Telephone Assessment of Suicidal Risk at Prehospital Emergency Medical Services: A Direct Comparison with Face-to-Face Evaluation at Psychiatric Emergency Service.

IF 2.5 3区医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY

Archives of Suicide Research Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-09 DOI:10.1080/13811118.2023.2265432

Cyrille Norotte, Laure Zeltner, Julia Gross, Marc Delord, Caroline Richard, Marie-Caroline Bembaron, Jean-Marie Caussanel, Annie Herbillon, Christine Rousseau, Carole Chiquet, Christine Ehly, Amandine Pain, Fernando Vadillo, Laure Morisset, Paul Roux, Christine Passerieux, Yves Lambert, Mehrsa Koukabi-Fradelizi, Nadia Younes, Olivier Richard

{"title":"Telephone Assessment of Suicidal Risk at Prehospital Emergency Medical Services: A Direct Comparison with Face-to-Face Evaluation at Psychiatric Emergency Service.","authors":"Cyrille Norotte, Laure Zeltner, Julia Gross, Marc Delord, Caroline Richard, Marie-Caroline Bembaron, Jean-Marie Caussanel, Annie Herbillon, Christine Rousseau, Carole Chiquet, Christine Ehly, Amandine Pain, Fernando Vadillo, Laure Morisset, Paul Roux, Christine Passerieux, Yves Lambert, Mehrsa Koukabi-Fradelizi, Nadia Younes, Olivier Richard","doi":"10.1080/13811118.2023.2265432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Assessment of suicidal risk is one of the most challenging tasks faced by health professionals, notably in emergency care. We compared telephone suicide risk assessment at prehospital Emergency Medical Services Dispatch Center (EMS-DC), with subsequent face-to-face evaluation at Psychiatric Emergency Service (PES), using French national Risk-Urgency-Danger standards (RUD).Method: Data were collected for all suicidal adult patients (N = 80) who were addressed by EMS-DC to PES between December 2018 and August 2019 and benefited from RUD assessment at both services. Suicidal risk was given a score of 1, 2, 3 or 4, in order of severity.Results: Mean of the differences between the RUD score at EMS-DC and PES was -0.825 (SD = 1.19), and was found to be significant (p < 0.01). The average time between RUD assessments was 420 min (SD = 448) and was negatively correlated with the difference in the RUD score (r = -0.295, p = 0.008). Associated suicide attempt increased the odds of a decrease in the RUD score (OR = 2.989; 95% CI = 1.141-8.069; p < 0.05).Conclusions: Telephone evaluation of suicidal risk using RUD at EMS-DC yielded moderately higher scores than those obtained by a subsequent face-to face evaluation at PES, with this difference partially explained by the time between assessments, and by clinical and contextual factors.","PeriodicalId":8325,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Suicide Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Suicide Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2023.2265432","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Assessment of suicidal risk is one of the most challenging tasks faced by health professionals, notably in emergency care. We compared telephone suicide risk assessment at prehospital Emergency Medical Services Dispatch Center (EMS-DC), with subsequent face-to-face evaluation at Psychiatric Emergency Service (PES), using French national Risk-Urgency-Danger standards (RUD).

Method: Data were collected for all suicidal adult patients (N = 80) who were addressed by EMS-DC to PES between December 2018 and August 2019 and benefited from RUD assessment at both services. Suicidal risk was given a score of 1, 2, 3 or 4, in order of severity.

Results: Mean of the differences between the RUD score at EMS-DC and PES was -0.825 (SD = 1.19), and was found to be significant (p < 0.01). The average time between RUD assessments was 420 min (SD = 448) and was negatively correlated with the difference in the RUD score (r = -0.295, p = 0.008). Associated suicide attempt increased the odds of a decrease in the RUD score (OR = 2.989; 95% CI = 1.141-8.069; p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Telephone evaluation of suicidal risk using RUD at EMS-DC yielded moderately higher scores than those obtained by a subsequent face-to face evaluation at PES, with this difference partially explained by the time between assessments, and by clinical and contextual factors.

查看原文本刊更多论文

院前急救医疗服务中自杀风险的电话评估：与精神病急救服务中面对面评估的直接比较。

目的：评估自杀风险是卫生专业人员面临的最具挑战性的任务之一，尤其是在急救中。我们比较了院前急救医疗服务调度中心（EMS-DC）的电话自杀风险评估和随后在精神病急救服务中心（PES）使用法国国家风险紧急危险标准（RUD）进行的面对面评估 = 80），他们在2018年12月至2019年8月期间由EMS-DC向PES提出，并从两个服务的RUD评估中受益。自杀风险按严重程度分为1、2、3或4。结果：在EMS-DC和PES的RUD评分之间的平均差异为-0.825（SD=1.19），并且被发现是显著的（p r = -0.295，p = 0.008）。相关的自杀企图增加了RUD评分下降的几率（OR=2.989；95%CI=1.41-8.069；p 结论：与随后在PES进行的面对面评估相比，在EMS-DC中使用RUD进行的自杀风险电话评估的得分略高，这种差异部分由评估之间的时间以及临床和背景因素解释。

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

Archives of Suicide Research Multiple-

CiteScore

6.10

自引率

7.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Archives of Suicide Research, the official journal of the International Academy of Suicide Research (IASR), is the international journal in the field of suicidology. The journal features original, refereed contributions on the study of suicide, suicidal behavior, its causes and effects, and techniques for prevention. The journal incorporates research-based and theoretical articles contributed by a diverse range of authors interested in investigating the biological, pharmacological, psychiatric, psychological, and sociological aspects of suicide.