Randomized Controlled Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Risk Model-Guided Clinical Decision Support for Suicide Screening

Abstract

AbstractSuicide 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsFrom 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).ConclusionsIn 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.govIdentifier:NCT05312437