Article

Psychosocial assessment following self-harm: results from the multi-centre monitoring of self-harm project.

Centre for Suicide Prevention, Williamson Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Journal of Affective Disorders (Impact Factor: 3.71). 04/2008; 106(3):285-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2007.07.010
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Psychosocial assessment is central to the management of self-harm, but not all individuals receive an assessment following presentation to hospital. Research exploring the factors associated with assessment and non-assessment is sparse. It is unclear how assessment relates to subsequent outcome.
We identified episodes of self-harm presenting to six hospitals in the UK cities of Oxford, Leeds, and Manchester over an 18-month period (1st March 2000 to 31st August 2001). We used established monitoring systems to investigate: the proportion of episodes resulting in a specialist assessment in each hospital; the factors associated with assessment and non-assessment; the relationship between assessment and repetition of self-harm.
A total of 7344 individuals presented with 10,498 episodes of self-harm during the study period. Overall, 60% of episodes resulted in a specialist psychosocial assessment. Factors associated with an increased likelihood of assessment included age over 55 years, current psychiatric treatment, admission to a medical ward, and ingestion of antidepressants. Factors associated with a decreased likelihood of assessment included unemployment, self-cutting, attending outside normal working hours, and self-discharge. We found no overall association between assessment and self-harm repetition, but there were differences between hospitals--assessments were protective in one hospital but associated with an increased risk of repetition in another.
Some data may have been more likely to be recorded if episodes resulted in a specialist assessment. This was a non-experimental study and so the findings relating specialist assessment to repetition should be interpreted cautiously.
Many people who harm themselves, including potentially vulnerable individuals, do not receive an adequate assessment while at hospital. Staff should be aware of the organizational and clinical factors associated with non-assessment. Identifying the active components of psychosocial assessment may help to inform future interventions for self-harm.

0 Followers
 · 
196 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A version of this chapter appears in VAN BERGEN, D., MONTESINOS, A. & SCHOULER-OCAK, M. (EDS.) (2014) SUICIDAL BEHAVIOUR OF IMMIGRANTS AND ETHNIC MINORITIES IN EUROPE: HOGREFE. http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JCR_BAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA45&dq=info:L_M7GLEqwMQJ:scholar.google.com&ots=dMb78uLGeT&sig=kNG7SzxuXRrbdq8Z9jLgqPPce_E&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
    Suicidal Behavior of Immigrants and Ethnic Minorities in Europe, Edited by van Bergen D., Montesinos A. H., Schouler-Ocak M., 08/2014: chapter Suicidal Behavior Among Ethnic Minorities in England: pages 45-60; Hogrefe., ISBN: 978-0-88973-453-9
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This comparative longitudinal study investigated aftercare and compliance of attempted suicide patients after standardized psychosocial assessment. Structured interviews were conducted 1 month (FU1) and 6 months (FU2) after an index suicide attempt. Assessment was associated with more frequent discussion of treatment options with the patient at the hospital and a shorter interval between discharge and contacting the general practitioner (GP). A near significant effect was found for discussing the suicide attempt with the GP more frequently and with start or change of the medication scheme after the index attempt. The current findings support the use of a standardized tool for the assessment of suicide attempters and are in line with the chain of care model for suicide attempters.
    Archives of suicide research: official journal of the International Academy for Suicide Research 04/2010; 14(2):135-45. DOI:10.1080/13811111003704746
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Suicide rates are often high in rural areas. Despite the strong association between deliberate self-harm (DSH) and suicide, few have studied rural residence and DSH. Self-poisonings dominate DSH hospital presentations. We investigate a previously reported association between rural residence and medical severity (defined as a subsequent medical/surgical inpatient stay) among emergency department presentations for medicinal self-poisoning (SP) to determine whether differences in agents taken, mental health service use or hospital-level resources explain the relationship. A cohort of n=16,294 12-64-year olds presenting with SP to hospital emergency departments in Ontario, Canada, in 2001/2002 was linked to their service records over time. The rural-medical severity association was best explained by differences in hospital resources; presenting to hospitals providing inpatient psychiatric services appeared to reduce medical/surgical inpatient stays in favor of psychiatric ones. Among those with a recent psychiatric admission, more intensive ambulatory psychiatric contact may be protective of a psychiatric inpatient stay subsequent to the SP presentation. Compared to nonrural residents, deliberate intent was identified less often in rural residents, particularly males. The rural-medical severity association was best explained by disparities in the delivery systems serving rural and nonrural residents, important to rural suicide prevention efforts.
    General Hospital Psychiatry 11/2008; 30(6):552-60. DOI:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2008.06.012 · 2.90 Impact Factor