Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-79b67bcb76-wlt4x Total loading time: 0.44 Render date: 2021-05-13T17:16:11.232Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

The development of a population-level clinical screening tool for self-harm repetition and suicide: the ReACT Self-Harm Rule

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2012

S. Steeg
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Research Group, University of Manchester, UK
N. Kapur
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Research Group, University of Manchester, UK
R. Webb
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Research Group, University of Manchester, UK
E. Applegate
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Research Group, University of Manchester, UK
S. L. K. Stewart
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Research Group, University of Manchester, UK
K. Hawton
Affiliation:
The University of Oxford, Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK
H. Bergen
Affiliation:
The University of Oxford, Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK
K. Waters
Affiliation:
Resource Centre, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, Derby, UK
J. Cooper
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Research Group, University of Manchester, UK
Corresponding

Abstract

Background

Self-harm is a common reason for Emergency Department (ED) attendance. We aimed to develop a clinical tool to help identify patients at higher risk of repeat self-harm, or suicide, within 6 months of an ED self-harm presentation.

Method

The tool, the ReACT Self-Harm Rule, was derived using multicentre data from a prospective cohort study. Binary recursive partitioning was applied to data from two centres, and data from a separate centre were used to test the tool. There were 29 571 self-harm presentations to five hospital EDs between January 2003 and June 2007, involving 18 680 adults aged ⩾16 years. We estimated sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values to measure the performance of the tool.

Results

A self-harm presentation was classified as higher risk if at least one of the following factors was present: recent self-harm (in the past year), living alone or homelessness, cutting as a method of harm and treatment for a current psychiatric disorder. The rule performed with 95% sensitivity [95% confidence interval (CI) 94–95] and 21% specificity (95% CI 21–22), and had a positive predictive value of 30% (95% CI 30–31) and a negative predictive value of 91% (95% CI 90–92) in the derivation centres; it identified 83/92 of all subsequent suicides.

Conclusions

The ReACT Self-Harm Rule might be used as a screening tool to inform the process of assessing self-harm presentations to ED. The four risk factors could also be used as an adjunct to in-depth psychosocial assessment to help guide risk formulation. The use of multicentre data helped to maximize the generalizability of the tool, but we need to further verify its external validity in other localities.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Adelstein, A, Mardon, C (1975). Suicides 1961–1974. Population Trends 2, 4855.Google Scholar
Altman, DG, Mackin, D, Byrant, TN, Gardner, MJ (2000). Statistics with Confidence, 2nd edn. BMJ Books: London.Google Scholar
Beghi, M, Rosenbaum, JF (2010). Risk factors for fatal and nonfatal repetition of suicide attempt: a critical appraisal. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 23, 349355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergen, H, Hawton, K, Waters, K, Cooper, J, Kapur, N (2010). Epidemiology and trends in non-fatal self-harm in three centres in England: 2000–2007. British Journal of Psychiatry 197, 493498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bilén, K, Ottosson, C, Castrén, M, Ponzer, S, Ursing, C, Ranta, P, Ekdahl, K, Pettersson, H (2010). Deliberate self-harm patients in the emergency department: factors associated with repeated self-harm among 1524 patients. Emergency Medicine Journal 28, 10191025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breiman, L, Friedman, JH, Olshen, RA, Stone, CJ (1984). Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
Camp, NJ, Slattery, ML (2002). CART analysis: a statistical tool to investigate risk factor interactions with an example for colon cancer (US). Cancer Causes and Control 13, 813823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochrane-Brink, KA, Lofchy, JS, Sakinofsky, I (2000). Clinical rating scales in suicide risk assessment. General Hospital Psychiatry 445, 445451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J, Kapur, N, Dunning, J, Guthrie, E, Appleby, L (2006). A clinical tool for assessing risk after self-harm. Annals of Emergency Medicine 48, 459466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, J, Kapur, N, Mackway-Jones, K (2007). A comparison between clinicians' assessment and the Manchester Self-Harm Rule: a cohort study. Emergency Medicine Journal 24, 720721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, J, Kapur, N, Webb, R, Lawlor, M, Guthrie, E, Mackway-Jones, K, Appleby, L (2005). Suicide after deliberate self-harm: a 4-year cohort study. America Journal of Psychiatry 162, 297303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deeks, JJ, Altman, DG (2004). Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios. British Medical Journal 329, 168169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Department for Communities and Local Government (2008). The English Indices of Deprivation 2007. Communities and Local Government: London.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2002). National Suicide Prevention Strategy for England. The Stationery Office: London.Google Scholar
Gaddis, G (2006). Improving the design of the assessment of emergency department patients at risk for self-harm. Annals of Emergency Medicine 48, 467469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haw, C, Hawton, K, Casey, D (2006). Deliberate self-harm patients of no fixed abode: a study of characteristics and subsequent deaths in patients presenting to a general hospital. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 41, 918925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawton, K, Bergen, H, Casey, D, Simkin, S, Palmer, B, Cooper, J, Kapur, N, Horrocks, J, House, A, Lilley, R, Noble, R, Owens, D (2007). Self-harm in England: a tale of three cities. Multicentre study of self-harm. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 42, 513521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawton, K, Zahl, D, Weatherall, R (2003). Suicide following deliberate self-harm: long-term follow-up of patients who presented to a general hospital. British Journal of Psychiatry 182, 537542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HESA (2007). Students by Mode and Level of Study: 2006/07 Students by Mode and Level (https://heidi.hesa.ac.uk). Higher Education Information Database for Institutions (HEIDI) ID: 145052. Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), Cheltenham, UK. Accessed 4 October 2010.Google Scholar
Hockberger, RS, Rothstein, RJ (1988). Assessment of suicide potential by nonpsychiatrists using the sad persons score. Journal of Emergency Medicine 6, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kapur, N (2006). Self-harm in the general hospital. Clinical Medicine 6, 529532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kapur, N (2009). Health services and suicide prevention. Journal of Mental Health 18, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapur, N, Cooper, J, King-Hele, S, Webb, R, Lawlor, M, Rodway, C, Appleby, L (2006). The repetition of suicidal behavior: a multicenter cohort study. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 67, 15991609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kapur, N, Murphy, E, Cooper, J, Bergen, H, Hawton, K, Simkin, S, Casey, D, Horrocks, J, Lilley, R, Noble, R, Owens, D (2008). Psychosocial assessment following self-harm: results from the Multi-Centre Monitoring of Self-Harm Project. Journal of Affective Disorders 106, 285293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreitman, N, Foster, J (1991). The construction and selection of predictive scales, with special reference to parasuicide. British Journal of Psychiatry 159, 185192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lemon, SC, Roy, J, Clark, MA, Friedmann, PD, Rakowski, W (2003). Classification and regression tree analysis in public health: methodological review and comparison with logistic regression. Annals of Behavioural Medicine 26, 172181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lilley, R, Owens, D, Horrocks, J, House, A, Noble, R, Bergen, H, Hawton, K, Casey, D, Simkin, S, Murphy, E, Cooper, J, Kapur, N (2008). Hospital care and repetition following self-harm: multicentre comparison of self-poisoning and self-injury. British Journal of Psychiatry 192, 440445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMillan, D, Gilbody, S, Bereford, E, Neilly, L (2007). Can we predict suicide and non-fatal self-harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine 37, 769778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monahan, J, Steadman, HJ, Applebaum, PS, Robbins, PC, Mulvey, EP, Silver, E, Roth, LH, Grisso, T (2000). Developing a clinically useful actuarial tool for assessing violence risk. British Journal of Psychiatry 176, 312319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muller, R, Möckel, M (2008). Logistic regression and CART in the analysis of multimarker studies. Clinica Chimica Acta 394, 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NHS Information Centre (2010). Medical Research Information Service (MRIS), Merseyside (www.ic.nhs.uk/services/medical-research-information-service).Google Scholar
NICE (2004). NICE implementation uptake report: insomnia – newer hypnotic drugs. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance 77. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: London.Google Scholar
NICE (2011). Self-harm: longer-term management (full guideline). Clinical Guideline 16. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence:London.Google Scholar
ONS (2009 a). Mid-2008 Population Estimates: Quinary Age Groups and Sex for Local Authorities in the United Kingdom. Office for National Statistics:Durham.Google Scholar
ONS (2009 b). Nomis official labour market statistics. Manchester (www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/2038432043/report.aspx). Office for National Statistics: Durham.Google Scholar
ONS (2009 c). Nomis official labour market statistics. Oxford (www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/2038431818/report.aspx). Office for National Statistics: Durham.Google Scholar
ONS (2009 d). Nomis official labour market statistics. Derby (www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/2038431975/report.aspx). Office for National Statistics: Durham.Google Scholar
ONS (2009 e). Estimated resident population by broad ethnic group and sex, mid-2007 (experimental statistics): Manchester. Office for National Statistics: Durham.Google Scholar
ONS (2009 f). Estimated resident population by broad ethnic group and sex, mid-2007 (experimental statistics): Oxford. Office for National Statistics: Durham.Google Scholar
ONS (2009 g). Estimated resident population by broad ethnic group and sex, mid-2007 (experimental statistics): Derby. Office for National Statistics: Durham.Google Scholar
Owens, D, Horrocks, J, House, A (2002). Fatal and non-fatal repetition of self-harm. British Journal of Psychiatry 181, 193199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, WM, Bird, J, Patterson, GA (1983). Evaluation of suicidal patients: the Sad Persons Scale. Psychosomatics 24, 343349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Randall, JR, Colman, I, Rowe, BH (2011). A systematic review of psychometric assessment of self-harm risk in the emergency department. Journal of Affective Disorders 134, 248355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal College of Psychiatrists (2004). Assessment Following Self-Harm in Adults. Royal College of Psychiatrists: London.Google Scholar
Salford Systems (2007). CART: Version 6.0. Salford Systems: San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Scheet, LJ, Zhang, J, Kolassa, J (2009). Classification tree modelling to identify severe and moderate vehicular injuries in young and middle-aged adults. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 45, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scottish Executive (2002). The National Strategy and Action Plan to Prevent Suicide in Scotland. The Stationery Office: Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Steinberg, D (President and founder of Salford Systems). Email correspondence April 2011.Google Scholar
Stiell, IG, Wells, GA (1999). Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine. Annals of Emergency Medicine 33, 437447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Twala, B (2009). An empirical comparison of techniques for handling incomplete data using decision trees. Applied Artificial Intelligence 23, 373405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wadsworth, JT, Somers, KD, Cazares, LH, Malik, G, Adam, BL, Stack, BC, Wright, GL, Semmes, OJ (2004). Serum protein profiles to identify head and neck cancer. Clinical Cancer Research 10, 16251632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walters, JTR, Bisson, JI, Sheperd, JP (2007). Predicting post-traumatic stress disorder: validation of the Trauma Screening Questionnaire in victims of assault. Psychological Medicine 37, 143150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zahl, DL, Hawton, K (2004). Repetition of deliberate self-harm and subsequent suicide risk: long-term follow-up study of 11 583 patients. British Journal of Psychiatry 181, 7075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The development of a population-level clinical screening tool for self-harm repetition and suicide: the ReACT Self-Harm Rule
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The development of a population-level clinical screening tool for self-harm repetition and suicide: the ReACT Self-Harm Rule
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The development of a population-level clinical screening tool for self-harm repetition and suicide: the ReACT Self-Harm Rule
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *