TY  - JOUR
PY  - 2023//
TI  - Telephone assessment of suicidal risk at prehospital emergency medical services: a direct comparison with face-to-face evaluation at psychiatric emergency service
JO  - Archives of suicide research
A1  - Norotte, Cyrille
A1  - Zeltner, Laure
A1  - Gross, Julia
A1  - Delord, Marc
A1  - Richard, Caroline
A1  - Bembaron, Marie-Caroline
A1  - Caussanel, Jean-Marie
A1  - Herbillon, Annie
A1  - Rousseau, Christine
A1  - Chiquet, Carole
A1  - Ehly, Christine
A1  - Pain, Amandine
A1  - Vadillo, Fernando
A1  - Morisset, Laure
A1  - Roux, Paul
A1  - Passerieux, Christine
A1  - Lambert, Yves
A1  - Koukabi-Fradelizi, Mehrsa
A1  - Younes, Nadia
A1  - Richard, Olivier
SP  - ePub
EP  - ePub
VL  - ePub
IS  - ePub
N2  - OBJECTIVE: Assessment of suicidal risk is one of the most challenging tasks faced by health professionals, notably in emergency care. We compared telephone suicide risk assessment at prehospital Emergency Medical Services Dispatch Center (EMS-DC), with subsequent face-to-face evaluation at Psychiatric Emergency Service (PES), using French national Risk-Urgency-Danger standards (RUD). <br><br>METHOD: Data were collected for all suicidal adult patients (N = 80) who were addressed by EMS-DC to PES between December 2018 and August 2019 and benefited from RUD assessment at both services. Suicidal risk was given a score of 1, 2, 3 or 4, in order of severity. <br><br>RESULTS: Mean of the differences between the RUD score at EMS-DC and PES was -0.825 (SD = 1.19), and was found to be significant (p < 0.01). The average time between RUD assessments was 420 min (SD = 448) and was negatively correlated with the difference in the RUD score (r = -0.295, p = 0.008). Associated suicide attempt increased the odds of a decrease in the RUD score (OR = 2.989; 95% CI = 1.141-8.069; p < 0.05). <br><br>CONCLUSIONS: Telephone evaluation of suicidal risk using RUD at EMS-DC yielded moderately higher scores than those obtained by a subsequent face-to face evaluation at PES, with this difference partially explained by the time between assessments, and by clinical and contextual factors.<p />  <p>Language: en</p>
LA  - en
SN  - 1381-1118
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2023.2265432
ID  - ref1
ER  -