The Acceptability and Feasibility of an ED-based, Peer-delivered, Suicide Safety Planning Intervention

Suicidal Ideation Clinical Trial

Official title:

The Acceptability and Feasibility of an ED-based, Peer-delivered, Suicide Safety Planning Intervention

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT04068142
• Other study ID #: 239486
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: November 6, 2019
• Est. completion date: January 1, 2021

Study information

• Verified date: October 2021
• Source: University of Arkansas
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

Safety planning is a brief, ED-feasible intervention which has been demonstrated to save lives, and has been universally recommended by every recent expert consensus panel on suicide prevention strategies. In one popular version of the safety plan developed by Stanley et al, the patient is encouraged to write out the following items: identifying personal signs of a crisis; helpful internal coping strategies; social contacts or settings which may distract from a crisis; using family members or friends for help when in crisis; mental health professionals who can be contacted when in crisis; and restricting access to lethal means. In most emergency departments, safety-planning is done by clinical personnel such as psychologists or social workers, but these providers are often too busy to perform safety-planning well or have multiple other patient care responsibilities. This study aims to find out if ED patients prefer to complete a safety plan with a peer supporter or clinical personnel. People who are visiting the emergency department for thoughts of self-harm will be asked to participate.

Description:

This project aims to answer the following three research questions: (1) In general, do ED patients with suicidal ideation/attempt prefer to interact with/receive support from peers with life experiences of suicide or clinical professionals who might have such life experiences or not? (2) Will patients with suicidal ideation/attempt accept a peer-delivered safety planning intervention as opposed to one delivered by clinical personnel? (3) Are peer-delivered safety plans of equal quality as those delivered by clinical personnel?

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 37
• Est. completion date: January 1, 2021
• Est. primary completion date: September 1, 2020
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years to 89 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patients presenting for suicidal ideation (SI) or after a suicide attempt to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) Emergency Department (ED)
• Willingness to engage in safety planning with trained non-clinical staff
• English-speaking and English-writing (as translators will not be available for this study)

Exclusion Criteria:

• <18 or >89 years of age
• Patients appearing critically-ill
• Incarcerated or in police custody
• Currently intoxicated with alcohol or other substance
• ED staff objection to patient enrollment in study
• Unwilling or unable to complete the safety plan with a peer supporter
• Unwilling or unable to show the safety plan to clinical staff

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Mental Health Issue
• Suicidal Ideation
• Suicide
• Suicide, Attempted

Intervention

Other:
• Peer Supporter Safety Planning
The rationale for testing a peer-delivered intervention in the ED relies on the following evidence: a) a peer is an individual with lived experience who is now supporting other mental health patients in crisis; b) the experience of a mental health patient in the ED often shapes the perception of the health system, and may influence willingness to seek future care; c) peers may provide more empathetic care than providers without lived experience, which may positively impact patients; d) peer-based programs for patients with serious mental illness that do not involve safety planning are at least as good as non-peer based programs at preventing hospitalizations and promoting engagement in care, with the most promising interventions involving self-management or peer-navigator roles; and e) existing evidence from high-quality studies is scarce, but in moderate-low quality studies has indicated that peers are no less effective than mental health workers

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences	Little Rock	Arkansas

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
University of Arkansas

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Number of Suicidal Ideology (SI) Participants Who Agree to Receive a Safety Plan	Evaluate the number of suicidal ideology (SI) patients approached in the ED who agree to receive a safety plan.	approach in the ED (typically <1 hour)
Primary	Proportion of Eligible Patients	Evaluate the proportion of patients approached who meet all inclusion/exclusion criteria.	Up to 12 hours
Primary	Quality of Safety Plans	Evaluate the quality of the completed safety plans. This will be done by retrospective review after the patient has left the ED. Safety plans will be graded individually, then resolved by consensus, for quality (0=blank, 1=boilerplate, 2=some evidence of personalization, 3=highly personalized; range=0-24) by the investigators using materials developed by Brown and Stanley for this purpose. Using a "safety checklist," responses for each of the 6 safety plan steps will be classified according to the personalization of the information in each step.	Up to 12 hours
Primary	Satisfaction With Safety Planning	Evaluate patient satisfaction with safety planning. This will be assessed by having the patient rate their experience with the safety planning process on a 7-point Likert scale (1 - strongly disagree; 2 - disagree; 3 - moderately disagree; 4 - neutral; 5 - moderately agree; 6 - agree; 7 - strongly agree). A Likert scale measures how much someone disagrees or agrees with a particular statement.	Up to 12 hours