ReviewBMJ open2023
Quantitative content analysis of Freedom of Information requests examining the extent and variations of tools and training for conducting suicide risk assessments in NHS Trusts across England.
Review in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Hopeless but supported in that hopelessness": a qualitative study of how people experience talking to a GP about suicide.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDetermining the risk for suicide is a difficult endeavour. Clinical guidance in the UK explicitly advises against using risk assessment tools and scales to determine suicide risk. Based on Freedom of Information (FoI) requests made to NHS Trusts in England, this study provides an overview of suicide risk assessment tools in use, training provided in how to use such assessments, and explores implementation of suicide risk assessment guidance in practice in English NHS Trusts.
designA cross-sectional survey of suicide risk assessment tools and training gathered via FoI requests and subjected to a content analysis.
settingFoI requests were submitted to NHS Trusts across England.
resultsA wide variety of suicide risk assessments tools were identified as being used in practice, with several trusts reported using more than one tool to determine suicide risk. Forty-one trusts reported using locally developed, unvalidated, tools to assess risk of suicide and 18 stated they do not use a tool. Ten trusts stated they do not train their staff in suicide risk assessment while 13 reported use of specific suicide risk assessment training. Sixty-two trusts stated they do not centrally record the number of assessments conducted or how many individuals are identified as at risk. Content analysis indicated the frequent wider assessment of risk not restricted to suicide risk.
conclusionsThere is wide variation in suicide risk assessment tools being used in practice and some lack of specific training for healthcare staff in determining suicide risk. Few trusts routinely record the number of assessments being conducted or the number of individuals identified at high risk. Implementation of specific training is necessary for the suicide risk assessment process to identify patient needs and develop therapeutic engagement. Routinely recording how many assessments are conducted is a crucial step in improving suicide prevention.
Indexed as
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.