Provider perspectives on care for veterans with electronic health record flags for high suicide risk: A mixed methods study.

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Jessica A Chen, Andrew R Devendorf, Alta du Pont, Eric Epler, Larry D Pruitt, Jesse Markman, Mark A Reger
{"title":"Provider perspectives on care for veterans with electronic health record flags for high suicide risk: A mixed methods study.","authors":"Jessica A Chen, Andrew R Devendorf, Alta du Pont, Eric Epler, Larry D Pruitt, Jesse Markman, Mark A Reger","doi":"10.1037/ser0000995","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Electronic health record (EHR) flags alert staff within the Veteran Health Administration (VHA) to patients at high suicide risk for the purpose of enhancing their care. VHA implemented patient record flags category I-high risk for suicide (HRS-PRFs) in 2008, yet little is known about provider perceptions. In non-VHA settings, some EHR flags and alerts are perceived unfavorably by providers. This mixed methods quality improvement study examined perspectives of VHA mental health clinicians and suicide prevention coordinators (SPCs) regarding the perceived utility and drawbacks of HRS-PRFs. We conducted a national survey of SPCs (<i>N</i> = 286; February-March 2022) and semistructured qualitative interviews (January-July 2022) with a separate sample of SPCs (<i>n</i> = 5) and mental health clinicians (<i>n</i> = 20) with recent HRS-PRF experience. Providers reported satisfaction with HRS-PRFs and believed that they identify at-risk veterans and facilitate engagement in care. Survey and interview findings highlighted differences between SPCs and mental health clinicians regarding negative perceptions of HRS-PRFs. In the survey, one in five SPCs were dissatisfied with the administrative burden of delivering caring contacts, a required evidence-based suicide prevention intervention mailed for a year following flag inactivation. In the interview findings, some clinicians expressed concerns about unintended consequences on therapeutic rapport and stigma. Additional evaluation is warranted to assess veterans' experiences and clinical effectiveness outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20749,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Services","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000995","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Electronic health record (EHR) flags alert staff within the Veteran Health Administration (VHA) to patients at high suicide risk for the purpose of enhancing their care. VHA implemented patient record flags category I-high risk for suicide (HRS-PRFs) in 2008, yet little is known about provider perceptions. In non-VHA settings, some EHR flags and alerts are perceived unfavorably by providers. This mixed methods quality improvement study examined perspectives of VHA mental health clinicians and suicide prevention coordinators (SPCs) regarding the perceived utility and drawbacks of HRS-PRFs. We conducted a national survey of SPCs (N = 286; February-March 2022) and semistructured qualitative interviews (January-July 2022) with a separate sample of SPCs (n = 5) and mental health clinicians (n = 20) with recent HRS-PRF experience. Providers reported satisfaction with HRS-PRFs and believed that they identify at-risk veterans and facilitate engagement in care. Survey and interview findings highlighted differences between SPCs and mental health clinicians regarding negative perceptions of HRS-PRFs. In the survey, one in five SPCs were dissatisfied with the administrative burden of delivering caring contacts, a required evidence-based suicide prevention intervention mailed for a year following flag inactivation. In the interview findings, some clinicians expressed concerns about unintended consequences on therapeutic rapport and stigma. Additional evaluation is warranted to assess veterans' experiences and clinical effectiveness outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

提供者对高自杀风险退伍军人电子健康记录标记护理的观点:一项混合方法研究。
电子健康记录(EHR)标志提醒退伍军人健康管理局(VHA)的工作人员注意有高自杀风险的病人,以便加强对他们的护理。VHA在2008年实施了病人记录标记i类自杀高风险(hr - prfs),但对提供者的看法知之甚少。在非vha设置中,一些EHR标志和警报被提供者认为是不利的。这项混合方法质量改进研究考察了VHA心理健康临床医生和自杀预防协调员(SPCs)关于hr - prfs的感知效用和缺点的观点。我们对SPCs进行了一项全国调查(N = 286, 2022年2月至3月),并对SPCs (N = 5)和最近具有rs - prf经验的心理健康临床医生(N = 20)进行了半结构化定性访谈(2022年1月至7月)。提供者报告了对hr - prfs的满意度,并认为他们识别了有风险的退伍军人,并促进了护理的参与。调查和访谈结果突出了SPCs和心理健康临床医生对hr - prfs的负面看法的差异。在调查中,五分之一的SPCs不满意提供关怀联系的行政负担,这是一项在旗帜停用后一年内邮寄的以证据为基础的自杀预防干预措施。在访谈结果中,一些临床医生表达了对治疗融洽和耻辱的意外后果的担忧。额外的评估是必要的,以评估退伍军人的经验和临床效果结果。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
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
Psychological Services
Psychological Services PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
13.00%
发文量
216
期刊介绍: Psychological Services publishes high-quality data-based articles on the broad range of psychological services. While the Division"s focus is on psychologists in "public service," usually defined as being employed by a governmental agency, Psychological Services covers the full range of psychological services provided in any service delivery setting. Psychological Services encourages submission of papers that focus on broad issues related to psychotherapy outcomes, evaluations of psychological service programs and systems, and public policy analyses.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信