Factors within the clinical encounter that impact upon risk assessment within child and adolescent mental health services: a rapid realist synthesis.

Anna Cantrell, Katie Sworn, Duncan Chambers, Andrew Booth, Elizabeth Taylor Buck, Scott Weich
{"title":"Factors within the clinical encounter that impact upon risk assessment within child and adolescent mental health services: a rapid realist synthesis.","authors":"Anna Cantrell, Katie Sworn, Duncan Chambers, Andrew Booth, Elizabeth Taylor Buck, Scott Weich","doi":"10.3310/VKTY5822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Risk assessment is a key process when a child or adolescent presents at risk for self-harm or suicide in a mental health crisis or emergency. Risk assessment by a healthcare professional should be included within a biopsychosocial assessment. However, the predictive value of risk-screening tools for self-harm and suicide in children and adolescents is consistently challenged. A review is needed to explore how best to undertake risk assessment and the appropriate role for tools/checklists within the assessment pathway.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To map research relating to risk assessment for child and adolescent mental health and to identify features that relate to a successful risk assessment.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review factors within the clinical encounter that impact upon risk assessments for self-harm and suicide in children and adolescents: i. to conduct a realist synthesis to understand mechanisms for risk assessment, why they occur and how they vary by context ii. to conduct a mapping review of primary studies/reviews to describe available tools of applicability to the UK.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Databases, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO<sup>®</sup>, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, Science and Social Sciences Citation Index and the Cochrane Library, were searched (September 2021). Searches were also conducted for reports from websites.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>A resource-constrained realist synthesis was conducted exploring factors that impact upon risk assessments for self-harm and suicide. This was accompanied by a mapping review of primary studies/reviews describing risk-assessment tools and approaches used in UK child and adolescent mental health. Following piloting, four reviewers screened retrieved records. Items were coded for the mapping and/or for inclusion in the realist synthesis. The review team examined the validity and limitations of risk-screening tools. In addition, the team identified structured approaches to risk assessment. Reporting of the realist synthesis followed <i>RAMESES</i> guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 4084 unique citations, 249 papers were reviewed and 41 studies (49 tools) were included in the mapping review. Eight reviews were identified following full-text screening. Fifty-seven papers were identified for the realist review. Findings highlight 14 explanations (programme theories) for a successful risk assessment for self-harm and suicide. Forty-nine individual assessment tools/approaches were identified. Few tools were developed in the UK, specifically for children and adolescents. These lacked formal independent evaluation. No risk-screening tool is suitable for risk prediction; optimal approaches incorporate a relationship of trust, involvement of the family, where appropriate, and a patient-centred holistic approach. The objective of risk assessment should be elicitation of information to direct a risk formulation and care plan.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Many identified tools are well-established but lack scientific validity, particularly predictive validity, or clinical utility. Programme theories were generated rapidly from a survey of risk assessment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No single checklist/approach meets the needs of risk assessment for self-harm and suicide. A whole-system approach is required, informed by structured clinical judgement. Useful components include a holistic assessment within a climate of trust, facilitated by family involvement.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021276671.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135079) and is published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 12, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/VKTY5822","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Risk assessment is a key process when a child or adolescent presents at risk for self-harm or suicide in a mental health crisis or emergency. Risk assessment by a healthcare professional should be included within a biopsychosocial assessment. However, the predictive value of risk-screening tools for self-harm and suicide in children and adolescents is consistently challenged. A review is needed to explore how best to undertake risk assessment and the appropriate role for tools/checklists within the assessment pathway.

Aims: To map research relating to risk assessment for child and adolescent mental health and to identify features that relate to a successful risk assessment.

Objectives: To review factors within the clinical encounter that impact upon risk assessments for self-harm and suicide in children and adolescents: i. to conduct a realist synthesis to understand mechanisms for risk assessment, why they occur and how they vary by context ii. to conduct a mapping review of primary studies/reviews to describe available tools of applicability to the UK.

Data sources: Databases, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO®, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, Science and Social Sciences Citation Index and the Cochrane Library, were searched (September 2021). Searches were also conducted for reports from websites.

Review methods: A resource-constrained realist synthesis was conducted exploring factors that impact upon risk assessments for self-harm and suicide. This was accompanied by a mapping review of primary studies/reviews describing risk-assessment tools and approaches used in UK child and adolescent mental health. Following piloting, four reviewers screened retrieved records. Items were coded for the mapping and/or for inclusion in the realist synthesis. The review team examined the validity and limitations of risk-screening tools. In addition, the team identified structured approaches to risk assessment. Reporting of the realist synthesis followed RAMESES guidelines.

Results: From 4084 unique citations, 249 papers were reviewed and 41 studies (49 tools) were included in the mapping review. Eight reviews were identified following full-text screening. Fifty-seven papers were identified for the realist review. Findings highlight 14 explanations (programme theories) for a successful risk assessment for self-harm and suicide. Forty-nine individual assessment tools/approaches were identified. Few tools were developed in the UK, specifically for children and adolescents. These lacked formal independent evaluation. No risk-screening tool is suitable for risk prediction; optimal approaches incorporate a relationship of trust, involvement of the family, where appropriate, and a patient-centred holistic approach. The objective of risk assessment should be elicitation of information to direct a risk formulation and care plan.

Limitations: Many identified tools are well-established but lack scientific validity, particularly predictive validity, or clinical utility. Programme theories were generated rapidly from a survey of risk assessment.

Conclusions: No single checklist/approach meets the needs of risk assessment for self-harm and suicide. A whole-system approach is required, informed by structured clinical judgement. Useful components include a holistic assessment within a climate of trust, facilitated by family involvement.

Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021276671.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135079) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

影响儿童和青少年心理健康服务中风险评估的临床因素:快速现实主义综述。
背景:当儿童或青少年在精神健康危机或紧急情况下出现自残或自杀风险时,风险评估是一个关键的过程。由医护人员进行的风险评估应包含在生物心理社会评估中。然而,儿童和青少年自残和自杀风险筛查工具的预测价值一直受到质疑。我们需要对如何最好地进行风险评估以及工具/清单在评估过程中的适当作用进行研究。目的:对儿童和青少年心理健康风险评估的相关研究进行梳理,并确定与成功的风险评估相关的特征:对影响儿童和青少年自残和自杀风险评估的临床因素进行审查: i. 进行现实主义综合,以了解风险评估的机制、发生的原因以及它们在不同情况下的差异 ii. 对主要研究/审查进行绘图审查,以描述适用于英国的可用工具:检索数据库,包括 MEDLINE、PsycINFO®、EMBASE、CINAHL、HMIC、科学与社会科学引文索引和 Cochrane 图书馆(2021 年 9 月)。此外,还对网站上的报告进行了检索:在资源有限的情况下,对影响自残和自杀风险评估的因素进行了现实主义综合分析。与此同时,还对描述英国儿童和青少年心理健康中使用的风险评估工具和方法的主要研究/综述进行了映射综述。在试点之后,四位审查员对检索到的记录进行了筛选。对项目进行了编码,以用于绘图和/或纳入现实主义综述。审查小组研究了风险筛查工具的有效性和局限性。此外,团队还确定了结构化的风险评估方法。现实主义综述的报告遵循 RAMESES 指南:从 4084 条独特的引文中,对 249 篇论文进行了审查,41 项研究(49 种工具)被纳入图谱审查。全文筛选后确定了 8 篇综述。57 篇论文被确定用于现实主义审查。研究结果强调了成功进行自残和自杀风险评估的 14 种解释(方案理论)。确定了 49 种单独的评估工具/方法。英国开发的专门针对儿童和青少年的工具很少。这些工具缺乏正式的独立评估。任何风险筛查工具都不适合用于风险预测;最佳方法包括信任关系、适当情况下的家庭参与以及以患者为中心的整体方法。风险评估的目的应该是获取信息,以指导风险制定和护理计划:局限性:许多已确定的工具都是行之有效的,但缺乏科学性,尤其是预测性或临床实用性。方案理论是从风险评估调查中迅速产生的:没有任何一种检查表/方法能满足自残和自杀风险评估的需要。需要采用全系统的方法,并以结构化的临床判断为依据。有用的组成部分包括在信任的氛围中进行整体评估,并由家人参与其中:本研究注册号为 PROSPERO CRD42021276671:该奖项由英国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究项目(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR135079)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》第12卷第1期。更多奖项信息请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信