The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
ArticleNo Access

Suicide Screening, Risk Assessment, and Lethal Means Counseling During Zero Suicide Implementation

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.20230211

Objective:

The authors measured implementation of Zero Suicide (ZS) clinical practices that support identification of suicide risk and risk mitigation, including screening, risk assessment, and lethal means counseling, across mental health specialty and primary care settings.

Methods:

Six health care systems in California, Colorado, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington participated. The sample included members ages ≥13 years from 2010 to 2019 (N=7,820,524 patients). The proportions of patients with suicidal ideation screening, suicide risk assessment, and lethal means counseling were estimated.

Results:

In 2019, patients were screened for suicidal ideation in 27.1% (range 5.0%–85.0%) of mental health visits and 2.5% (range 0.1%–35.0%) of primary care visits among a racially and ethnically diverse sample (44.9% White, 27.2% Hispanic, 13.4% Asian, and 7.7% Black). More patients screened positive for suicidal ideation in the mental health setting (10.2%) than in the primary care setting (3.8%). Of the patients screening positive for suicidal ideation in the mental health setting, 76.8% received a risk assessment, and 82.4% of those identified as being at high risk received lethal means counseling, compared with 43.2% and 82.4%, respectively, in primary care.

Conclusions:

Six health systems that implemented ZS showed a high level of variation in the proportions of patients receiving suicide screening and risk assessment and lethal means counseling. Two opportunities emerged for further study to increase frequency of these practices: expanding screening beyond patients with regular health care visits and implementing risk assessment with lethal means counseling in the primary care setting directly after a positive suicidal ideation screening.

Access content

To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.