RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Randomized Controlled Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Risk Model-Guided Clinical Decision Support for Suicide Screening
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.03.14.24304318
DO 10.1101/2024.03.14.24304318
A1 Walsh, Colin G.
A1 Ripperger, Michael A.
A1 Novak, Laurie
A1 Reale, Carrie
A1 Anders, Shilo
A1 Spann, Ashley
A1 Kolli, Jhansi
A1 Robinson, Katelyn
A1 Chen, Qingxia
A1 Isaacs, David
A1 Acosta, Lealani Mae Y.
A1 Phibbs, Fenna
A1 Fielstein, Elliot
A1 Wilimitis, Drew
A1 Musacchio Schafer, Katherine
A1 Hilton, Rachel
A1 Albert, Dan
A1 Shelton, Jill
A1 Stroh, Jessica
A1 Stead, William W.
A1 Johnson, Kevin B.
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/18/2024.03.14.24304318.abstract
AB Suicide prevention requires risk identification, appropriate intervention, and follow-up. Traditional risk identification relies on patient self-reporting, support network reporting, or face-to-face screening with validated instruments or history and physical exam. In the last decade, statistical risk models have been studied and more recently deployed to augment clinical judgment. Models have generally been found to be low precision or problematic at scale due to low incidence. Few have been tested in clinical practice, and none have been tested in clinical trials to our knowledge.Methods We report the results of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) in three outpatient adult Neurology clinic settings. This two-arm trial compared the effectiveness of Interruptive and Non-Interruptive Clinical Decision Support (CDS) to prompt further screening of suicidal ideation for those predicted to be high risk using a real-time, validated statistical risk model of suicide attempt risk, with the decision to screen as the primary end point. Secondary outcomes included rates of suicidal ideation and attempts in both arms. Manual chart review of every trial encounter was used to determine if suicide risk assessment was subsequently documented.Results From August 16, 2022, through February 16, 2023, our study randomized 596 patient encounters across 561 patients for providers to receive either Interruptive or Non-Interruptive CDS in a 1:1 ratio. Adjusting for provider cluster effects, Interruptive CDS led to significantly higher numbers of decisions to screen (42%=121/289 encounters) compared to Non-Interruptive CDS (4%=12/307) (odds ratio=17.7, p-value <0.001). Secondarily, no documented episodes of suicidal ideation or attempts occurred in either arm. While the proportion of documented assessments among those noting the decision to screen was higher for providers in the Non-Interruptive arm (92%=11/12) than in the Interruptive arm (52%=63/121), the interruptive CDS was associated with more frequent documentation of suicide risk assessment (63/289 encounters compared to 11/307, p-value<0.001).Conclusions In this pragmatic RCT of real-time predictive CDS to guide suicide risk assessment, Interruptive CDS led to higher numbers of decisions to screen and documented suicide risk assessments. Well-powered large-scale trials randomizing this type of CDS compared to standard of care are indicated to measure effectiveness in reducing suicidal self-harm.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05312437Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNCT05312437Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Evelyn Selby Stead Fund for Innovation (Vanderbilt University Medical Center), NIMH R01MH118233, R01MH121455, R01MH116269, R01 MH120122, NHGRI RM1 HG009034, NIH U54 HG012510, FDA Sentinel WO2006, Wellcome Leap MCPsych.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The IRB of Vanderbilt University Medical Center gave ethical approval for this work.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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesBecause data include sensitive PHI, data are not available for dissemination outside the study team.