Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36517785›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2022

Clinical implementation of suicide risk prediction models in healthcare: a qualitative study.

Bobbi Jo H Yarborough, Scott P Stumbo, Jennifer Schneider, Julie E Richards, Stephanie A Hooker, Rebecca Rossom

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bobbi Jo H YarboroughKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Ave Portland, 97227, Portland, OR, USA. bobbijo.h.yarborough@kpchr.org.
Scott P StumboKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Ave Portland, 97227, Portland, OR, USA.
Jennifer SchneiderKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Ave Portland, 97227, Portland, OR, USA.
Julie E RichardsKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, WA, Seattle, USA.
Stephanie A HookerHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Rebecca RossomHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · USHealthPartners · USSeattle University · US

Funding

Whose Depression Are We Measuring?: Considering the role of place on Black women’s depression outcomesU19MH121738 · NIMH · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI SIMON, GREGORY E. · 2019 to 2023
$10.6M
NIMH NIH HHS U19 MH121738
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuicide risk prediction models derived from electronic health records (EHR) are a novel innovation in suicide prevention but there is little evidence to guide their implementation.

methodsIn this qualitative study, 30 clinicians and 10 health care administrators were interviewed from one health system anticipating implementation of an automated EHR-derived suicide risk prediction model and two health systems piloting different implementation approaches. Site-tailored interview guides focused on respondents' expectations for and experiences with suicide risk prediction models in clinical practice, and suggestions for improving implementation. Interview prompts and content analysis were guided by Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs.

resultsAdministrators and clinicians found use of the suicide risk prediction model and the two implementation approaches acceptable. Clinicians desired opportunities for early buy-in, implementation decision-making, and feedback. They wanted to better understand how this manner of risk identification enhanced existing suicide prevention efforts. They also wanted additional training to understand how the model determined risk, particularly after patients they expected to see identified by the model were not flagged at-risk and patients they did not expect to see identified were. Clinicians were concerned about having enough suicide prevention resources for potentially increased demand and about their personal liability; they wanted clear procedures for situations when they could not reach patients or when patients remained at-risk over a sustained period. Suggestions for making risk model workflows more efficient and less burdensome included consolidating suicide risk information in a dedicated module in the EHR and populating risk assessment scores and text in clinical notes.

conclusionHealth systems considering suicide risk model implementation should engage clinicians early in the process to ensure they understand how risk models estimate risk and add value to existing workflows, clarify clinician role expectations, and summarize risk information in a convenient place in the EHR to support high-quality patient care.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareSuicideElectronic Health RecordsHumansQualitative ResearchArtificial intelligenceClinicianImplementationQualitative methodsSuicide risk

Identifiers

PMID36517785
PMCPMC9748385
OpenAlexW4311364343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.