McCabe Rose, Bergen Clara, Lomas Matthew, Ryan Mary, Albert Rikke
Division of Health Services Research and Management, City University of London School of Health Sciences, London, UK.
Department of Biosciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
BJPsych Open. 2023 May 25;9(3):e93. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2023.32.
Emergency departments are key settings for suicide prevention. Most people are deemed to be at no or low risk in final contacts before death.
To micro-analyse how clinicians ask about suicidal ideation and/or self-harm in emergency department psychosocial assessments and how patients respond.
Forty-six psychosocial assessments between mental health clinicians and people with suicidal ideation and/or self-harm were video-recorded. Verbal and non-verbal features of 55 question-answer sequences about self-harm thoughts and/or actions were micro-analysed using conversation analysis. Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that question type was associated with patient disclosure.
(a) Eighty-four per cent of initial questions ( = 46/55) were yes/no questions about self-harm thoughts and/or feelings, plans to self-harm, potential for future self-harm, predicting risk of future self-harm and being okay or keeping safe. Patients disclosed minimal information in response to closed questions, whereas open questions elicited ambivalent and information rich responses. (b) All closed questions were , with 54% inviting no and 46% inviting yes. When patients were asked no-inviting questions, the disclosure rate was 8%, compared to 65% when asked yes-inviting questions ( < 0.05 Fisher's exact test). (c) Patients struggled to respond when asked to predict future self-harm or guarantee safety. (d) Half of closed questions had a narrow timeframe (e.g. at the moment, overnight) or were tied to possible discharge.
Across assessments, there is a bias towards not uncovering thoughts and plans of self-harm through the cumulative effect of leading questions that invite a no response, their narrow timeframe and tying questions to possible discharge. Open questions, yes-inviting questions and asking how people feel about the future facilitate disclosure.
急诊科是预防自杀的关键场所。大多数人在死前的最后接触中被认为没有风险或风险较低。
微观分析临床医生在急诊科社会心理评估中询问自杀意念和/或自我伤害的方式以及患者的反应。
对心理健康临床医生与有自杀意念和/或自我伤害行为的人之间的46次社会心理评估进行了视频记录。使用会话分析对55个关于自我伤害想法和/或行为的问答序列的言语和非言语特征进行了微观分析。采用Fisher精确检验来检验问题类型与患者披露情况相关的假设。
(a) 84%的初始问题(=46/55)是关于自我伤害想法和/或感受、自我伤害计划、未来自我伤害可能性、预测未来自我伤害风险以及是否安好或保持安全的“是/否”问题。患者对封闭式问题披露的信息极少,而开放式问题引发了矛盾且信息丰富的回答。(b) 所有封闭式问题都是“否”导向的,54%的问题引导回答“否”,46%的问题引导回答“是”。当患者被问到引导回答“否”的问题时,披露率为8%,而被问到引导回答“是”的问题时,披露率为65%(Fisher精确检验,P<0.05)。(c) 当被要求预测未来自我伤害或保证安全时,患者难以做出回应。(d) 一半的封闭式问题时间范围狭窄(例如当下、过夜)或与可能出院相关。
在各项评估中,由于引导回答“否”的诱导性问题的累积效应、狭窄的时间范围以及将问题与可能出院联系起来,存在一种无法揭示自我伤害想法和计划的倾向。开放式问题、引导回答“是”的问题以及询问人们对未来的感受有助于信息披露。