Larkin Celine, Tulu Bengisu, Djamasbi Soussan, Garner Roscoe, Varzgani Fatima, Siddique Mariam, Pietro John, Boudreaux Edwin D
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States.
The Business School, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, United States.
JMIR Ment Health. 2023 Oct 24;10:e49783. doi: 10.2196/49783.
Emergency departments (EDs) manage many patients with suicide risk, but effective interventions for suicidality are challenging to implement in this setting. ReachCare is a technology-facilitated version of an evidence-based intervention for suicidal ED patients. Here, we present findings on the acceptability and quality of ReachCare in the ED, as well as a comparison of these measures across 3 potential delivery modalities.
Our aim was to test the feasibility of the ReachCare intervention in its entirety through conducting a pilot study with patients presenting with suicidality to the ED. We tested three different ways of receiving the ED-based components of ReachCare: (1) self-administered on the tablet app using a chatbot interface, (2) administered by an in-person clinician, or (3) administered by a telehealth clinician.
In total, 47 ED patients who screened positive for suicide risk were randomly allocated to receive one of three delivery modalities of ReachCare in the ED: (1) self-administered on the patient-facing tablet app with a chatbot interface, (2) delivered by an in-person clinician, or (3) delivered by a telehealth clinician, with the latter two using a clinician-facing web app. We measured demographic and clinical characteristics, acceptability and appropriateness of the intervention, and quality and completeness of the resulting safety plans.
Patients assigned high ratings for the acceptability (median 4.00/5, IQR 4.00-4.50) and appropriateness (median 4.00/5, IQR 4.00-4.25) of ReachCare's ED components, and there were no substantial differences across the 3 delivery modalities [H(acceptability)=3.90, P=.14; H(appropriateness)=1.05, P=.59]. The self-administered modality took significantly less time than the 2 clinician modalities (H=27.91, P<.001), and the usability of the self-administered version was in the "very high" range (median 93.75/100, IQR 80.00-97.50). The safety plans created across all 3 modalities were high-quality (H=0.60, P=.74).
Patients rated ReachCare in the ED as highly acceptable and appropriate regardless of modality. Self-administration may be a feasible way to ensure patients with suicide risk receive an intervention in resource constrained EDs. Limitations include small sample size and demographic differences between those enrolled versus not enrolled. Further research will examine the clinical outcomes of patients receiving both the in-ED and post-ED components of ReachCare.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04720911; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04720911.
急诊科负责诊治许多有自杀风险的患者,但在这种环境中实施有效的自杀干预措施具有挑战性。ReachCare是一种基于证据的针对急诊科自杀患者的干预措施的技术辅助版本。在此,我们展示了ReachCare在急诊科的可接受性和质量的研究结果,以及对这3种潜在交付方式的这些指标的比较。
我们的目标是通过对到急诊科就诊的有自杀倾向的患者进行一项试点研究,来测试ReachCare干预措施整体的可行性。我们测试了接受ReachCare急诊科部分的三种不同方式:(1)使用聊天机器人界面在平板电脑应用程序上自行操作,(2)由现场临床医生实施,或(3)由远程医疗临床医生实施。
共有47名自杀风险筛查呈阳性的急诊科患者被随机分配接受ReachCare在急诊科的三种交付方式之一:(1)在面向患者的带有聊天机器人界面的平板电脑应用程序上自行操作,(2)由现场临床医生提供,或(3)由远程医疗临床医生提供,后两种方式使用面向临床医生的网络应用程序。我们测量了人口统计学和临床特征、干预措施的可接受性和适宜性,以及由此产生的安全计划的质量和完整性。
患者对ReachCare急诊科部分的可接受性(中位数4.00/5,四分位间距4.00 - 4.50)和适宜性(中位数4.00/5,四分位间距4.00 - 4.25)给予了高分,并且在这三种交付方式之间没有实质性差异[H(可接受性)=3.90,P = 0.14;H(适宜性)=1.05,P = 0.59]。自行操作方式比两种临床医生实施方式花费的时间显著更少(H = 27.91,P < 0.001),并且自行操作版本的可用性处于“非常高”的范围(中位数93.75/100,四分位间距80.00 - 97.50)。在所有三种方式中创建的安全计划质量都很高(H = 0.60,P = 0.74)。
无论采用何种方式,患者对急诊科的ReachCare评价都很高,认为其可接受且适宜。自行操作可能是一种可行的方式,可确保有自杀风险的患者在资源有限的急诊科接受干预。局限性包括样本量小以及入选者与未入选者之间的人口统计学差异。进一步的研究将考察接受ReachCare急诊科部分和出院后部分的患者的临床结局。
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04720911;https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04720911