Abstract
Background Over 5000 suicides are registered in England and Wales each year. Coroners’ Prevention of Future Deaths reports (PFDs) share concerns to promote actions to reduce the risks of similar deaths.
Aims To systematically review coroners’ PFDs involving suicides in which a medicine caused or contributed to the death, to identify lessons for suicide prevention.
Methods 3037 PFDs were screened for eligibility between July 2013 and December 2019. Following data extraction, descriptive statistics and content analysis were performed to assess coroners’ concerns, the recipients, and the response rates to reports.
Results There were 734 suicide-related PFDs, with 100 reporting a medicine. Opioids (40%) were the most common class involved in suicide-related PFDs, followed by antidepressants (30%). There was wide geographical variation in the writing of PFDs; coroners in Manchester wrote the most (18%). Coroners expressed 237 concerns; the most common were procedural inadequacies (14%, n=32), inadequate documentation and communication (10%, n=22), and inappropriate prescription access (9%, n=21). 203 recipients received these PFDs, most being sent to NHS trusts (31%), clinical commissioning groups (10%), and general practices (10%), of which only 58% responded to the coroner.
Conclusions Concerns raised by coroners in suicide-related PFDs involving medicines highlight essential gaps in care that require actions from the Government, health services, and prescribers. To aid suicide prevention, PFDs should be disseminated nationally, and responses should be enforced so that actions are taken to prevent suicides.
Study protocol registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EXJK3
Competing Interest Statement
GA has no conflicts to declares. JKA has published articles and edited textbooks on adverse drug reactions and interactions and has often given medicolegal advice, including appearances as an expert witness in coroners' courts, dealing with the adverse effects of drugs. CH has received expenses and fees for his media work, received expenses from the World Health Organisation (WHO), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and holds grant funding from the NIHR School for Primary Care Research (SPCR), and the NIHR SPCR Evidence Synthesis Working Group [Project 380], the NIHR BRC Oxford and the WHO. On occasion, CH receives expenses for teaching EBM and is also paid for his GP work in NHS out of hours (contract with Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust). GCR has a casual contract with the University of Oxford to teach and supervise research. GCR is an Associate Editor of BMJ Evidence Based Medicine and is the Director of a limited company that is independently contracted to conduct epidemiological research. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Clinical Protocols
https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EXJK3
Funding Statement
No funding was obtained to undertake this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
To implement revision comments
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the OSF at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AD4UP
