Suicide (ZS) clinical practices that support identification of suicide risk and risk mitigation, including screening, risk assessment, and lethal means counseling, across mental health specialty and primary care settings. METHODS: Six health care systems in California, Colorado, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington participated. The sample included members ages ≥13 years from 2010 to 2019 (N=7,820,524 patients). The proportions of patients with suicidal ideation screening, suicide risk assessment, and lethal means counseling were estimated. RESULTS: In 2019, patients were screened for suicidal ideation in 27.1% (range 5.0%-85.0%) of mental health visits and 2.5% (range 0.1%-35.0%) of primary care visits among a racially and ethnically diverse sample (44.9% White, 27.2% Hispanic, 13.4% Asian, and 7.7% Black). More patients screened positive for suicidal ideation in the mental health setting (10.2%) than in the primary care setting (3.8%). Of the patients screening positive for suicidal ideation in the mental health setting, 76.8% received a risk assessment, and 82.4% of those identified as being at high risk received lethal means counseling, compared with 43.2% and 82.4%, respectively, in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Six health systems that implemented ZS showed a high level of variation in the proportions of patients receiving suicide screening and risk assessment and lethal means counseling. Two opportunities emerged for further study to increase frequency of these practices: expanding screening beyond patients with regular health care visits and implementing risk assessment with lethal means counseling in the primary care setting directly after a positive suicidal ideation screening.

Suicide-related care among patients who have experienced an opioid-involved overdose.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to describe suicide prevention care for individuals prescribed opioids or with opioid use disorder (OUD) and identify opportunities for improving this care. METHODS: Adult patients (n = 65) from four health systems with an opioid-involved overdose and clinicians (n = 21) who had contact with similar patients completed 30-60-min semi-structured interviews. A community advisory board contributed to development of all procedures, and interpretation and summary of findings. RESULTS: Patients were mostly female (59%), White (63%) and non-Hispanic (77%); 52 were prescribed opioids, 49% had diagnosed OUD, and 42% experienced an intentional opioid-involved overdose. Findings included: 1) when prescribed an opioid or treated for OUD, suicide risks were typically not discussed; 2) 35% of those with an intentional opioid-involved overdose and over 80% with an unintentional overdose reported no discussion of suicidal ideation when treated for the overdose; and 3) suicide-related follow-up care was uncommon among those with unintentional overdoses despite suicidal ideation being reported by >20%. Clinicians reported that when prescribing opioids or treating OUD, post-overdose suicide-related screening or counseling was not done routinely. CONCLUSIONS: There were several opportunities to tailor suicide prevention care for patients who were treated for opioid-involved overdoses within health systems.

An implementation evaluation of "Zero Suicide" using normalization process theory to support high-quality care for patients at risk of suicide.

BACKGROUND: Suicide rates continue to rise across the United States, galvanizing the need for increased suicide prevention and intervention efforts. The Zero Suicide (ZS) model was developed in response to this need and highlights four key clinical functions of high-quality health care for patients at risk of suicide. The goal of this quality improvement study was to understand how six large health care systems operationalized practices to support these functions-identification, engagement, treatment and care transitions. METHODS: Using a key informant interview guide and data collection template, researchers who were embedded in each health care system cataloged and summarized current and future practices supporting ZS, including, (1) the function addressed; (2) a description of practice intent and mechanism of intervention; (3) the target patient population and service setting; (4) when/how the practice was (or will be) implemented; and (5) whether/how the practice was documented and/or measured. Normalization process theory (NPT), an implementation evaluation framework, was applied to help understand how ZS had been operationalized in routine clinical practices and, specifically, what ZS practices were described by key informants (coherence), the current state of norms/conventions supporting these practices (cognitive participation), how health care teams performed these practices (collective action), and whether/how practices were measured when they occurred (reflexive monitoring). RESULTS: The most well-defined and consistently measured ZS practices (current and future) focused on the identification of patients at high risk of suicide. Stakeholders also described numerous engagement and treatment practices, and some practices intended to support care transitions. However, few engagement and transition practices were systematically measured, and few treatment practices were designed specifically for patients at risk of suicide. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study will support large-scale evaluation of the effectiveness of ZS implementation and inform recommendations for implementation of high-quality suicide-related care in health care systems nationwide.