Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Advertisement
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Original Paper - Full-length version

Suicide mitigation: time for a more realistic approach

Alys Cole-King and Peter Lepping
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (570): e1-e3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp10X482022
Alys Cole-King
Roles: Liaison Psychiatrist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Lepping
Roles: Consultant Psychiatrist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

One of the great myths of health politics is that risk can ultimately be eliminated if we have the right policies, procedures, and therapies. However, in areas where health professionals feel ill equipped to manage risk, those same expectations can be a powerful disincentive, discouraging the acknowledgement and assessment of risk.

When patients present with suicidal thoughts or following self harm, fear of accusation of suboptimal clinical expertise or even litigation if the patient goes on to complete a suicide may dissuade many clinicians from enquiring too deeply. This is in case they acknowledge a risk they will then be expected to manage, but which they do not believe they have the means to control. Thus, the pervasive expectation that risk must be controlled and preferably eliminated could paradoxically increase suicide risk rather than reduce it.

GPs appear willing to identify suicide risk in patients with a diagnosed mental illness. A study by Pearson et al1 investigated the frequency and nature of general practice consultations for 247 patients with a known mental illness, also in contact with specialist mental health services in the year before their suicide. In 91% of suicides the patient consulted their GP in the year before their death, half having their final GP consultation in the month before death and a sixth in the week before death.

Malone et al highlighted a lack of documentation of suicide risk by mental health professionals.2 Possible factors may include not appreciating that the patient was at risk from suicide or self harm, not asking the right questions, or not understanding what the patient wanted to convey. There may be difficulty with the process of identification, assessment, and response to suicide risk, particularly so in the case of young people visiting their GP before suicide.3 Opportunities to intervene effectively may therefore be being missed.

A systematic review of suicide prevention studies in 2005 concluded that ‘physician education’ reduces suicide rates.4 The detection of suicidal intent, assessment of risk, and the possible prevention of suicide are in part dependent on a health professional's attitude to suicide prevention as being their responsibility or as an achievable clinical outcome. In a recent publication from The National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide, 19% of suicides (n = 1017) were considered preventable by the clinical teams seeing those patients. However, in 75% of suicides, clinicians believed that suicide risk factors could have been reduced.5 Of the suicides deemed to have been preventable, 12% (n = 122) were considered by the clinicians to be related to deficits in training.

It has been suggested that more robust training in suicide awareness in primary care could reduce morbidity and mortality.6 However, there are organisational and attitudinal issues that may be equally, or more, important for educators to consider than the selection of educational methods. These include making the training clinically relevant to GP consultations.7

Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training (ASIST) within community-based suicide prevention strategies has already been adopted in many countries, including Canada, the US, Australia, Scotland, and Ireland. In Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government has decided that there is also a need for shorter, more clinically-based training to enable busy GPs to receive training in suicide and self-harm awareness and improve their skills in these areas.8 Accordingly, a training package, ‘Connecting with People’, is being developed and tailored in length and content to increase the relevance and impact for primary care.9 It will complement the 2-day ASIST training and encourage GPs to attend the full programme. It will be evaluated by the National Public Health Service in Wales.

To dispel the myth that suicide risk can somehow be controlled and eliminated by the use of tools and a ‘risk management system’, we believe that the concept of risk mitigation, rather than risk management, should be the cornerstone of any community suicide prevention strategy. This will require challenging the culture of ‘risk management’ with a more realistic approach based on risk mitigation, and improving the ways in which suicide risk is understood, assessed, and responded to in all sectors.

Risk mitigation is not a soft option to avoid responding to identified risks, but an active process involving collaboration of the clinical team with the patient and their carers. Some risk factors, such as demographics or life events, cannot be reduced, but we propose that they could be mitigated against and potentially ‘neutralised’. For example, old age is not in itself a reason for suicide. However, some of the factors accompanying old age, such as social isolation, bereavement, loss of role, and ill health, are known risk factors. Mitigating those factors that are open to influence within primary care, and agreeing a collaborative, simple suicide mitigation plan could reduce suicide risk. In addition to the therapeutic relationship, this should be underpinned by enabling the patient to resist acting on their suicidal thoughts.

The risk mitigation approach emphasises the degree of ambivalence felt by many suicidal individuals and challenges the common perception that it is not possible for someone without specialist psychiatric knowledge and training to help a suicidal individual resist acting on their suicidal thoughts. Increasing hopefulness, resilience, and reasons for living have been shown to reduce suicide rates,10 and GPs can play a crucial role in challenging ideas of hopelessness.

Suicide and self-harm reduction can be viewed in the same way as preventative measures for any other medical condition with multifactorial risk factors, such as heart disease, cancer, and obesity. Knox et al state that 50 years ago treatment for heart disease meant acute hospital care for myocardial infarction. A study reported that GPs surveyed recognise the importance of a public health approach and actively treat cardiovascular risk factors, and they ask why this is not the case with suicide prevention.11 One might speculate that it is the active event that is required for a suicide to occur in contrast to the rather more passive event of myocardial infarction that may lead some people to view suicide attempts differently from cardiac disease.

We believe that any suicide prevention strategy should be community based. The use of a risk-assessment form as a ‘tick box’ exercise to show that the correct risk management procedure has been followed is unlikely to prevent suicides. However, to have the greatest chance of mitigating against an identified risk of suicide, we would advocate an empathic therapeutic relationship in addition to a diligent identification and discussion of the particular risk factors in a person's background and skilful clinical assessment including mental state examination.12,13

Instead of the unrealistic clinical goal of a ‘cure’ for some individuals' suicidal intent, the question practitioners could be asking is: ‘What can be done to prevent this person harming themselves today, this week, this month?’. In all fields of medicine, prolonging life and improving the quality of life, rather than cure, is accepted by professionals, patients, politicians, and society at large as an appropriate clinical objective and outcome for many patients. GPs never know in which one of their patients their intervention will have saved a life: suicidal intent should be viewed in the same way. This is especially so in the case of heart disease, with statins having a ‘number needed to treat’ of 95.14 This intervention comes at a price (financial, and with adverse side effects), yet GPs will prescribe this knowing that in 94 cases it will probably be ineffective and possibly even cause harm. There is no evidence that a therapeutic relationship and identifying risk and protective factors is harmful, on the contrary it has shown to reduce suicides.10,15

In addition to suicide awareness and skills training, this new approach will require enhancing shared decision making with patients and their carers, the development of a common language and understanding between different sectors, improved availability of psychosocial interventions,16 and improved consistency of response at all points of contact with suicidal individuals.

Box 1. Risk factors for suicide mitigation

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Dr Huw Lloyd, a GP colleague, for his help and encouragement with the ideas presented in this paper.

Notes

Onlne version

This is the full-length editorial of an abridged version published in print.

Provenance

Freely submitted; peer reviewed.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2010.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Pearson A,
    2. Saini P,
    3. Da Cruz D,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Primary care contact prior to suicide in individuals with mental illness. Br J Gen Pract 59(568):825–832.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Malone KM,
    2. Szanto K,
    3. Corbitt EM,
    4. Mann JJ
    (1995) Clinical assessment versus research methods in the assessment of suicidal behaviour. Am J Psychiatry 152(11):1601–1607.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Appleby L,
    2. Amos T,
    3. Doyle U,
    4. et al.
    (1996) General practitioners and young suicides: a preventive role for primary care. Br J Psychiatry 168(3):330–333.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Mann JJ,
    2. Apter A,
    3. Bertolote J,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Suicide prevention strategies: a systematic review. JAMA 294(16):2064–2074.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Appleby L,
    2. Shaw J,
    3. Kapur NN,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Avoidable deaths: five year report of the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness (The University of Manchester, Manchester).
  6. ↵
    1. Sudak D,
    2. Roy A,
    3. Sudack H,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Deficiencies in suicide training in primary care specialties: a survey of training directors. Acad Psychiatry 31(5):345–349.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Hodges B,
    2. Inch C,
    3. Silver I
    (2001) Improving the psychiatric knowledge, skills, and attitudes of primary care physicians, 1950–2000: a review. Am J Psychiatry 158(10):1579–1586.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Welsh Assembly Government
    (2009) ‘Talk to me’: the national action plan to reduce suicide and self harm in Wales 2009–2014 (Welsh Assembly Government).
  9. ↵
    1. Cole-King A,
    2. Slegg GP,
    3. Peake-Jones GC
    Royal College of Psychiatrists, Faculty of Liaison Psychiatry Annual Meeting (2009, Prague, Czech Republic), Evaluation of suicide risk assessment and self-harm awareness training [abstract].
  10. ↵
    1. McLean J,
    2. Maxwell M,
    3. Platt S,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Risk and protective factors for suicide and suicidal behavior: a literature review (The Scottish Government, Edinburgh).
  11. ↵
    1. Knox KL,
    2. Conwell Y,
    3. Caine ED
    (2004) If suicide is a public health problem, what are we doing to prevent it? Am J Public Health 94(1):37–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Gliatto MF,
    2. Rai AK
    (1999) Evaluation and treatment of patients with suicidal ideation. Am Fam Physician 59(6):1500–1506.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Cole-King A,
    2. Lepping P,
    3. Peake-Jones G,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Welsh Division of the Royal College of Psychiatrists Annual Conference (Ewloe, UK), The Cole-King Mitigation Framework: evaluation of a framework for supporting the identification and response to suicide risk [abstract].
  14. ↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
    (2006) Technology Appraisal 94: statins for the prevention of cardiovascular events (NICE, London) [section 4.1.7].
  15. ↵
    1. Collins S,
    2. Cutcliffe JS
    (2003) Addressing hopelessness in people with suicidal ideation: building upon the therapeutic relationship utilizing a cognitive behavioural approach. J Psychiatr Mental Health Nurs 10(2):175–185.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Lepping P,
    2. Woodworth B,
    3. Roberts L,
    4. Turner J
    (2006) Increasing psychosocial assessment by introducing a self-harm pathway. Psychiatric Bulletin 30:169–172.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 60 (570)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 60, Issue 570
January 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Suicide mitigation: time for a more realistic approach
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Suicide mitigation: time for a more realistic approach
Alys Cole-King, Peter Lepping
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (570): e1-e3. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X482022

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Suicide mitigation: time for a more realistic approach
Alys Cole-King, Peter Lepping
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (570): e1-e3. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X482022
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

Original Paper - Full-length version

  • Advance care planning for cancer patients in primary care: a feasibility study
  • Non-pharmacological intervention for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care
  • Self-monitoring and other non-pharmacological interventions to improve the management of hypertension in primary care: a systematic review
Show more Original Paper - Full-length version

Editorials

  • Charging for NHS care and its impact on maternal health
  • Helping GPs to diagnose children’s cancer
  • Remote by default general practice: must we, should we, dare we?
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242