Challenges of Population-based Measurement of Suicide Prevention Activities Across Multiple Health Systems.

Bobbi Jo H Yarborough, Brian K Ahmedani, Jennifer M Boggs, Arne Beck, Karen J Coleman, Stacy Sterling, Michael Schoenbaum, Julie Goldstein-Grumet, Gregory E Simon
{"title":"Challenges of Population-based Measurement of Suicide Prevention Activities Across Multiple Health Systems.","authors":"Bobbi Jo H Yarborough,&nbsp;Brian K Ahmedani,&nbsp;Jennifer M Boggs,&nbsp;Arne Beck,&nbsp;Karen J Coleman,&nbsp;Stacy Sterling,&nbsp;Michael Schoenbaum,&nbsp;Julie Goldstein-Grumet,&nbsp;Gregory E Simon","doi":"10.5334/egems.277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Suicide is a preventable public health problem. Zero Suicide (ZS) is a suicide prevention framework currently being evaluated by Mental Health Research Network investigators embedded in six Health Care Systems Research Network (HCSRN) member health systems implementing ZS. This paper describes ongoing collaboration to develop population-based process improvement metrics for use in, and comparison across, these and other health systems. Robust process improvement metrics are sorely needed by the hundreds of health systems across the country preparing to implement their own best practices in suicide care. Here we articulate three examples of challenges in using health system data to assess suicide prevention activities, each in ascending order of complexity: 1) Mapping and reconciling different versions of suicide risk assessment instruments across health systems; 2) Deciding what should count as adequate suicide prevention follow-up care and how to count it in different health systems with different care processes; and 3) Trying to determine whether a safety planning discussion took place between a clinician and a patient, and if so, what actually happened. To develop broadly applicable metrics, we have advocated for standardization of care processes and their documentation, encouraged standardized screening tools and urged they be recorded as discrete electronic health record (EHR) variables, and engaged with our clinical partners and health system data architects to identify all relevant care processes and the ways they are recorded in the EHR so we are not systematically missing important data. Serving as embedded research partners in our local ZS implementation teams has facilitated this work.</p>","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6460503/pdf/","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.277","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Suicide is a preventable public health problem. Zero Suicide (ZS) is a suicide prevention framework currently being evaluated by Mental Health Research Network investigators embedded in six Health Care Systems Research Network (HCSRN) member health systems implementing ZS. This paper describes ongoing collaboration to develop population-based process improvement metrics for use in, and comparison across, these and other health systems. Robust process improvement metrics are sorely needed by the hundreds of health systems across the country preparing to implement their own best practices in suicide care. Here we articulate three examples of challenges in using health system data to assess suicide prevention activities, each in ascending order of complexity: 1) Mapping and reconciling different versions of suicide risk assessment instruments across health systems; 2) Deciding what should count as adequate suicide prevention follow-up care and how to count it in different health systems with different care processes; and 3) Trying to determine whether a safety planning discussion took place between a clinician and a patient, and if so, what actually happened. To develop broadly applicable metrics, we have advocated for standardization of care processes and their documentation, encouraged standardized screening tools and urged they be recorded as discrete electronic health record (EHR) variables, and engaged with our clinical partners and health system data architects to identify all relevant care processes and the ways they are recorded in the EHR so we are not systematically missing important data. Serving as embedded research partners in our local ZS implementation teams has facilitated this work.

跨多个卫生系统以人口为基础的自杀预防活动测量的挑战。
自杀是一个可预防的公共卫生问题。零自杀(ZS)是一个自杀预防框架,目前正在由嵌入六个卫生保健系统研究网络(HCSRN)成员卫生系统的心理健康研究网络调查员进行评估。本文描述了正在进行的合作,以开发基于人群的流程改进指标,用于这些和其他卫生系统,并在它们之间进行比较。全国数百个准备实施自己的自杀护理最佳做法的卫生系统迫切需要强有力的流程改进指标。在此,我们阐明了在使用卫生系统数据评估自杀预防活动方面面临的三个挑战,每个挑战的复杂性依次上升:1)绘制和协调跨卫生系统的不同版本的自杀风险评估工具;2)决定什么应该算作适当的自杀预防后续护理,以及如何在不同的卫生系统和不同的护理程序中进行计算;3)试图确定临床医生和患者之间是否进行了安全计划讨论,如果有,实际发生了什么。为了制定广泛适用的指标,我们提倡护理流程及其文件的标准化,鼓励标准化筛查工具,并敦促将其记录为离散的电子健康记录(EHR)变量,并与我们的临床合作伙伴和卫生系统数据架构师合作,确定所有相关的护理流程及其在EHR中的记录方式,以便我们不会系统性地遗漏重要数据。作为我们当地ZS实施团队的嵌入式研究合作伙伴,促进了这项工作。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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