The Suicide Risk Assessment and Management Manual (S-RAMM) Validation Study II

2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 107-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Fagan ◽  
Atif Ijaz ◽  
Alexia Papaconstantinou ◽  
Aideen Lynch ◽  
Helen O'Neill ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectives:Structured professional judgement is now the most widely accepted approach to clinical risk assessment and risk management. The Suicide Risk Assessment and Management Manual (S-RAMM) is a new structured professional judgement tool closely modelled on the HCR-20. This is the first prospective validation study for this instrument.Methods:Two post-membership registrars jointly interviewed 81 of 83 current inpatients to rate the S-RAMM. Two assistant psychologists independently rated the HCR-20, GAF and PANSS. All incidents of self-harm, attempted suicide, suicide and violence to others were collated from hospital reporting of critical incidents over the next six months supplemented by examination of other records.Results:For combined self-harm and suicide outcomes, the S-RAMM total score using the receiver operating characteristic had an area under the curve AUC=0.89, (95% CI 0.79 to 0.99). The S-RAMM performed as well for the prediction of self-harm and suicide as the HCR-20 did for violence, and better than measures of mental state (PANSS total score) and global function (GAF).Conclusions:The S-RAMM has better than minimum acceptable characteristics for use as a clinical or research tool for suicide risk assessment, and performs almost as well as the HCR-20 does for violence. Further prospective studies are now required, in other populations.

2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 54-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atif Ijaz ◽  
Alexia Papaconstantinou ◽  
Helen O'Neill ◽  
Harry G Kennedy

AbstractObjective:There are validated tools for structured professional judgement of risk of violence, but few for risk of suicide. The Suicide Risk Assessment and Management Manual (S-RAMM) is a new structured professional judgement tool closely modelled on the HCR-20. This is the first validation study for the S-RAMM. We measured inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, concurrent validity with another validated risk instrument (HCR-20) and with a measure of psychopathology (PANSS). We tested whether the tool could distinguish between groups of patients clinically assessed as at varying levels of risk of suicide or self harm.Method:Two researchers jointly interviewed 25 current in-patients for inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and interviewed 81 of 83 current in-patients to assess whether the mean scores for different wards were significantly different (using ANOVA). Two other researchers made independent ratings of the HCR-20 and PANSS.Results:Inter-rater reliability was acceptable for all items (Cohen's kappa >0.5 for all but three items) and all sub-scale and total scores (Spearman correlations all >0.8). Internal consistency was high, (Cronbach's alpha all sub-scales >0.6). Scores stratified significantly with high scores for admission and intensive care units and progressively lower scores in rehabilitation and predischarge units. The HCR-20 historical and S-RAMM background scores did not correlate but the dynamic sub-scales correlated significantly. PANSS scores also correlated significantly with S-RAMM scores.Conclusion:The S-RAMM has better than minimum acceptable characteristics for use as a clinical or research tool. Prospective studies of sensitivity and specificity are now required.


2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sruthi Chunduri ◽  
Sabrina Browne ◽  
David E. Pollio ◽  
Barry A. Hong ◽  
Writtika Roy ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 263 ◽  
pp. 121-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raffaella Calati ◽  
Lisa J. Cohen ◽  
Allison Schuck ◽  
Dorin Levy ◽  
Sarah Bloch-Elkouby ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joe Bouch ◽  
John James Marshall

Patient risk factors for suicide are well known to psychiatrists, yet the availability of clinically useful, routine and systematic methods for risk recognition are limited. This article outlines the structured professional judgement approach to suicide risk assessment and management. This method combines psychiatric assessment and formulation with the evidence base for suicide risk factors. Structured professional judgement is contrasted with actuarial and clinical judgement approaches. A categorisation of risk factors is presented, with four groups described – static, stable, dynamic and future. Case histories illustrate long-term high risk contrasted with sudden and unpredictable onset of suicidality.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document