@article{ref1,
title="Predicting future suicide: clinician opinion versus a standardized assessment tool",
journal="Suicide and life-threatening behavior",
year="2019",
author="Randall, Jason R. and Sareen, Jitender and Chateau, Dan and Bolton, James M.",
volume="49",
number="4",
pages="941-951",
abstract="OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of clinician prediction of risk to a standardized assessment of presentation status. <br><br>METHODS: All adult psychiatry emergency department consults in the two main hospitals in Winnipeg, Canada, were assessed using a standardized form (n = 5,376). This form includes two risk scales for a gestalt physician assessment of risk (Suicide Likelihood scale, suicide Attempt Likelihood scale) and the Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (C-CASA). Regression determined whether assessments predicted future suicide attempts and deaths. The area under the curve (AUC) determined the prediction accuracy of these methods. <br><br>RESULTS: Although the regression results were significant, the AUCs were either moderate or poor. Clinician assessment was not effective at predicting deaths (AUC = .546,.36-.73), but moderately accurate at predicting future attempts (AUC = .728,.66-.79). C-CASA assessment was moderately accurate at predicting both attempts and deaths (AUC = .666 and.678). <br><br>CONCLUSIONS: Clinician assessment does not significantly outperform a simple assessment of the occurrence of suicidal thoughts and behaviors during presentation to the emergency department. Behavior-based standardized assessments should be further researched in this field. Assessment of suicidality at presentation using C-CASA or similar assessment should be standard for psychiatric patients assessed in the emergency department.<br><br>© 2018 The American Association of Suicidology.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0363-0234",
doi="10.1111/sltb.12481",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12481"
}