BackgroundThe greatly increased risk of suicide after psychiatric hospitalization is a critical problem, yet we are unable to identify individuals who would attempt suicide upon discharge. The Suicide Trigger Scale v.3 (STS-3), was designed to measure the construct of an affective ‘suicide trigger state’ hypothesized to precede a suicide attempt (SA). This study aims to test the predictive validity of the STS-3 for post-discharge SA on a high-risk psychiatric-inpatient sample.MethodsThe STS-3, and a psychological test battery measuring suicidality, mood, impulsivity, trauma history, and attachment style were administered to 161 adult psychiatric patients hospitalized following suicidal ideation (SI) or SA. Receiver Operator Characteristic and logistic regression analyses were used to assess prediction of SA in the 6-month period following discharge from hospitalization.ResultsSTS-3 scores for the patients who made post-discharge SA followed a bimodal distribution skewed to high and low scores, thus a distance from median transform was applied to the scores. The transformed score was a significant predictor of post-discharge SA (AUC 0.731), and a subset of six STS-3 scale items was identified that produced improved prediction of post-discharge SA (AUC 0.814). Scores on C-SSRS and BSS were not predictive. Patients with ultra-high (90th percentile) STS-3 scores differed significantly from ultra-low (10th percentile) scorers on measures of affective intensity, depression, impulsiveness, abuse history, and attachment security.ConclusionSTS-3 transformed scores at admission to the psychiatric hospital predict suicide attempts following discharge among the high-risk group of suicidal inpatients. Patients with high transformed scores appear to comprise two clinically distinct groups; an impulsive, affectively intense, fearfully attached group with high raw STS-3 scores and a low-impulsivity, low affect and low trauma-reporting group with low raw STS-3 scores. These groups may correspond to low-plan and planned suicide attempts, respectively, but this remains to be established by future research.

No abstract

BackgroundClinician responses to patients have been recognized as an important factor in treatment outcome. Clinician responses to suicidal patients have received little attention in the literature however, and no quantitative studies have been published. Further, although patients with high versus low lethality suicidal behaviors have been speculated to represent two distinct populations, clinicians’ emotional responses to them have not been examined.MethodsClinicians’ responses to their patients when last seeing them prior to patients’ suicide attempt or death were assessed retrospectively with the Therapist Response/Countertransference Questionnaire, administered anonymously via an Internet survey service. Scores on individual items and subscale scores were compared between groups, and linear discriminant analysis was applied to determine the combination of items that best discriminated between groups.ResultsClinicians reported on patients who completed suicide, made high-lethality attempts, low-lethality attempts, or died unexpected non-suicidal deaths in a total of 82 cases. We found that clinicians treating imminently suicidal patients had less positive feelings towards these patients than for non-suicidal patients, but had higher hopes for their treatment, while finding themselves notably more overwhelmed, distressed by, and to some degree avoidant of them. Further, we found that the specific paradoxical combination of hopefulness and distress/avoidance was a significant discriminator between suicidal patients and those who died unexpected non-suicidal deaths with 90% sensitivity and 56% specificity. In addition, we identified one questionnaire item that discriminated significantly between high- and low-lethality suicide patients.ConclusionsClinicians’ emotional responses to patients at risk versus not at risk for imminent suicide attempt may be distinct in ways consistent with responses theorized by Maltsberger and Buie in 1974. Prospective replication is needed to confirm these results, however. Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of using quantitative self-report methodologies for investigation of the relationship between clinicians’ emotional responses to suicidal patients and suicide risk.

We examine the interrelations among clinicians' judgment of patients' suicide risk, clinicians' emotional responses, and standard risk factors in the short-term prediction of suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Psychiatric outpatients (n = 153) with a lifetime history of suicide ideation/attempt and their treating clinicians (n = 67) were evaluated at intake. Clinicians completed a standard suicide risk instrument (modified SAD PERSONS scale), a 10-point Likert scale assessment of judgment of patient suicide risk (Clinician Prediction Scale), and a measure of their emotional responses to the patient (Therapist Response Questionnaire-Suicide Form). The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale and the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation were administered at a one-month follow-up assessment (n = 114, 74.5%). Clinician judgment of risk significantly predicted suicidal thoughts and behaviors at follow-up. Both the standard suicide risk instrument and clinician emotional responses contributed independently to the clinician assessment of risk, which, in turn, mediated their relationships with suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Our findings validate the importance of clinical judgment in assessing suicide risk. Clinical judgment appears to be informed both by concrete risk factors and clinicians' emotional responses to suicidal patients, highlighting emotional awareness as a promising area for research and training.

No abstract