Many policy makers believe that shelter-in-place or stay-at-home policies could cause an increase in what are known as deaths of despair. While increases in psychiatric stressors during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have been reported, it is presently unknown whether suicide rates similarly changed during stay-at-home periods. 1,2 Methods In this cohort study, we assembled suicide death data for persons aged 10 years and older from the Massachusetts Department of Health Registry of Vital Records and Statistics from January 2015 through May 2020. This study was not subject to institutional review board approval or the requirement for informed consent because it used public data. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline was followed.

Many believe that shelter-in-place or stay-at-home policies might cause an increase in so-called deaths of despair. While increases in psychiatric stressors during the COVID-19 pandemic are anticipated, whether suicide rates changed during stay-at-home periods has not been described. This was an observational cohort study that assembled suicide death data for persons aged 10 years or older from the Massachusetts Department of Health Registry of Vital Records and Statistics from January 2015 through May 2020. Using autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) and seasonal ARIMA to analyze suicide deaths in Massachusetts, we compared the observed number of suicide deaths in Massachusetts during the stay-at-home period (March through May, 2020) in Massachusetts to the projected number of expected deaths. To be conservative, we also accounted for the deaths still pending final cause determination The incident rate for suicide deaths in Massachusetts was 0.67 per 100,000 person-month (95% CI 0.56-0.79) versus 0.81 per 100,000 person-month (95% CI 0.69-0.94) during the 2019 corresponding period (incident rate ratio of 0.83; 95% CI 0.66-1.03). The addition of the 57 deaths pending cause determination occurring from March through May 2020 and the 33 cases still pending determination from the 2019 corresponding period did not change these findings. The observed number of suicide deaths during the stay-at-home period did not deviate from ARIMA projected expectations using either preliminary data or an alternate scenario in which deaths pending investigation (exceeding the average remaining number of deaths still pending investigation which occurred during the corresponding 2015-2019 period) were ascribed to suicide. Decedent age and sex demographics were unchanged during the pandemic period compared to 2015-2019. The stable rates of suicide deaths during the stay-at-home advisory in Massachusetts parallel findings following ecological disasters. As the pandemic persists, uncertainty about its scope and economic impact may increase. However, our data are reassuring that an increase in suicide deaths in Massachusetts during the stay-at-home advisory period did not occur.

The treatment of severe mental illness has undergone a paradigm shift over the last 50 years, away from a primary emphasis on hospital-based care and toward community-based care. Some of the forces driving this deinstitutionalization have been scientific and patient-centered, such as better differentiation between acute and subacute risk, innovations in outpatient and crisis care (assertive community treatment programs, dialectical behavioral therapy, treatment-oriented psychiatric emergency services), gradually improving psychopharmacology, and an increased appreciation of the negative effect of coercive hospitalization, except when risk is very high. On the other hand, some of the forces have been less focused on patient needs: budget-driven cuts in public hospital beds divorced from population-based need; managed care’s profit-driven impact on private psychiatric hospitals and outpatient services; and purported patient-centered approaches promoting non-hospital care that may under-recognize that some extremely ill patients need years of painstaking effort to make a community transition.The result has been a reconfiguration of the country’s mental health system that, at times, leaves large numbers of people without adequate mental health and substance abuse services. Often their only option is to seek care in medical emergency departments (ED) that have not been designed for the needs of mentally ill patients. Increasingly, many of those individuals end up waiting in EDs for appropriate care and disposition for hours or days. This overflow phenomenon has become so prevalent that it has been given a name: “boarding.” This practice is almost certainly detrimental to patients and staff, and it has spawned efforts on multiple fronts to understand and resolve it. When considering solutions, both ED-focused and systemwide considerations must be explored. This resource document provides an overview and recommendations regarding this complex topic.