UCLA

BACKGROUND: Effective interventions are needed to address suicide risk following discharge from the hospital emergency department or inpatient setting. Studies that examine follow-up contact methods show promise, but little is known about how follow-up programs are implemented in the real world and who is benefitting. The purpose of this formative evaluation and analysis was to gain insight about the usefulness and value of a partnered suicide prevention follow-up program (academic medical center emergency department partnered with a regional suicide prevention center) from the standpoint of psychiatry resident physicians providing direct care and suicide prevention center crisis counselors making follow-up outreach telephone calls to patients. METHODS: A qualitative thematic analysis was conducted with focus group data from a convenience sample of psychiatry residents who performed consultations in the emergency department setting and counselors at the suicide prevention center crisis follow-up program. Focus group sessions, using semi-structured question guides, were completed at each participant groups workplace. Grounded theory techniques were used to guide coding and analytic theme development. RESULTS: Analyses resulted in four overarching themes: valuing the programs utility and benefit to patients, desiring to understand what happens from emergency department discharge to program follow-up, having uncertainty about which patients would benefit from the program, and brainstorming to improve the referral process. Psychiatry residents appreciated the option of an active referral service (one that attempts to actively engage a patient after discharge through outreach), while suicide prevention crisis counselors valued their ability to offer a free and immediate service that had potential for fostering meaningful relationships. Both participant groups desired a better understanding of their partners program operations, a uniform and smooth referral process, and awareness of who may or may not benefit from program services. CONCLUSION: Results revealed the need for improved communication and implementation, such as expanded inter-agency contacts, consistent provider training, more documentation of the requirements and rules, a consistent message about program logistics for patients, and coordination between the program elements.