Suppr超能文献

在急诊科进行社会心理评估的风险评估过程中询问自我伤害情况:有助于和阻碍自我伤害披露的问题。

Asking about self-harm during risk assessment in psychosocial assessments in the emergency department: questions that facilitate and deter disclosure of self-harm.

作者信息

McCabe Rose, Bergen Clara, Lomas Matthew, Ryan Mary, Albert Rikke

机构信息

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.

出版信息

BJPsych Open. 2023 May 25;9(3):e93. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2023.32.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Emergency departments are key settings for suicide prevention. Most people are deemed to be at no or low risk in final contacts before death.

AIM

To micro-analyse how clinicians ask about suicidal ideation and/or self-harm in emergency department psychosocial assessments and how patients respond.

METHOD

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.

RESULTS

(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.

CONCLUSION

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.

摘要

背景

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。

目的

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。

方法

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。

结果

(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。

结论

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。

相似文献

3
"This is a question we have to ask everyone": asking young people about self-harm and suicide.
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2016 Oct;23(8):479-488. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12323. Epub 2016 Aug 8.
4
How do healthcare professionals interview patients to assess suicide risk?
BMC Psychiatry. 2017 Apr 4;17(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s12888-017-1212-7.
7
Association of Suicide and Other Mortality With Emergency Department Presentation.
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Dec 2;2(12):e1917571. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.17571.
8
Asking about self-harm and suicide in primary care: Moral and practical dimensions.
Patient Educ Couns. 2021 Apr;104(4):826-835. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.09.037. Epub 2020 Oct 14.
10
Psychosocial Assessment in the Emergency Department.
Crisis. 2022 Jul;43(4):299-306. doi: 10.1027/0227-5910/a000786. Epub 2021 May 27.

引用本文的文献

1
Acceptability and content validity of suicidality screening items: a qualitative study with perinatal women.
Front Psychiatry. 2024 Apr 11;15:1359076. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1359076. eCollection 2024.

本文引用的文献

1
Magical thinking and moral injury: exclusion culture in psychiatry.
BJPsych Bull. 2022 Feb;46(1):16-19. doi: 10.1192/bjb.2021.86.
2
Psychosocial Assessment in the Emergency Department.
Crisis. 2022 Jul;43(4):299-306. doi: 10.1027/0227-5910/a000786. Epub 2021 May 27.
3
Suicide risk assessment in UK mental health services: a national mixed-methods study.
Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Dec;7(12):1046-1053. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30381-3. Epub 2020 Nov 12.
4
Asking about self-harm and suicide in primary care: Moral and practical dimensions.
Patient Educ Couns. 2021 Apr;104(4):826-835. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.09.037. Epub 2020 Oct 14.
5
Predicting short-term suicide risk: allowing for ongoing variation in severity of intent.
BJPsych Bull. 2021 Apr;45(2):105-108. doi: 10.1192/bjb.2020.90.
7
Understanding Why Patients May Not Report Suicidal Ideation at a Health Care Visit Prior to a Suicide Attempt: A Qualitative Study.
Psychiatr Serv. 2019 Jan 1;70(1):40-45. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201800342. Epub 2018 Nov 20.
8
How do healthcare professionals interview patients to assess suicide risk?
BMC Psychiatry. 2017 Apr 4;17(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s12888-017-1212-7.
9
The communication of suicidal intentions: a meta-analysis.
Psychol Med. 2016 Aug;46(11):2239-53. doi: 10.1017/S0033291716000696. Epub 2016 May 31.
10
Variations in the hospital management of self-harm and patient outcome: a multi-site observational study in England.
J Affect Disord. 2015 Mar 15;174:101-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.11.037. Epub 2014 Dec 2.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验