Latest methods to reduce destruction risk after psychological hospitalization

Surprisingly, inpatient psychological health care, the very thing that provides protection and leveling to intensely taking once lifestyle people, results in them at dangerous of destruction after launch. But a review of the latest research determines practical avoidance steps.
Tony Salvatore, MA, is the destruction avoidance specialist for Montgomery County Emergency Assistance, Norristown, PA. E-mail Tony morrison at
Click To View Gallery

One of the ironies of destruction avoidance is that inpatient psychological health care, the principal indicates of guaranteeing protection and leveling to intensely taking once lifestyle people, results in them at dangerous of destruction after launch. One resource put it this way: “The chance of destruction is higher during the interval immediately following launch … than at any other interval in something customer's lifestyle. Post-discharge danger even accrues to sufferers not taking once lifestyle at entrance.

There is little data on suicides after a psychological medical center launch in the US, though suicides that happen within 72 hours after psychological medical center stay are tracked by The Joint Commission. Such fatalities increased from fewer than 60 in 2005 to just over 100 in 2008. These “sentinel events” trended downward through 2010, which was best part about it given that total US destruction numbers increased for the same interval. However, destruction victims who were inpatients within days of their fatalities should have better prospects for survival.

This well-documented danger does not seem to have attracted much attention from companies or public policy makers and administrators. A greater concern is that sufferers and families may not be aware of the possible danger that may adhere to some customers home. The problem of destruction danger after an inpatient psychological stay and what can be done about it warrant examination.

What is the resource of post-discharge destruction risk?

Reasons for suicides after medical center stay include re-exposure to group causes, non-adherence, non-engagement with medical center companies, backslide, and the return of understanding regarding the consequences of the psychological sickness. At launch the protective aspects the medical center provides - around-the-clock structure, supervision, caring, and support – are suddenly lost.

Myopic launch preparing can add to danger. Decisions based on “stabilization” may overlook risks that led to the entrance as may launch preparing that focuses more on psychological diagnosis than suicidality.

Suicide danger evaluation may not be as thorough before launch as it is at plenty of duration of entrance. This is problematic as many destruction risks specific to serious psychological sickness are not affected by inpatient therapy. Great danger is associated with early on of sickness, good pre-illness functioning, and frequent exacerbations and remissions. Many customers have a record of taking once lifestyle actions, self-injury, destruction loss, and multiple before acceptance.

Why do post-discharge suicides happen?
There is no evidence that inpatient health care prevents destruction after launch, nor any that it causes destruction. Discharge preparing and pre-discharge danger evaluation failures are not causes, either. So what accounts for deadly taking once lifestyle actions in some customers at the same interval of time when they should be on a path to recovery?

The “Interpersonal Psychological Concept of Suicide” gives understanding into post-discharge destruction. This theory, designed by Thomas Joiner, PhD, posits that a life-threatening destruction attempt requires: 

1. a feeling of burdensomeness
2. a feeling of solitude and isolation
3. a feeling of fearlessness about deadly self-harm. 

All three of these conditions rarely happen at the same time, which is why there are comparatively few suicides. However, they, especially the first two, may be common in those with serious psychological sickness, and especially in those who have received inpatient psychological health care.

Joiner claims that an intense wish for loss of life may come from the fact that one is a burden to others and/or the fact that one does not belong. Burdensomeness arises from a feeling that one is a liability and not fulfilling expectations or obligations. This may lead to thinking that a person's loss of life may be more valued than a person's lifestyle. Failed belongingness may flow from a strong unmet need for social relationships and a perception that one is not cared for by others. These variables may be increased by medical center stay and may persist in the group.

More than a wish to end a person's lifestyle is necessary for a destruction, Joiner adds. An individual must also be able to take his or her lifestyle. This needs conquering fear, pain, self-injury, and the instinct for self-preservation. This ability is acquired through experiences such as misuse, damage, and a record of assault and self-harm. It is a byproduct of previous efforts and may also be designed by mentally practicing a destruction plan and practicing it by holding indicates such as a weapon or pills.

The wish to die may lift during medical center stay, but the capability for deadly self-harm is permanent. Past efforts, misuse, damage, and assault create a danger baseline that may increase after launch. Risk may be increased by weak supports, rejection by others, and being faced with seemingly irresolvable psychosocial or environmental causes, as well as folding backslide, returning to alcohol or drug use, and limited involvement by medical center companies.

What can be done about post-discharge destruction risk?

Many sound recommendations for addressing destruction danger after medical center stay have been offered. Immediate therapy, follow-up, and closer monitoring of at-risk customers returning to the group are most often advised.

A recent review of the National Suicide Prevention Strategy included this recommendation: “Expand efforts to provide effective follow up care after inpatient discharge of suicidal persons.  Another national report was more specific: “Adopt nationally recognized policies and procedures that best match patients at risk for suicide to follow-up services that begin at or near the time of discharge from … an inpatient psychiatry unit.

A national suicide prevention organization issued a broader advisory:

• Pre-discharge assessment of risk at admission and risk acquired during stay.
• Identify sources of support and willingness and ability to provide support.
• Give patient and family instruction on suicide risk at discharge and thereafter.
• Give instruction on accessing crisis intervention and other sources of help.

Bumgarner and Haygood call for the use of a “risk reduction pathway” involving a “bundle” of suicide prevention practices provided to every patient, which at discharge would include:

• Suicide risk assessment to inform the discharge decision
• Communication of risk/prevention measures to patients and family members
• Follow-up with patients after discharge
• Supports and services in place after discharge

Other resources that come to mind are:

• Preparation of personal suicide prevention of safety plans at discharge.
• The availability of peer-run warm lines for use by newly discharged consumers.
• Access to therapies that have demonstrated suicide prevention potential (e.g., Cognitive Behavioral Therapy).
• Peer-led or co-led support groups for those who have made suicide attempts or had an acute episode of suicidality.
• Training peer specialists as “gatekeepers” to identify possible warning signs of suicide in other consumers.

Inpatient providers must do more to reduce the risk of “outpatient” suicide. Montgomery County Emergency Service, a 73-bed nonprofit psychiatric hospital, has inaugurated a number of easy-to-replicate practices in recent years. These include a range of suicide prevention education materials for consumers and families, a peer-led inpatient suicide prevention support group, “special discharge instructions” on suicide risk, and tighter pre-discharge risk assessment.

Community-based providers must also help make post-discharge suicide what the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention recently called a “never event. In this regard, the Alliance has called for suicide risk screening to be universal in all behavioral health care settings and that suicide risk be seamlessly addressed along the care continuum until eliminated. This would extend a “risk reduction pathway” from inpatient admission to recovery.

In addition to reducing consumer mortality, a post-discharge suicide prevention effort may reduce readmissions and involuntary hospitalizations, both of which are driven heavily by suicidal behavior. Of course, it can also improve recovery prospects for inpatients while helping them maintain the hopeful outlook needed to motivate and maintain greater personal wellness.