ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2020
An investigation of clinical decisionmaking: identifying important factors in treatment planning for suicidal patients in the emergency department.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association Between Current Suicidal Ideation and Personality Traits: Analysis of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in a Community Mental Health Sample.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- An investigation of clinical decisionmaking: identifying important factors in treatment planning for suicidal patients in the emergency department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe sought to evaluate the influence of several well-documented, readily available risk factors that may influence a psychiatric consultant's decision to admit an emergency department (ED) patient reporting suicidal ideation for psychiatric hospitalization.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of adult patients presenting to six affiliated EDs within Pennsylvania from January 2015 to June 2017. We identified 533 patients reporting current active suicidal ideation and receiving a complete psychiatric consultation. Socio-demographic characteristics, psychiatric presentation and history, and disposition were collected. Decision tree analysis was conducted with disposition as the outcome.
resultsFour of 27 variables emerged as most influential to decisionmaking, including psychiatric consultant determination of current suicide risk, patient age, current depressive disorder diagnosis, and patient history of physical violence. Likelihood of admission versus discharge ranged from 97% to 58%, depending on the variables considered. Post hoc analysis indicated that current suicide plan, access to means, lack of social support, and suicide attempt history were significantly associated with psychiatric consultant determination of moderate-to-high suicide risk, with small-to-medium effect sizes emerging.
conclusionsOnly a handful of variables drive disposition decisions for ED patients reporting current active suicidal ideation, with both high and low fidelity decisions made. Patient suicide risk, determined by considering empirically supported risk factors for suicide attempt and death, contributes the greatest influence on a psychiatric consultant's decision to admit. In line with American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) recommendations, this study accentuates the importance of using clinical judgment and adjunct measures to determine patient disposition within this population.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.