Assessing and Managing Risk With Suicidal Individuals

The University of Washington Risk Assessment Protocol (UWRAP) and Risk Assessment and Management Protocol (UWRAMP) have been used in numerous clinical trials treating high-risk suicidal individuals over several years. These protocols structure assessors and treatment providers to provide a thorough suicide risk assessment, review standards of care recommendations for action, and allow for subsequent documentation of information gathered and actions taken. As such, it is a resource for providers treating high-risk populations across multiple contexts (e.g., primary care, outpatient psychotherapy, emergency department). This article describes both the UWRAP and UWRAMP. Taken together, these assessment and risk management tools include (a) assessment questions for gathering information to determine the level of risk, (b) action steps that can be taken to ensure safety, and (c) a companion therapist note where providers document their assessment and actions.     

Assessment of Biopsychosocial Risk Factors for Medical Treatment: A Collaborative Approach

There is a growing body of evidence that psychosocial variables have a significant ability to predict the outcome of medical treatment procedures, especially when the procedure is performed to reduce pain. The study described in this paper serves as an illustration of the valuable role psychologists can play in dealing with the challenges of biopsychosocial assessment of patients who are candidates for medical treatments, especially elective, invasive procedures. Based on a convergent model of risk factors that can potentially influence outcomes from spinal surgery and spinal cord stimulation, exclusionary and cautionary risk factors were identified, and the BHI 2 and BBHI 2 tests were used to assess them. An estimate of the prevalence of these risk factors was calculated using data obtained from 1,254 patient and community subjects gathered from 106 sites in 36 US states. Standardized Cautionary Risk and Exclusionary Risk scores demonstrated a test-retest reliability of .85 to .91. Evidence of validity of these scores was also provided based on subjective and objective criteria, using multiple groups of patients and community subjects. Recommendations are made regarding how biopsychosocial assessments could be used in collaborative settings for presurgical candidates to identify risks that could compromise a patient’s ability to benefit from other medical treatments as well. Once identified, appropriate interventions could ameliorate these risks, or lead to the consideration of other treatments that are more likely to be effective. Methods of refining this approach for specific clinical applications are also discussed.     

An Evidence-Based Approach to Managing Suicidal Patients in the Patient-Centered Medical Home

Primary care is a critical setting for suicide prevention because it is often the first and only source of mental health care for the U.S. general population. It is also important because suicidal patients report a greater number of somatic complaints and make more frequent medical visits compared to nonsuicidal patients. Models for managing suicide within primary care have recently arisen, yet no models have been proposed for use within the patient-centered medical home (PCMH), a primary care model that integrates behavioral health into its practice. The authors suggest a chronic disease model for the management of suicide risk in the PCMH along with collaborative strategies that may include suicide screening and targeted assessment, warm hand-offs, cognitive-behavioral interventions, routine collaborative medication management, and means restriction counseling. The current paper advises how those within the PCMH can adapt and implement evidence-based practices to manage suicide. Finally, the authors discuss a case example illustrating these evidence-based and collaborative methods.     

The Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS): An Evolving Evidence‐Based Clinical Approach to Suicidal Risk

The Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) is an evidence‐based clinical intervention that has significantly evolved over 25 years of clinical research. CAMS is best understood as a therapeutic framework that emphasizes a unique collaborative assessment and treatment planning process between the suicidal patient and clinician. This process is designed to enhance the therapeutic alliance and increase treatment motivation in the suicidal patient. Central to the CAMS approach is the use of the Suicide Status Form (SSF), which is a multipurpose clinical assessment, treatment planning, tracking, and outcome tool. The original development of CAMS was largely rooted in SSF‐based quantitative and qualitative assessment of suicidal risk. As this line of research progressed, CAMS emerged as a problem‐focused clinical intervention that is designed to target and treat suicidal “drivers” and ultimately eliminate suicidal coping. To date, CAMS (and the clinical use of the SSF) has been supported by six published correlational studies and one randomized clinical trial (RCT). Currently, two well‐powered RCTs are under way, and various new CAMS‐related projects are also being pursued. The clinical and empirical evolution of CAMS—how it was developed and what are the next steps for this clinical approach–are described here.     

Adolescent Suicidal Risk: Psychological,Problem Solving,and Environmental Factors

This study examined the life stress and problem-solving interactional model of suicide proposed by Clum, Patsiokas, and Luscomb (1979) . Thirty-three hospitalized suicidal adolescents were compared with 21 adolescents hospitalized for other psychiatric problems and with 89 controls. The assessment battery was composed of psychological measures, problem-solving measures, and environmental and family measures. The discriminant analyses revealed that the suicide group could be discriminated from the psychiatric control group but not from the high school control group. Unexpectedly, life stresses did not contribute to the identification of current suicide risk. The results suggest the importance of assessing suicide risk at the time of admission to minimize any subsequent changes in the risk group.     

Basic Psychological Needs,Suicidal Ideation,and Risk for Suicidal Behavior in Young Adults

Associations between the satisfaction of basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness with current suicidal ideation and risk for suicidal behavior were examined. Two logistic regressions were conducted with a cross‐sectional database of 440 university students to examine the association of need satisfaction with suicidal ideation and risk for suicidal behavior, while controlling for demographics and depressive symptoms. Suicidal ideation was reported by 15% of participants and 18% were found to be at risk for suicidal behavior. A one standard deviation increase in need satisfaction reduced the odds of suicidal ideation by 53%, OR (95% CI) = 0.47 (0.33–0.67), and the odds of being at risk for suicidal behavior by 50%, OR (95% CI) = 0.50 (0.37–0.69). Young adults whose basic psychological needs are met may be less likely to consider suicide and engage in suicidal behavior. Prospective research is needed to confirm these associations.     

Cognitive and Interpersonal Vulnerability to Suicidal Ideation: A Weakest Link Approach

In contrast with traditional models of risk for suicidal ideation that combine multiple vulnerability components into one composite measure, weakest link perspectives posit that individuals are as vulnerable as their most vulnerable component (or “weakest link”). Such a perspective has been applied to depression, but has not been evaluated with respect to suicidal ideation. Thus, the goal of the present study was to apply a weakest link perspective to the study of suicidal ideation. We hypothesized that an individual’s “weakest link” among vulnerability components from the hopelessness theory (HT) and interpersonal psychological theory of suicide (IPTS) would interact with high levels of stress to predict increases in suicidal ideation over a 6-week period better than the traditional conceptualizations of HT or IPTS. Participants were 171 college students who completed measures of cognitive vulnerability, stress, and suicidal ideation twice over a period of 6 weeks. Bayesian regression analyses supported our hypotheses. The data fit the weakest link model using HT and IPTS components better than traditional conceptualizations of HT and IPTS. This study implies that weakest link models from depression may be useful in understanding which individuals are most vulnerable to experiencing suicidal ideation in the context of stress.     

Treating Suicidal Behavior: An Effective,Time‐Limited Approach

M. David Rudd, Thomas Joiner, & M. Hasan Rajab (2001). Treating Suicidal Behavior: An Effective. Time‐Limited Approach.     

Epidemiology,Risk Factors,and Prevention of Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviour in Prisons: A Literature Review

Suicide is a global public health concern that affects all echelons of society, albeit not equally so. Compared with adults in the general population, incarcerated offenders are at increased risk to consider, attempt, and die by suicide, which represents a substantial burden of morbidity and mortality in prisons worldwide. This review synthesises recent literature pertaining to the epidemiology, risk factors, and prevention of suicidal thoughts and behaviour among prisoners, and outlines a framework which emphasises the interplay between individuals (importation) and their surroundings (deprivation). The available evidence suggests that prison-specific stressors may exacerbate risk of suicide in an already vulnerable population characterised by complex health and social care needs. Emerging data point to differential mechanisms through which prisoners come to think about suicide and subsequently progress to suicidal behaviour. As risk of suicide is determined by a complex web of synergistically interacting factors, its management and prevention demands a cross-sectoral policy and service response that includes targeted interventions aimed at high-risk prisoners in combination with population strategies that promote the health and wellbeing of all people in prison.