The case against no-suicide contracts: The commitment to treatment statement as a practice alternative

Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Baylor University, TX 97334, USA.
Journal of Clinical Psychology (Impact Factor: 2.12). 02/2006; 62(2):243-51. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20227
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This article reviews the literature on the use of "no-suicide contracts" in clinical practice, including conceptual discussions, patient and clinician surveys, and a few empirical studies on clinical utility. Our primary conclusion is that no-suicide contracts suffer from a broad range of conceptual, practical, and empirical problems. Most significantly, they have no empirical support for their effectiveness in the clinical environment. The authors provide and illustrate the commitment to treatment statement as a practice alternative to the no-suicide contract.

  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In total, 75% of suicides reported to the Joint Commission as sentinel events since 1995, have occurred in psychiatric settings. Ensuring patient safety is one of the primary tasks of inpatient psychiatric units. A review of inpatient suicide-specific safety components, inclusive of incidence and risk; guidelines for evidence based care; environmental safety; suicide risk assessment; milieu observation and monitoring; psychotherapeutic interventions; and documentation is provided. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) has been recognized as an exemplar system in suicide prevention. A VA inpatient psychiatric unit is used to illustrate the operationalization of a culture of suicide-specific safety. We conclude by describing preliminary unit outcomes and acknowledging limitations of suicide-specific inpatient care and gaps in the current inpatient practices and research on psychotherapeutic interventions, observation, and monitoring.
    Issues in Mental Health Nursing 04/2015; 36(3):190-199. DOI:10.3109/01612840.2014.961625
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One of the more controversial issues in working with people who self-injure is whether counselors should use no-harm contracts. Important therapeutic considerations include the efficacy of such contracts or agreements in preventing self-injury, the emotional and behavioral responses of clients, and the perceived protection these contracts or agreements may offer counselors. The authors weigh potential benefits and pitfalls and make recommendations for working collaboratively with clients to meet their individual needs.
    01/2011; 89(1). DOI:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00069.x


Available from