Feasibility of Peer-Delivered Suicide Safety Planning in the Emergency Department: Results From a Pilot Trial
Abstract
Objective:
The emergency department (ED) is an important site for suicide prevention efforts, and safety planning has been identified as a best practice for suicide prevention among ED patients at increased suicide risk. However, few ED clinicians are prepared to assess suicide risk or guide patients in the creation of safety plans. This study was a pilot randomized controlled trial of the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effects of safety planning by individuals with lived experience of suicide attempt or of severe suicidal ideation but without medical training (i.e., peers) in the ED.
Methods:
Patients at risk for suicide in a general ED were randomly assigned to receive peer-delivered or mental health provider–delivered safety planning. Intervention feasibility measures included ED length of stay, safety plan completeness, and safety plan quality. Acceptability measures included patient satisfaction. Preliminary effects were assessed as number of ED returns within the 3 months after the ED visit.
Results:
Data from 31 participants were available for analysis. Compared with participants with provider-delivered safety planning, participants with peer-delivered safety planning had similar ED lengths of stay, higher safety plan completeness, and higher safety plan quality. Acceptability of the safety planning process was similar for the two groups. Compared with participants receiving provider-delivered safety planning, participants receiving peer-delivered planning had significantly fewer ED visits during the subsequent 3 months than during the 3 months preceding the ED visit.
Conclusions:
Peer-delivered safety planning is feasible and acceptable and may result in fewer return ED visits. These findings provide preliminary support for peer-delivered safety planning in the ED.
HIGHLIGHTS
•
In this pilot randomized controlled trial, emergency department (ED) patients with suicidal ideation or suicide attempt received guidance in safety planning from a mental health provider or a peer who had lived experience of suicide but no medical training.
•
Participants receiving peer-delivered safety planning had similar ED lengths of stay, but higher levels of safety plan completeness and quality, compared with those receiving provider-delivered safety planning.
•
Patients in both groups found safety planning similarly acceptable, but patients in the peer-delivered group had fewer ED visits in the subsequent 3 months.
•
Safety planning by nonclinical peers is feasible and is acceptable to patients and may result in fewer repeat ED visits.
With suicide rates having risen >30% in the past two decades before the COVID-19 pandemic (1–3), suicide is now the 11th leading cause of death in the United States (4). Many patients who end their lives had previously received treatment at an emergency department (ED) (5–8), and patients who present to the ED because of suicidal ideation or suicide attempt are at increased risk for future suicidal behavior (9, 10), Even a single visit to the ED for overdose, suicidal ideation, or self-harm is associated with an increased and persistent (months to years) risk for suicide relative to that of other ED patients (9, 11).
Given that EDs are open 24 hours per day and provide nearly half of all medical care in the United States (12), it is reasonable to assume that many, if not most, patients who experience suicidal thoughts will eventually present to an ED. Thus, the implementation of suicide prevention efforts in the ED is important. Unfortunately, general medical and mental health staff in the ED have limited time and training to maintain the fidelity of suicide interventions, and therefore brief, low-threshold evidence-based efforts (7, 13) are likely most feasible for implementation.
The safety planning intervention (SPI) (14) is a brief evidence-based intervention that has been shown to be acceptable and to effectively reduce suicidal behavior (14, 15) after ED discharge. The SPI provides a personalized list (i.e., safety plan) of coping skills and social support to patients at increased risk for suicide that can be used if suicidal thoughts reemerge. The SPI has been consistently identified as a best practice by multiple suicide prevention experts (16–20) and reduces return visits to the ED for suicidal behavior after discharge (14). A safety plan is usually developed by the patient in collaboration with a trained medical or mental health provider and takes approximately 20–45 minutes to complete (21).
Although higher-quality safety plans are associated with better outcomes (22, 23), and treatment of suicidal patients is included in the 2019 model of the clinical practice of emergency medicine (24), few ED physicians feel prepared to assess risk or to create a safety plan for patients with suicidal behavior (25, 26). Consequently, trained mental health workers, typically nurses or social workers, often take this role. However, most EDs do not have continuous availability of these trained workers (27, 28), which limits the ability of the typical ED to perform SPI.
In the context of suicide prevention, peers are individuals with lived suicide experience (i.e., recovering from suicidal thoughts or suicide attempt). Although the SPI is typically conducted by medical or mental health providers and is not overwhelmingly considered to be within the scope of peer practice, many of the skills used in the SPI (i.e., person-centered services, trauma-informed care, and collaborative relationships) are similar to the core competencies of peer specialists as defined by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (29) and others (30). Additionally, peers likely have more time to spend with patients than do medical or mental health providers.
Thus, a peer-delivered SPI in the ED might allow for more empathetic and compassionate care than general medical or mental health providers in EDs have the time to provide (31). Patients with suicidal ideation may perceive a peer to be more of a friend than a provider (32), and so they may be inspired to engage more meaningfully in the safety planning process. Peer-delivered SPI in the ED could be more acceptable to patients and result in more complete and higher-quality safety plans than an SPI administered by a busy ED clinician. Furthermore, studies from both outpatient and inpatient settings have shown that the use of peers to deliver suicide prevention efforts has been associated with reductions in emergency services use (33), reduced numbers of readmissions to a psychiatric unit (34), and increased scores on various recovery assessment scales (33, 35). However, no studies to date have prospectively evaluated peer-delivered SPI in the ED setting.
Accordingly, we conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with patients who presented to an urban general ED with suicidal ideation or after a suicide attempt, to document the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effects (defined as the ability of safety planning to prevent crises necessitating an ED return) of peer-delivered SPI compared with provider-delivered SPI. We hypothesized that participants in the peer-delivered SPI condition would find the peer-delivered intervention acceptable, given the peers’ focus on empathetic and compassionate care; would have safety plans that were both similarly complete and of similarly high quality as plans in the provider-delivered SPI condition, if peer training was appropriate; and might have longer safety plan completion times compared with participants receiving provider-delivered SPI but that this increase would neither increase ED lengths of stay (LOS) nor times to disposition because peers have no other clinical duties. Given previous conflicting results (14, 36) regarding the ability of ED mental health interventions to increase outpatient treatment engagement, we hypothesized that peer-delivered SPI either would have no effect on ED returns or would result in decreased ED use compared with provider-delivered SPI.
Methods
Clinical Setting and Participants
The study was performed in the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, which annually serves approximately 65,000 patients and >1,200 patients with suicidal ideation. Potential study participants presenting to the ED were assessed for suicidal risk with the Patient Safety Screener–3, a validated instrument used for triage purposes (37). If a patient was determined to be at risk of suicide, this was flagged in the electronic medical record and the patient then approached by the peer after initial evaluation by an ED physician. Inclusion criteria for the study included presentation to the ED because of suicidal ideation or after suicide attempt; age 18–89 years, English speaking (because translators were not available and study materials have not been validated in other languages), willingness to provide informed consent, and no safety plan at the current ED visit. Patients were excluded from the study if they were incarcerated, unwilling or unable to complete a safety plan with either a peer or a provider, unwilling or unable to show the safety plan to a mental health provider, too psychiatrically ill to be approached safely, or if clinical personnel objected to study enrollment for any reason. The race-ethnicity of participants was not collected.
Research Design and Procedures
An RCT among eligible patients who presented to the ED because of suicidal ideation or suicide attempt was conducted to document the feasibility (assessed as quality and completeness scores of the safety plans, LOS in the ED or time to disposition, and time to develop safety plan), acceptability to patients, and preliminary effects (number of ED return visits poststudy) of peer-delivered SPI compared with mental health provider–delivered SPI. Random allocation of the participants in a 1:1 fashion to peer-delivered SPI or provider-delivered SPI was conducted by using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) software (38). The randomization sequence was generated by the software, and allocation therefore was concealed until time of random selection.
Consecutive patients with suicidal ideation or after a suicide attempt were approached on Mondays and Tuesdays (November 1, 2019, to September 1, 2020) during study hours. Study enrollment was conducted on these days because available intramural funding limited peer time and because these days are among the busiest times for mental health presentations at the study site. All study procedures were approved by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Institutional Review Board before data collection and were limited to a maximum of 37 participants because of the pilot nature of this work in a vulnerable population. Reporting of this study followed CONSORT guidelines (39).
SPI
The Stanley and Brown Patient Safety Plan Template was used (14, 21, 40). The template includes identification of warning signs for possible impending suicidal crises, internal coping strategies, people and social settings that can provide distraction, people to ask for help when in crisis, professionals or agencies to contact during a crisis, and ways to make one’s environment safe. Individuals are also prompted to list one thing most important to them that is worth living for. Participants were required to provide written responses themselves, and peers were trained to discuss only safety planning with participants. All completed safety plans were approved by mental health providers in the ED before being entered into the electronic medical record. If providers did not approve the safety plan, the peer was asked to work with the participant again until the plan was acceptable. Any additional amount of time was added to the safety planning process.
Safety Plan Grading
A research coordinator removed identifying information from all safety plans, and the plans were then graded blindly by two investigators (A.W., R.G.T.) with expertise in safety planning by using materials developed by Gamarra et al. (22). Safety plans were graded individually, then resolved by consensus, for completion (0, complete; 1, partially complete; and 2, complete; range of total scores 0–16) and quality (0, blank; 1, boilerplate; 2, some evidence of personalization; and 3, highly personalized; range of total scores 0–24).
Provider SPI Training
All medical and mental health providers at the study site participated in the ED-SAFE (Emergency Department Safety Assessment and Follow-up Evaluation) study (15, 41), which involved extensive training on the treatment of suicidal patients in the ED, including SPI delivery. No additional training was provided, because SPI competency was an assured standard of care in the studied ED.
Peer SPI Training
For this study, the term “peer” referred to an individual who had experienced severe suicidal ideation or had survived a suicide attempt in the past and who was, at the time of the study, state certified as a peer recovery support specialist. Peers were recruited specifically for this project and were provided approximately 12 hours of initial training (see an online supplement to this article).
Peer Supervision and Safety
Because peers had lived through personal trauma and had never held a similar role within the ED, debriefing and supervision were paramount. Peers received biweekly feedback by the study team on the quality and completeness of the plans and adherence to study protocol. No revisions to safety plans were allowed during these feedback sessions. The peers also received a weekly debriefing by a licensed clinical counselor throughout the study.
Measures
After creating a safety plan, each participant completed a brief survey containing demographic information (age, gender, lifetime suicide attempts, past-year attempts, and whether the participant had ever made a safety plan before the current visit), questions about acceptability (see below), and questions from the Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) focused on lifetime and past-month suicidal ideation and behavior (42). The peers documented the number of plans that were initially unacceptable to providers, as well as the time it took to make a plan plus any revisions. Data collected from the electronic medical record included the patient’s chief complaint, time to disposition (defined as an order for admission or discharge minus the triage time), total ED LOS (defined as the time the participant left the ED minus the triage time), and the number of ED visits during the 3 months before and after study enrollment. Abstraction of data followed best practices (43, 44), including comparison of all data for accuracy.
Feasibility measures included duration of time spent on safety planning (including any revisions), time to disposition (defined as the time the disposition order was placed minus the triage time), total LOS in the ED, safety plan quality, and safety plan completion. Measures of acceptability included patient satisfaction, which was measured by having patients rate their safety planning process on a 7-point Likert scale (i.e., 1, strongly disagree; 2, disagree; 3, moderately disagree; 4, neutral; 5, moderately agree; 6, agree; or 7, strongly agree). Questions included “Did you like making this safety plan today?”; “Did you find completing a safety plan helpful today?”; and “Would you recommend completing a safety plan with a peer?” In the provider group, participants were additionally asked “Do you think working with a nurse, social worker, or doctor helped you more than working with a peer?” In the peer group, participants were asked, “Do you think working with a peer support specialist helped you more than working with the nurses, doctors, or other clinical staff?” Preliminary effects were measured by the change in the number of repeat ED visits made in the 3 months before the study and in the 3 months after the study and by the number of study participants whose deaths were recorded in the electronic medical record within the 3 months after study enrollment.
Data Analyses
We used t tests for continuous variables such as age; number of suicide attempts; quality and completeness scores of safety plans; ED LOS and time to disposition; the frequency of ED visits during the 3 months before an ED visit, when participants had not yet been enrolled or randomly assigned to an intervention; the frequency of ED visits during the 3 months after enrollment; and time to make the safety plan. Because ED times are typically nonnormally distributed (45), these data were log-transformed before the analysis. Chi-square tests were used for questions containing proportions, such as gender or percentage answering “yes” to a particular question. Changes in ED visits from 3 months before to 3 months after enrollment were analyzed with a Wald-type statistic, by using an F1-LD-F1 design (46). Acceptability measures assessed with the 7-point Likert scale were recoded to a 5-point scale for statistical analysis only, by collapsing “strongly disagree” and “disagree” into one data point and “strongly agree” and “agree” into another data point. The resulting 5-point Likert scales were then compared between groups by using chi-square tests. Given the limited sample size mandated by the internal review board, subanalyses of variables such as gender were not performed. All statistical analyses were performed with RStudio, version 2021.09.2.
Results
In total, 37 (39%) of 96 potential participants assessed were eligible for this study. The first four participants were withdrawn from the study because their data were collected in a nonstandard manner; staff were subsequently retrained. One additional patient in the provider-delivered SPI condition withdrew consent in the ED after undergoing random assignment. One patient in the peer group denied suicidal ideation after undergoing random assignment, leaving 31 participants for the analysis (see the flow diagram in the online supplement). All peer-delivered safety plans created in the ED were approved by providers without revision.
The sample included 15 females (47%), and the participants had an average age of 41 years (range 20–64). The groups did not differ by demographic characteristics or by key outcomes at baseline (Table 1).
| Provider (N=15) | Peer (N=16) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | N | IQRa or % | N | IQRa or % | p |
| Age (median and IQR years) | 45.0 | 34.0–54.5 | 38.5 | 28.5–42.8 | .40 |
| Female | 5 | 33 | 10 | 63 | .10 |
| Ever made safety plan | 4 | 27 | 7 | 44 | .32 |
| N of lifetime suicide attempts (median and IQR) | 1.0 | 1.0–2.0 | 1.0 | 1.0–2.5 | .38 |
| N of past-year suicide attempts (median and IQR) | 1.0 | .5–1.0 | .5 | .0–1.0 | .35 |
| Have you wished you were dead or wished you could go to sleep and not wake up? (N in lifetime) | 14 | 93 | 14 | 88 | .58 |
| Have you wished you were dead or wished you could go to sleep and not wake up? (in past month; N answering yes) | 13 | 87 | 14 | 88 | .94 |
| Have you had these thoughts and had some intention of acting on them? (in past month; N answering yes) | 8 | 53 | 10 | 63 | .61 |
| Have you started to work out or worked out the details of how to kill yourself? Do you intend to carry out this plan? (in past month; N answering yes) | 5 | 33 | 8 | 50 | .35 |
a
IQR, interquartile range.
The quality and completeness of plans significantly varied between the two groups, with patients in the peer-delivered condition having more complete (t=−3.96, df=29, p<0.001) and higher-quality plans (t=−3.84, df=29, p<0.001; see Table 2). The time to make the safety plan increased in the peer group (t=−5.92, df=29, p<0.001), but this increase did not significantly affect time to disposition or total ED LOS (both p>0.05). Participants equally liked making safety plans with the peers and providers, and both groups found the planning to be helpful.
| Provider (N=15) | Peer (N=16) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Median | IQR | Median | IQR | p |
| Plan completeness scoreb | 9.0 | 7.5–10.0 | 12.0 | 11.0–13.0 | <.001 |
| Plan quality scorec | 8.0 | 7.0–9.0 | 12.5 | 10.0–16.5 | <.001 |
| Time to make plan (in seconds) | 255 | 226–293 | 646 | 531–734 | <.001 |
| Time to disposition (in minutes) | 237 | 66–304 | 198 | 121–330 | .81 |
| Total ED LOS (in minutes) | 344 | 289–389 | 398 | 221–500 | .63 |
| N of ED visits in previous 3 months | 0 | 0–1 | 1 | .0–2.3 | .10 |
| N of ED visits in subsequent 3 months | 1 | 0–1 | 0 | .0–.25 | .11 |
| Liked making a safety plan (score)d | 4 | 3.5–5.0 | 4.5 | 4.0–6.0 | .32 |
| Making of safety plan was helpful (score)d | 4 | 4.0–5.5 | 5 | 4.0–6.0 | .50 |
a
ED, emergency department; IQR, interquartile range; LOS, length of stay.
b
Scores ranged from 0 to 16, with higher scores indicating greater completion.
c
Scores ranged from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating higher quality.
d
Responses were scored on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1, strongly disagree, to 7, strongly agree.
We found no significant differences in visits of patients in both groups during the 3 months before enrollment or during the 3 months after enrollment. However, when we compared the change in the number of visits from 3 months before enrollment to 3 months after enrollment, we noted that participants who made a safety plan with a peer (Wald χ2=7.75, p<0.01), but not those who made a plan with a provider (Wald χ2=0.50, p>0.48), had a significant decrease in ED return visits. No participant deaths were recorded in the electronic medical record within 3 months after enrollment.
Discussion
The findings of this pilot RCT provide preliminary support for the use of peer-delivered SPI in the ED. Creation of safety plans was found feasible and equally acceptable regardless of group assignment. Furthermore, all peer-delivered safety plans were approved by providers with no revisions. These findings are consistent with the rapidly growing popularity of using peers to deliver mental health and substance use interventions worldwide. Peer-delivered interventions are especially popular in the United Kingdom, where peers are used in many mental health facilities (47). In the United States, more than 30 states now have some level of Medicaid reimbursement for peer specialists (48).
Although peers spent more than twice as long with the participant during creation of the safety plan compared with medical and mental health providers, this additional time affected neither the ED time to disposition nor the total ED LOS, perhaps because peers had no other clinical duties. Of note, safety plan quality and completion were higher in the peer group, and participants who made a safety plan with a peer also showed a reduction in visits in the period from 3 months before to 3 months after the study. Additional research is required to determine whether this finding was due to more complete and higher-quality safety plans, delivery of the intervention by a peer, or a combination of both.
This study was strengthened by its rigorous research design (i.e., as an RCT) and because the random allocation resulted in two groups that did not differ significantly in baseline demographic characteristics or other key potential outcomes. At the request of the internal review board, the sample size was small. This small size limits the findings somewhat, although the study nonetheless found statistically significant results, suggesting that further studies on ED peer support are appropriate. A second limitation (and simultaneous strength) was that the peers received frequent feedback on the quality and completeness of the safety plans, whereas the providers did not. This was a limitation imposed by the clinical environment so as not to disrupt care. Between-group differences may be attenuated if feedback were provided to both groups.
Conclusions
To our knowledge, this study reports the first RCT documenting the feasibility and preliminary effects of peer-delivered SPI, compared with provider-delivered SPI, in the ED. Safety plans created with peers’ guidance were more complete and of higher quality than those made with providers. Furthermore, although these plans took longer to create when participants worked with a peer instead of a provider, the increased time did not affect time to disposition or ED LOS. Additionally, peer-delivered safety planning was associated with reduced repeat visits to the ED in the subsequent 3 months. An RCT with a larger sample size is needed to determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of peer-delivered SPI in the ED and to identify both barriers to and facilitators of SPI’s widespread implementation.
Acknowledgments
Funding for this study was provided by the UAMS Medical Research Endowment Fund and by the UAMS Clinician Scientist program, which supported Dr. Wilson’s time during this work. This work is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04068142). The authors acknowledge research assistant Manny Alvarez-Romero, peers Cindy Killip and Patti Yager, and biostatistician Dr. Keith Williams for their help with this work.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.202100561.ds001.docx)
- Download
- 47.02 KB
References
1.
Hedegaard H, Curtin SC, Warner M: Suicide mortality in the United States, 1999–2019. NCHS Data Brief 2021; 398:1–8
2.
Stone DM, Simon TR, Fowler KA, et al: Vital signs: trends in state suicide rates—United States, 1999–2016 and circumstances contributing to suicide—27 states, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018; 67:617–624
3.
Alvarez Romero MG, Penthala C, Zeller SL, et al: The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on US emergency departments. Psychiatr Clin North Am 2021; 45:81–94
4.
Ahmad FB, Anderson RN: The leading causes of death in the US for 2020. JAMA 2021; 325:1829
5.
Gairin I, House A, Owens D: Attendance at the accident and emergency department in the year before suicide: retrospective study. Br J Psychiatry 2013; 183:28–33
6.
Da Cruz D, Pearson A, Saini P, et al: Emergency department contact prior to suicide in mental health patients. Emerg Med J 2011; 28:467–471
7.
Larkin GL, Beautrais AL: Emergency departments are underutilized sites for suicide prevention. Crisis 2010; 31:1–6
8.
Ahmedani BK, Simon GE, Stewart C, et al: Health care contacts in the year before suicide death. J Gen Intern Med 2014; 29:870–877
9.
Knesper DJ: Continuity of Care for Suicide Prevention and Research: Suicide Attempts and Suicide Deaths Subsequent to Discharge From an Emergency Department or Psychiatry Inpatient Unit. Newton, MA, Education Development Center, 2010
10.
Stuck AR, Wilson MP, Chalmers CE, et al: Health care usage and suicide risk screening within 1 year of suicide death. J Emerg Med 2017; 53:871–879
11.
Crandall C, Fullerton-Gleason L, Aguero R, et al: Subsequent suicide mortality among emergency department patients seen for suicidal behavior. Acad Emerg Med 2006; 13:435–442
12.
Marcozzi D, Carr B, Liferidge A, et al: Trends in the contribution of emergency departments to the provision of hospital-associated health care in the USA. Int J Health Serv 2018; 48:267–288
13.
Wilson MP, Zeller SL: Introduction: reconsidering psychiatry in the emergency department. J Emerg Med 2012; 43:771–772
14.
Stanley B, Brown GK, Brenner LA, et al: Comparison of the safety planning intervention with follow-up vs usual care of suicidal patients treated in the emergency department. JAMA Psychiatry 2018; 75:894–900
15.
Miller IW, Camargo CA, Jr., Arias SA, et al: Suicide prevention in an emergency department population: the ED-SAFE study. JAMA Psychiatry 2017; 74:563–570
16.
Caring for Adult Patients With Suicide Risk: A Consensus Guide for Emergency Departments. Oklahoma City, Suicide Prevention Resource Center, 2015
17.
Recommended Standard Care for People With Suicide Risk: Making Health Care Suicide Safe. Washington, DC, Education Development Center, 2018
18.
2012 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention: Goals and Objectives for Action: A Report of the US Surgeon General and of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention. Washington, DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, Publications and Reports of the Surgeon General, 2012
19.
Wilson MP, Moutier C, Wolf L, et al: ED recommendations for suicide prevention in adults: the ICAR2E mnemonic and a systematic review of the literature. Am J Emerg Med 2020; 38:571–581
20.
Wilson MP, Kaur J, Blake L, et al: Adherence to guideline creation recommendations for suicide prevention in the emergency department: a systematic review. Am J Emerg Med 2021; 50:553–560
21.
Stanley B, Brown GK: Safety planning intervention: a brief intervention to mitigate suicide risk. Cogn Behav Pract 2012; 19:256–264
22.
Gamarra JM, Luciano MT, Gradus JL, et al: Assessing variability and implementation fidelity of suicide prevention safety planning in a regional VA healthcare system. Crisis 2015; 36:433–439
23.
Green JD, Kearns JC, Rosen RC, et al: Evaluating the effectiveness of safety plans for military veterans: do safety plans tailored to veteran characteristics decrease suicide risk? Behav Ther 2018; 49:931–938
24.
Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine. Irving, TX, Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine, 2019. www.cordem.org/resources/education--curricula/model-of-the-clinical-practice-of-emergency-medicine. Accessed March 31, 2022
25.
Betz ME, Sullivan AF, Manton AP, et al: Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of emergency department providers in the care of suicidal patients. Depress Anxiety 2013; 30:1005–1012
26.
Betz ME, Arias SA, Miller M, et al: Change in emergency department providers’ beliefs and practices after use of new protocols for suicidal patients. Psychiatr Serv 2015; 66:625–631
27.
Samuels-Kalow ME, Boggs KM, Cash RE, et al: Screening for health-related social needs of emergency department patients. Ann Emerg Med 2021; 77:62–68
28.
Baraff LJ, Janowicz N, Asarnow JR: Survey of California emergency departments about practices for management of suicidal patients and resources available for their care. Ann Emerg Med 2006; 48:452–458
29.
Core Competencies for Peer Workers. Rockville, MD, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2020. www.samhsa.gov/brss-tacs/recovery-support-tools/peers/core-competencies-peer-workers. Accessed March 31, 2022
30.
Brasier C, Roennfeldt H, Hamilton B, et al: Peer support work for people experiencing mental distress attending the emergency department: exploring the potential. Emerg Med Australas 2022; 34:78–84
31.
Mullinax S, Wilson MP: The use of peer mentors in behavioral emergencies; in Behavioral Emergencies for the Healthcare Provider. Edited by Zun LS, Wilson MP, Nordstrom K. Cham, Switzerland, Springer, 2021
32.
Davidson L, Chinman M, Sells D, et al: Peer support among adults with serious mental illness: a report from the field. Schizophr Bull 2006; 32:443–450
33.
Pitt V, Lowe D, Hill S, et al: Consumer-providers of care for adult clients of statutory mental health services. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:CD004807
34.
Sledge WH, Lawless M, Sells D, et al: Effectiveness of peer support in reducing readmissions of persons with multiple psychiatric hospitalizations. Psychiatr Serv 2011; 62:541–544
35.
Lloyd-Evans B, Mayo-Wilson E, Harrison B, et al: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of peer support for people with severe mental illness. BMC Psychiatry 2014; 14:39
36.
Currier GW, Fisher SG, Caine ED: Mobile crisis team intervention to enhance linkage of discharged suicidal emergency department patients to outpatient psychiatric services: a randomized controlled trial. Acad Emerg Med 2010; 17:36–43
37.
Boudreaux ED, Jaques ML, Brady KM, et al: The patient safety screener: validation of a brief suicide risk screener for emergency department settings. Arch Suicide Res 2015; 19:151–160
38.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al: The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 2019; 95:103208
39.
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al: CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340:c869
40.
Stanley B, Chaudhury SR, Chesin M, et al: An emergency department intervention and follow-up to reduce suicide risk in the VA: acceptability and effectiveness. Psychiatr Serv 2016; 67:680–683
41.
Boudreaux ED, Camargo CA, Jr., Arias SA, et al: Improving suicide risk screening and detection in the emergency department. Am J Prev Med 2016; 50:445–453
42.
Posner K, Brown GK, Stanley B, et al: The Columbia–suicide severity rating scale: initial validity and internal consistency findings from three multisite studies with adolescents and adults. Am J Psychiatry 2011; 168:1266–1277
43.
Auten J, Ishimine P: How to design a study that everyone will believe: retrospective reviews; in Doing Research in Emergency and Acute Care: Making Order Out of Chaos. Edited by Wilson MP, Guluma KZ, Hayden SR. Oxford, Wiley Press, 2015
44.
Worster A, Bledsoe RD, Cleve P, et al: Reassessing the methods of medical record review studies in emergency medicine research. Ann Emerg Med 2005; 45:448–451
45.
Wilson MP, Brennan JJ, Modesti L, et al: Lengths of stay for involuntarily held psychiatric patients in the ED are affected by both patient characteristics and medication use. Am J Emerg Med 2015; 33:527–530
46.
f1 f1.ld: Nonparametric Tests for the F1-LD-F1 Design. rdrr.io. rdrr.io/cran/nparLD/man/f1.ld.f1.html. Accessed March 31, 2022
47.
Gillard S, Foster R, Gibson S, et al: Describing a principles-based approach to developing and evaluating peer worker roles as peer support moves into mainstream mental health services. Ment Health and Soc Incl 2017; 21:133–143
48.
Cabassa LJ, Camacho D, Vélez-Grau CM, et al: Peer-based health interventions for people with serious mental illness: a systematic literature review. J Psychiatr Res 2017; 84:80–89
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 14 September 2021
Revision received: 29 November 2021
Revision received: 29 January 2022
Accepted: 11 February 2022
Published online: 3 May 2022
Published in print: October 01, 2022
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
Dr. Wilson serves as the chair-elect of the Coalition on Psychiatric Emergencies and on the board of directors for the American Association of Emergency Psychiatry, both nonprofit organizations that have worked to improve care for behavioral emergency patients in U.S. emergency departments. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).