Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36237289›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2022

Studying the implementation of Zero Suicide in a large health system: Challenges, adaptations, and lessons learned.

Edwin D Boudreaux, Celine Larkin, Ana Vallejo Sefair, Eric Mick, Karen Clements, Lori Pelletier, Chengwu Yang, Catarina Kiefe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A Randomized Control Trial of a Digital Health Tool for Safer Firearm and Medication Storage for Patients with Suicide Risk.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2024
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Edwin D BoudreauxDepartments of Emergency Medicine, Psychiatry, and Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Celine LarkinDepartments of Emergency Medicine and Psychiatry, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Ana Vallejo SefairDepartments of Emergency Medicine, Psychiatry, and Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Eric MickDepartment of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Karen ClementsDepartment of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Lori PelletierConnecticut Children's Hospital, Hartford, CT, USA.
Chengwu YangDepartment of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Catarina KiefeDepartment of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · USConnecticut Children's Medical Center · US

Funding

Evaluating opioids and suicide prevention in health care settings through the System of SafetyR01MH112138 · NIMH · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI BOUDREAUX, EDWIN D, KIEFE, CATARINA I. · 2016 to 2020
$6.4M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH112138
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Suicide remains the 10th leading cause of death in the United States. Many patients presenting to healthcare settings with suicide risk are not identified and their risk mitigated during routine care. Our aim is to describe the planned methodology for studying the implementation of the Zero Suicide framework, a systems-based model designed to improve suicide risk detection and treatment, within a large healthcare system. Methods: We planned to use a stepped wedge design to roll-out the Zero Suicide framework over 4 years with a total of 39 clinical units, spanning emergency department, inpatient, and outpatient settings, involving ∼310,000 patients. We used Lean, a widely adopted a continuous quality improvement (CQI) model, to implement improvements using a centralize "hub" working with smaller "spoke" teams comprising CQI personnel, unit managers, and frontline staff. Results: Over the course of the study, five major disruptions impacted our research methods, including a change in The Joint Commission's safety standards for suicide risk mitigation yielding massive system-wide changes and the COVID-19 pandemic. What had been an ambitious program at onset became increasingly challenging because of the disruptions, requiring significant adaptations to our implementation approach and our study methods. Conclusions: Real-life obstacles interfered markedly with our plans. While we were ultimately successful in implementing Zero Suicide, these obstacles led to adaptations to our approach and timeline and required substantial changes in our study methodology. Future studies of quality improvement efforts that cut across multiple units and settings within a given health system should avoid using a stepped-wedge design with randomization at the unit level if there is the potential for sentinel, system-wide events.

Indexed as

(CQI), continuous quality improvement(ED), Emergency Department(EHR), lectronic health record(GIS), Geographic Information SystemsImplementation scienceMental health(NIMH), National Institute of Mental HealthQuality improvement(SOS), System of SafetySuicideSuicide prevention

Identifiers

PMID36237289
PMCPMC9551075
OpenAlexW4296311514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.