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

Abstract 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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sarah Steeg, Leah Quinlivan, Rebecca Nowland, Robert Carroll, Deborah Casey, Caroline Clements, Jayne Cooper, Linda Davies, Duleeka Knipe, Jennifer Ness, Rory C. O’Connor, Keith Hawton, David Gunnell, Nav Kapur
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2018-04-01
Series:BMC Psychiatry
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12888-018-1693-z
id doaj-3b2e1f5d9b6d437587306953fe724c39
record_format Article
spelling doaj-3b2e1f5d9b6d437587306953fe724c392020-11-25T01:14:47ZengBMCBMC Psychiatry1471-244X2018-04-0118111110.1186/s12888-018-1693-zAccuracy of risk scales for predicting repeat self-harm and suicide: a multicentre, population-level cohort study using routine clinical dataSarah Steeg0Leah Quinlivan1Rebecca Nowland2Robert Carroll3Deborah Casey4Caroline Clements5Jayne Cooper6Linda Davies7Duleeka Knipe8Jennifer Ness9Rory C. O’Connor10Keith Hawton11David Gunnell12Nav Kapur13Centre for Mental Health and Safety, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of ManchesterCentre for Mental Health and Safety, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of ManchesterCentre for Mental Health and Safety, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of ManchesterPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of BristolCentre for Suicide Research, University of Oxford Department of Psychiatry, Warneford HospitalCentre for Mental Health and Safety, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of ManchesterCentre for Mental Health and Safety, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of ManchesterInstitute of Population Health, University of ManchesterPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of BristolCentre for Self-harm and Suicide Prevention Research, Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation TrustSuicidal Behaviour Research Laboratory, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of GlasgowCentre for Suicide Research, University of Oxford Department of Psychiatry, Warneford HospitalPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of BristolCentre for Mental Health and Safety, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of ManchesterAbstract 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.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12888-018-1693-zSelf-harmSuicideRisk factorsClassificationOutcome
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Sarah Steeg
Leah Quinlivan
Rebecca Nowland
Robert Carroll
Deborah Casey
Caroline Clements
Jayne Cooper
Linda Davies
Duleeka Knipe
Jennifer Ness
Rory C. O’Connor
Keith Hawton
David Gunnell
Nav Kapur
spellingShingle Sarah Steeg
Leah Quinlivan
Rebecca Nowland
Robert Carroll
Deborah Casey
Caroline Clements
Jayne Cooper
Linda Davies
Duleeka Knipe
Jennifer Ness
Rory C. O’Connor
Keith Hawton
David Gunnell
Nav Kapur
Accuracy of risk scales for predicting repeat self-harm and suicide: a multicentre, population-level cohort study using routine clinical data
BMC Psychiatry
Self-harm
Suicide
Risk factors
Classification
Outcome
author_facet Sarah Steeg
Leah Quinlivan
Rebecca Nowland
Robert Carroll
Deborah Casey
Caroline Clements
Jayne Cooper
Linda Davies
Duleeka Knipe
Jennifer Ness
Rory C. O’Connor
Keith Hawton
David Gunnell
Nav Kapur
author_sort Sarah Steeg
title 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_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_sort accuracy of risk scales for predicting repeat self-harm and suicide: a multicentre, population-level cohort study using routine clinical data
publisher BMC
series BMC Psychiatry
issn 1471-244X
publishDate 2018-04-01
description Abstract 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.
topic Self-harm
Suicide
Risk factors
Classification
Outcome
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12888-018-1693-z
work_keys_str_mv AT sarahsteeg accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT leahquinlivan accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT rebeccanowland accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT robertcarroll accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT deborahcasey accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT carolineclements accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT jaynecooper accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT lindadavies accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT duleekaknipe accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT jenniferness accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT rorycoconnor accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT keithhawton accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT davidgunnell accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
AT navkapur accuracyofriskscalesforpredictingrepeatselfharmandsuicideamulticentrepopulationlevelcohortstudyusingroutineclinicaldata
_version_ 1725156544702578688