Literature DB >> 17901275

A comparison between clinicians' assessment and the Manchester Self-Harm Rule: a cohort study.

Jayne Cooper1, Navneet Kapur, Kevin Mackway-Jones.   

Abstract

As identifying patients at risk of subsequent suicidal behaviour is a key goal of assessment, a cohort study of presentations to five emergency departments following episodes of self-harm was carried out. We compared the accuracy of the prediction of subsequent self-harm within 6 months between global clinical assessments and the Manchester Self-harm Rule. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Global clinical assessments and the rule had a sensitivity of 85% (CI 83 to 87) versus 94% (CI 92% to 95%), specificity of 38% (CI 37% to 39%) versus 26% (CI 24% to 27%), a positive predictive value of 22% (CI 21% to 23%) versus 21% (CI 19% to 21%) and a negative predictive value of 92% (CI 91% to 93%) versus 96% (CI 94% to 96%). The accuracy of predicting short-term repetition of self-harm by clinicians could be improved by incorporating this simple rule into their assessment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17901275      PMCID: PMC2658442          DOI: 10.1136/emj.2007.048983

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Med J        ISSN: 1472-0205            Impact factor:   2.740


  5 in total

1.  Psychological and social evaluation in cases of deliberate self-poisoning seen in an accident department.

Authors:  R Gardner; R Hanka; S J Roberts; J M Allon-Smith; A A Kings; R Nicholson
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1982-02-13

2.  Management of patients after self-poisoning.

Authors:  D Black; D Pond
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1980-10-25

3.  A clinical tool for assessing risk after self-harm.

Authors:  Jayne Cooper; Navneet Kapur; Joel Dunning; Else Guthrie; Louis Appleby; Kevin Mackway-Jones
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 5.721

4.  An educational intervention for front-line health professionals in the assessment and management of suicidal patients (The STORM Project).

Authors:  L Appleby; R Morriss; L Gask; M Roland; B Perry; A Lewis; L Battersby; N Colbert; G Green; T Amos; L Davies; B Faragher
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 7.723

5.  Assessment of self-poisoning patients by psychiatrists and junior medical staff.

Authors:  D Black; F Creed
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 18.000

  5 in total
  5 in total

1.  Does a decision aid help physicians to detect chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?

Authors:  Berna D L Broekhuizen; Alfred Sachs; Kristel Janssen; Geert-Jan Geersing; Karel Moons; Arno Hoes; Theo Verheij
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Risk assessment and psychosocial interventions for suicidal patients.

Authors:  Megan Chesin; Barbara Stanley
Journal:  Bipolar Disord       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 6.744

3.  Predictive accuracy of risk scales following self-harm: multicentre, prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Leah Quinlivan; Jayne Cooper; Declan Meehan; Damien Longson; John Potokar; Tom Hulme; Jennifer Marsden; Fiona Brand; Kezia Lange; Elena Riseborough; Lisa Page; Chris Metcalfe; Linda Davies; Rory O'Connor; Keith Hawton; David Gunnell; Nav Kapur
Journal:  Br J Psychiatry       Date:  2017-03-16       Impact factor: 9.319

Review 4.  Risk factors for repetition of self-harm: a systematic review of prospective hospital-based studies.

Authors:  Celine Larkin; Zelda Di Blasi; Ella Arensman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-20       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  Which are the most useful scales for predicting repeat self-harm? A systematic review evaluating risk scales using measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  L Quinlivan; J Cooper; L Davies; K Hawton; D Gunnell; N Kapur
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 2.692

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.