Virtual monitoring of suicide risk in the general hospital and emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether continuous virtual monitoring, an intervention that facilitates patient observation through video technology, can be used to monitor suicide risk in the general hospital and emergency department (ED). METHOD: This was a retrospective analysis of a protocol in which select patients on suicide precautions in the general hospital and ED received virtual monitoring between June 2017 and March 2018. The primary outcome was the number of adverse events among patients who received virtual monitoring for suicide risk. Secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients for whom virtual monitoring was discontinued for behavioral reasons and the preference for observation type among nurses. RESULTS: 39 patients on suicide precautions received virtual monitoring. There were 0 adverse events (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.000-0.090). Virtual monitoring was discontinued for behavioral reasons in 4/38 cases for which the reason for terminating was recorded (0.105, 95%CI = 0.029-0.248). We were unable to draw conclusions regarding preference for observation type among nurses due to a low response rate to our survey. CONCLUSIONS: Suicide risk can feasibly be monitored virtually in the general hospital or ED when their providers carefully select patients for low impulsivity risk.

Clinical Severity Alone Does Not Determine Disposition Decisions for Patients in the Emergency Department with Suicide Risk.

BACKGROUND: Boarding of patients with suicide risk in emergency departments (EDs) negatively affects both patients and society. Factors other than clinical severity may frequently preclude safe outpatient dispositions among suicidal patients boarding for psychiatric admission in the ED. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which nonclinical factors preclude safe outpatient discharge from the ED among patients boarding for psychiatric admission based on suicide risk. METHODS: A survey regarding the importance of 13 clinical and 19 nonclinical barriers to safe outpatient disposition was administered in the ED to 40 adults who were determined by psychiatrists to require inpatient level of psychiatric care due to suicide risk. A second survey regarding whether addressing the nonclinical factors would have enabled a safe outpatient disposition in each case was administered to the psychiatrists who evaluated each patient participant. RESULTS: Out of 40 patient participants, 39 cited at least one nonclinical factor that could have enabled a safe outpatient disposition had it been correctable in the ED. According to the psychiatrists who made the decision to hospitalize, 10 (25%) of the patient participants could have been discharged had social support become available. CONCLUSION: Both clinical and nonclinical factors affect disposition from the ED after an evaluation for suicide risk. Attention to nonclinical factors should be considered in programmatic efforts to reduce ED boarding of patients with suicide risk.

Supporting patients with uncertain recovery: the use of the AMBER care bundle in an acute hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Patients who are deteriorating, with uncertain recovery and with a short prognosis often have complex needs. The AMBER care bundle systematically manages these patients by promoting consistent communication and care planning. To describe how the AMBER bundle is applied in a UK hospital. To identify factors affecting the use of the AMBER bundle in patients who subsequently died. To gain preliminary data with regard to potential markers of deterioration in groups less frequently supported by AMBER METHODS: Retrospective review of electronic case notes for all deaths over 11 months on five inpatient wards where AMBER was implemented. RESULTS: N=149. Median age 80, IQR 72-87. Admission diagnoses: cancer (25%), non-cancer (31%), multimorbidity (44%). 38% were supported by AMBER. Patients with cancer were more frequently supported by AMBER (62% vs 30% p<0.001). Illness trajectory was defined a priori as 'predictable gradual' (40%), 'predictable rapid' (22%), 'unpredictable' (21%) or 'sudden death' (17%). 'Predictable gradual' deterioration resulted in more frequent support by AMBER (62% vs 21%, p<0.001). Patients were supported by AMBER after median 10 days of admission (IQR 5-17 days), and died median 9 days later (IQR 3-15 days). Patients with multimorbidity or unpredictable deterioration were less frequently supported by AMBER. Potential markers of deterioration were acute kidney injury, delirium, falls and comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the AMBER care bundle is affected by illness trajectory and diagnosis. Future work should clarify predictors of deterioration in patients with an unpredictable course.