Mental Health Issue, Suicidal Ideation, Suicide, Attempted
Conditions
Keywords
Suicide, Suicide Prevention, Safety Planning
Brief summary
Safety planning is a brief, ED-feasible intervention which has been demonstrated to save lives, and has been universally recommended by every recent expert consensus panel on suicide prevention strategies. In one popular version of the safety plan developed by Stanley et al, the patient is encouraged to write out the following items: identifying personal signs of a crisis; helpful internal coping strategies; social contacts or settings which may distract from a crisis; using family members or friends for help when in crisis; mental health professionals who can be contacted when in crisis; and restricting access to lethal means. In most emergency departments, safety-planning is done by clinical personnel such as psychologists or social workers, but these providers are often too busy to perform safety-planning well or have multiple other patient care responsibilities. This study aims to find out if ED patients prefer to complete a safety plan with a peer supporter or clinical personnel. People who are visiting the emergency department for thoughts of self-harm will be asked to participate.
Detailed description
This project aims to answer the following three research questions: (1) In general, do ED patients with suicidal ideation/attempt prefer to interact with/receive support from peers with life experiences of suicide or clinical professionals who might have such life experiences or not? (2) Will patients with suicidal ideation/attempt accept a peer-delivered safety planning intervention as opposed to one delivered by clinical personnel? (3) Are peer-delivered safety plans of equal quality as those delivered by clinical personnel?
Interventions
OTHERPeer Supporter Safety Planning
The rationale for testing a peer-delivered intervention in the ED relies on the following evidence: a) a peer is an individual with lived experience who is now supporting other mental health patients in crisis; b) the experience of a mental health patient in the ED often shapes the perception of the health system, and may influence willingness to seek future care; c) peers may provide more empathetic care than providers without lived experience, which may positively impact patients; d) peer-based programs for patients with serious mental illness that do not involve safety planning are at least as good as non-peer based programs at preventing hospitalizations and promoting engagement in care, with the most promising interventions involving self-management or peer-navigator roles; and e) existing evidence from high-quality studies is scarce, but in moderate-low quality studies has indicated that peers are no less effective than mental health workers
Sponsors
University of Arkansas
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 89 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Patients presenting for suicidal ideation (SI) or after a suicide attempt to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) Emergency Department (ED) * Willingness to engage in safety planning with trained non-clinical staff * English-speaking and English-writing (as translators will not be available for this study)
Exclusion criteria
* \<18 or \>89 years of age * Patients appearing critically-ill * Incarcerated or in police custody * Currently intoxicated with alcohol or other substance * ED staff objection to patient enrollment in study * Unwilling or unable to complete the safety plan with a peer supporter * Unwilling or unable to show the safety plan to clinical staff
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Suicidal Ideology (SI) Participants Who Agree to Receive a Safety Plan | approach in the ED (typically <1 hour) | Evaluate the number of suicidal ideology (SI) patients approached in the ED who agree to receive a safety plan. |
| Proportion of Eligible Patients | Up to 12 hours | Evaluate the proportion of patients approached who meet all inclusion/exclusion criteria. |
| Quality of Safety Plans | Up to 12 hours | Evaluate the quality of the completed safety plans. This will be done by retrospective review after the patient has left the ED. Safety plans will be graded individually, then resolved by consensus, for quality (0=blank, 1=boilerplate, 2=some evidence of personalization, 3=highly personalized; range=0-24) by the investigators using materials developed by Brown and Stanley for this purpose. Using a safety checklist, responses for each of the 6 safety plan steps will be classified according to the personalization of the information in each step. |
| Satisfaction With Safety Planning | Up to 12 hours | Evaluate patient satisfaction with safety planning. This will be assessed by having the patient rate their experience with the safety planning process on a 7-point Likert scale (1 - strongly disagree; 2 - disagree; 3 - moderately disagree; 4 - neutral; 5 - moderately agree; 6 - agree; 7 - strongly agree). A Likert scale measures how much someone disagrees or agrees with a particular statement. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Clinical Personnel Safety Planning Patients will complete a traditional written suicide safety plan with clinical personnel. | 15 |
| Peer Supporter Safety Planning Patients will complete a traditional written suicide safety plan with peer supporters.
Peer Supporter Safety Planning: The rationale for testing a peer-delivered intervention in the ED relies on the following evidence: a) a peer is an individual with lived experience who is now supporting other mental health patients in crisis; b) the experience of a mental health patient in the ED often shapes the perception of the health system, and may influence willingness to seek future care; c) peers may provide more empathetic care than providers without lived experience, which may positively impact patients; d) peer-based programs for patients with serious mental illness that do not involve safety planning are at least as good as non-peer based programs at preventing hospitalizations and promoting engagement in care, with the most promising interventions involving self-management or peer-navigator roles; and e) existing evidence from high-quality studies is scarce, but in moderate-low quality studies has indicated that peers are no less effective than mental health workers | 16 |
| Total | 31 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Clinical Personnel Safety Planning | Peer Supporter Safety Planning | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical <=18 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical >=65 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years | 15 Participants | 16 Participants | 31 Participants |
| Age, Continuous | 45 years | 38.5 years | 39 years |
| Race and Ethnicity Not Collected | — | — | 0 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 5 Participants | 10 Participants | 15 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 10 Participants | 6 Participants | 16 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 17 | 0 / 20 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 17 | 0 / 20 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 17 | 0 / 20 |
Outcome results
Primary
Number of Suicidal Ideology (SI) Participants Who Agree to Receive a Safety Plan
Evaluate the number of suicidal ideology (SI) patients approached in the ED who agree to receive a safety plan.
Time frame: approach in the ED (typically <1 hour)
Population: participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical Personnel Safety Planning | Number of Suicidal Ideology (SI) Participants Who Agree to Receive a Safety Plan | 15 Participants |
| Peer Supporter Safety Planning | Number of Suicidal Ideology (SI) Participants Who Agree to Receive a Safety Plan | 16 Participants |
Primary
Proportion of Eligible Patients
Evaluate the proportion of patients approached who meet all inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Time frame: Up to 12 hours
Population: participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical Personnel Safety Planning | Proportion of Eligible Patients | 17 Participants |
| Peer Supporter Safety Planning | Proportion of Eligible Patients | 20 Participants |
Primary
Quality of Safety Plans
Evaluate the quality of the completed safety plans. This will be done by retrospective review after the patient has left the ED. Safety plans will be graded individually, then resolved by consensus, for quality (0=blank, 1=boilerplate, 2=some evidence of personalization, 3=highly personalized; range=0-24) by the investigators using materials developed by Brown and Stanley for this purpose. Using a safety checklist, responses for each of the 6 safety plan steps will be classified according to the personalization of the information in each step.
Time frame: Up to 12 hours
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical Personnel Safety Planning | Quality of Safety Plans | 8 scores on a scale |
| Peer Supporter Safety Planning | Quality of Safety Plans | 12.5 scores on a scale |
Primary
Satisfaction With Safety Planning
Evaluate patient satisfaction with safety planning. This will be assessed by having the patient rate their experience with the safety planning process on a 7-point Likert scale (1 - strongly disagree; 2 - disagree; 3 - moderately disagree; 4 - neutral; 5 - moderately agree; 6 - agree; 7 - strongly agree). A Likert scale measures how much someone disagrees or agrees with a particular statement.
Time frame: Up to 12 hours
Population: participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical Personnel Safety Planning | Satisfaction With Safety Planning | 4 score on a scale |
| Peer Supporter Safety Planning | Satisfaction With Safety Planning | 4.5 score on a scale |