Citation

Quinlivan L, Cooper J, Meehan D, Longson D, Potokar J, Hulme T, Marsden J, Brand F, Lange K, Riseborough E, Page L, Metcalfe C, Davies L, O'Connor RC, Hawton K, Gunnell D, Kapur N. Br. J. Psychiatry 2017; 210(6): 429-436.

Affiliation

Leah Quinlivan, PhD, Jayne Cooper, PhD, Centre for Suicide Prevention, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester; Declan Meehan, RMN, Damien Longson, FRCPsych, Greater Manchester Mental Health and NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester; John Potokar, MRCPsych, Avon & Wiltshire Mental Health Foundation Trust, Bristol, University Hospitals Bristol, NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol and School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol; Tom Hulme, MSc, University Hospitals Bristol, NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, Bristol; Jennifer Marsden, BA, Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Derby; Fiona Brand, RMN, Kezia Lange, MRCPsych, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford; Elena Riseborough, RMN, Lisa Page, PhD, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing; Chris Metcalfe, PhD, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol; Linda Davies, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester; Rory O' Connor, PhD, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow; Keith Hawton, DSc, Centre for Suicide Research, University Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford; David Gunnell, DSc, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol; Nav Kapur, FRCPsych, Centre for Suicide Prevention, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, and Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, Royal College of Psychiatry)

DOI

10.1192/bjp.bp.116.189993

PMID

28302702

Abstract

BackgroundScales are widely used in psychiatric assessments following self-harm. Robust evidence for their diagnostic use is lacking.AimsTo evaluate the performance of risk scales (Manchester Self-Harm Rule, ReACT Self-Harm Rule, SAD PERSONS scale, Modified SAD PERSONS scale, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale); and patient and clinician estimates of risk in identifying patients who repeat self-harm within 6 months.

METHODA multisite prospective cohort study was conducted of adults aged 18 years and over referred to liaison psychiatry services following self-harm. Scale a priori cut-offs were evaluated using diagnostic accuracy statistics. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to determine optimal cut-offs and compare global accuracy.

RESULTSIn total, 483 episodes of self-harm were included in the study. The episode-based 6-month repetition rate was 30% (n = 145). Sensitivity ranged from 1% (95% CI 0-5) for the SAD PERSONS scale, to 97% (95% CI 93-99) for the Manchester Self-Harm Rule. Positive predictive values ranged from 13% (95% CI 2-47) for the Modified SAD PERSONS Scale to 47% (95% CI 41-53) for the clinician assessment of risk. The AUC ranged from 0.55 (95% CI 0.50-0.61) for the SAD PERSONS scale to 0.74 (95% CI 0.69-0.79) for the clinician global scale. The remaining scales performed significantly worse than clinician and patient estimates of risk (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONSRisk scales following self-harm have limited clinical utility and may waste valuable resources. Most scales performed no better than clinician or patient ratings of risk. Some performed considerably worse. Positive predictive values were modest. In line with national guidelines, risk scales should not be used to determine patient management or predict self-harm.

© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2017.

Language: en