Are hospital services for self-harm getting better? An observational study examining management, service provision and temporal trends in England

BMJ Open - Tập 3 Số 11 - Trang e003444 - 2013
Jayne Cooper1, Sarah Steeg1, Olive Bennewith2, Michael Lowe1, David Gunnell2, Allan House3, Keith Hawton4, Navneet Kapur1
1Centre for Suicide Prevention, University of Manchester
2School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol
3Academic Unit of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Leeds, UK
4Centre for Suicide Research, Department of Psychiatry

Tóm tắt

ObjectivesTo describe the characteristics and management of individuals attending hospital with self-harm and assess changes in management and service quality since an earlier study in 2001, a period in which national guidance has been available.DesignObservational study.SettingA stratified random sample of 32 hospitals in England, UK.Participants:6442 individuals presenting with 7689 episodes of self-harm during a 3-month audit period between 2010 and 2011.OutcomeSelf-harm episodes, key aspects of individual management relating to psychosocial assessment and follow-up, and a 21-item measure of service quality.ResultsOverall, 56% (3583/6442) of individuals were women and 51% (3274/6442) were aged under 35 years. Hospitals varied markedly in their management. The proportion of episodes that received a psychosocial assessment by a mental health professional ranged from 22% to 88% (median 58%, IQR 48–70%); the proportion of episodes resulting in admission to general hospitals varied from 22% to 85% (median 54%, IQR 41–63%); a referral for specialist mental health follow-up was made in 11–64% of episodes (median 28%, IQR 22–38%); a referral to non-statutory services was made in 4–62% of episodes (median 15%, IQR 8–23%); 0–21% of episodes resulted in psychiatric admission (median 7%, QR 4–12%). The specialist assessment rate varied by method of harm; the median rate for self-cutting was 45% (IQR 28–63%) vs 58% (IQR 48–73%) for self-poisoning. Compared with the 2001 study, there was little difference in the proportion of episodes receiving specialist assessment; there was a significant increase in general hospital admission but a decrease in referrals for specialist mental health follow-up. However, scores on the service quality scale had increased from a median of 11.5–14.5 (a 26% increase).ConclusionsServices for the hospital management of self-harm remain variable despite national guidelines and policy initiatives. We found no evidence for increasing levels of assessment over time but markers of service quality may have improved.This paper forms part of the study ‘Variations in self-harm service delivery: an observational study examining outcomes and temporal trends’. The National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Portfolio database registration number: HOMASH 2 (7333). The NIHR Coordinated System for gaining NHS Permission (CSP) registration number: 23226.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61141-6

Sinclair, 2006, Systematic review of resource utilization in the hospital management of deliberate self-harm, Psychol Med, 36, 1681, 10.1017/S0033291706008683

10.1192/bjp.bp.107.046425

Hunter, 2013, Service user perspectives on psychosocial assessment following self-harm and its impact on further help-seeking: a qualitative study, J Affect Disord, 145, 315, 10.1016/j.jad.2012.08.009

10.1136/bmj.1.6119.1032

10.1136/bmj.316.7134.831

10.1136/bmj.328.7448.1108

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The short-term physical and psychological management and secondary prevention of self-harm in primary and secondary care. Clinical Guideline 16. NICE, 2004.

Royal College of Psychiatrists. Assessment following self-harm in adults. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2004.

Royal College of Psychiatrists. Better services for people who self-harm project. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2005.

Dickson S Steeg S Gordon M . Self-harm in Manchester 2008–2009. The Centre for Suicide Prevention, The University of Manchester, 2011.

10.1007/s00127-007-0199-7

10.1093/pubmed/fdh192

Statacorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. Stata Corporation, College Station, 2009.

SPSS Inc. SPSS for Windows Release 19.0.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc, 2010.

Runeson, 2010, Method of attempted suicide as predictor of subsequent successful suicide: national long term cohort study, BMJ, 340, c3222, 10.1136/bmj.c3222

10.1192/bjp.bp.107.043380

10.1176/appi.ajp.162.2.297

10.1016/j.jad.2007.07.010

King, 2001, Severe mental illness: managing the boundary of a CMHT, J Mental Health, 10, 75, 10.1080/09638230123991

Mind for better mental health. Mental health crisis care: commissioning excellence. A briefing for Clinical Commissioning Groups. November 2012. http://www.mind.org.uk/assets/0002/2011/CommissioningExcellence_WEB_VERSION_2.pdf

Department of Health. Mental health policy implementation guide. London: Community Mental Health Team, The Stationery Office, 2002.

10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05484.x

Department of Health. The NHS Plan. A Plan for Investment. A Plan for Reform London Stationery Office (2000) accessed April 2013. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4002960

10.1192/bjp.bp.110.077651

10.1016/j.aaen.2003.12.002

10.1136/bmj.e4422

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The long term care and treatment of self-harm. Clinical Guideline 133. NICE, 2011.

10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60107-5

10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61712-1

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

BMJ Open

Tập 3 Số 11

e003444

Thông tin tác giả