Cargando…

Accuracy of risk scales for predicting repeat self-harm and suicide: a multicentre, population-level cohort study using routine clinical data

BACKGROUND: Risk scales are used widely in the management of patients presenting to hospital following self-harm. However, there is evidence that their diagnostic accuracy in predicting repeat self-harm is limited. Their predictive accuracy in population settings, and in identifying those at highest...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Steeg, Sarah, Quinlivan, Leah, Nowland, Rebecca, Carroll, Robert, Casey, Deborah, Clements, Caroline, Cooper, Jayne, Davies, Linda, Knipe, Duleeka, Ness, Jennifer, O’Connor, Rory C., Hawton, Keith, Gunnell, David, Kapur, Nav
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5921289/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29699523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1693-z
_version_ 1783317976588484608
author Steeg, Sarah
Quinlivan, Leah
Nowland, Rebecca
Carroll, Robert
Casey, Deborah
Clements, Caroline
Cooper, Jayne
Davies, Linda
Knipe, Duleeka
Ness, Jennifer
O’Connor, Rory C.
Hawton, Keith
Gunnell, David
Kapur, Nav
author_facet Steeg, Sarah
Quinlivan, Leah
Nowland, Rebecca
Carroll, Robert
Casey, Deborah
Clements, Caroline
Cooper, Jayne
Davies, Linda
Knipe, Duleeka
Ness, Jennifer
O’Connor, Rory C.
Hawton, Keith
Gunnell, David
Kapur, Nav
author_sort Steeg, Sarah
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Risk scales are used widely in the management of patients presenting to hospital following self-harm. However, there is evidence that their diagnostic accuracy in predicting repeat self-harm is limited. Their predictive accuracy in population settings, and in identifying those at highest risk of suicide is not known. METHOD: We compared the predictive accuracy of the Manchester Self-Harm Rule (MSHR), ReACT Self-Harm Rule (ReACT), SAD PERSONS Scale (SPS) and Modified SAD PERSONS Scale (MSPS) in an unselected sample of patients attending hospital following self-harm. Data on 4000 episodes of self-harm presenting to Emergency Departments (ED) between 2010 and 2012 were obtained from four established monitoring systems in England. Episodes were assigned a risk category for each scale and followed up for 6 months. RESULTS: The episode-based repeat rate was 28% (1133/4000) and the incidence of suicide was 0.5% (18/3962). The MSHR and ReACT performed with high sensitivity (98% and 94% respectively) and low specificity (15% and 23%). The SPS and the MSPS performed with relatively low sensitivity (24–29% and 9–12% respectively) and high specificity (76–77% and 90%). The area under the curve was 71% for both MSHR and ReACT, 51% for SPS and 49% for MSPS. Differences in predictive accuracy by subgroup were small. The scales were less accurate at predicting suicide than repeat self-harm. CONCLUSIONS: The scales failed to accurately predict repeat self-harm and suicide. The findings support existing clinical guidance not to use risk classification scales alone to determine treatment or predict future risk. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12888-018-1693-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5921289
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59212892018-05-01 Accuracy of risk scales for predicting repeat self-harm and suicide: a multicentre, population-level cohort study using routine clinical data Steeg, Sarah Quinlivan, Leah Nowland, Rebecca Carroll, Robert Casey, Deborah Clements, Caroline Cooper, Jayne Davies, Linda Knipe, Duleeka Ness, Jennifer O’Connor, Rory C. Hawton, Keith Gunnell, David Kapur, Nav BMC Psychiatry Research Article BACKGROUND: Risk scales are used widely in the management of patients presenting to hospital following self-harm. However, there is evidence that their diagnostic accuracy in predicting repeat self-harm is limited. Their predictive accuracy in population settings, and in identifying those at highest risk of suicide is not known. METHOD: We compared the predictive accuracy of the Manchester Self-Harm Rule (MSHR), ReACT Self-Harm Rule (ReACT), SAD PERSONS Scale (SPS) and Modified SAD PERSONS Scale (MSPS) in an unselected sample of patients attending hospital following self-harm. Data on 4000 episodes of self-harm presenting to Emergency Departments (ED) between 2010 and 2012 were obtained from four established monitoring systems in England. Episodes were assigned a risk category for each scale and followed up for 6 months. RESULTS: The episode-based repeat rate was 28% (1133/4000) and the incidence of suicide was 0.5% (18/3962). The MSHR and ReACT performed with high sensitivity (98% and 94% respectively) and low specificity (15% and 23%). The SPS and the MSPS performed with relatively low sensitivity (24–29% and 9–12% respectively) and high specificity (76–77% and 90%). The area under the curve was 71% for both MSHR and ReACT, 51% for SPS and 49% for MSPS. Differences in predictive accuracy by subgroup were small. The scales were less accurate at predicting suicide than repeat self-harm. CONCLUSIONS: The scales failed to accurately predict repeat self-harm and suicide. The findings support existing clinical guidance not to use risk classification scales alone to determine treatment or predict future risk. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12888-018-1693-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-04-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5921289/ /pubmed/29699523 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1693-z Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Steeg, Sarah
Quinlivan, Leah
Nowland, Rebecca
Carroll, Robert
Casey, Deborah
Clements, Caroline
Cooper, Jayne
Davies, Linda
Knipe, Duleeka
Ness, Jennifer
O’Connor, Rory C.
Hawton, Keith
Gunnell, David
Kapur, Nav
Accuracy of risk scales for predicting repeat self-harm and suicide: a multicentre, population-level cohort study using routine clinical data
title Accuracy of risk scales for predicting repeat self-harm and suicide: a multicentre, population-level cohort study using routine clinical data
title_full Accuracy of risk scales for predicting repeat self-harm and suicide: a multicentre, population-level cohort study using routine clinical data
title_fullStr Accuracy of risk scales for predicting repeat self-harm and suicide: a multicentre, population-level cohort study using routine clinical data
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of risk scales for predicting repeat self-harm and suicide: a multicentre, population-level cohort study using routine clinical data
title_short Accuracy of risk scales for predicting repeat self-harm and suicide: a multicentre, population-level cohort study using routine clinical data
title_sort accuracy of risk scales for predicting repeat self-harm and suicide: a multicentre, population-level cohort study using routine clinical data
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5921289/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29699523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1693-z
work_keys_str_mv AT steegsarah accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT quinlivanleah accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT nowlandrebecca accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT carrollrobert accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT caseydeborah accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT clementscaroline accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT cooperjayne accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT davieslinda accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT knipeduleeka accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT nessjennifer accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT oconnorroryc accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT hawtonkeith accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT gunnelldavid accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT kapurnav accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata