Background: Interest in developing machine learning algorithms that use electronic health record data to predict patients’ risk of suicidal behavior has recently proliferated. Whether and how such models might be implemented and useful in clinical practice, however, remains unknown. In order to ultimately make automated suicide risk prediction algorithms useful in practice, and thus better prevent patient suicides, it is critical to partner with key stakeholders (including the frontline providers who will be using such tools) at each stage of the implementation process.Objective: The aim of this focus group study was to inform ongoing and future efforts to deploy suicide risk prediction models in clinical practice. The specific goals were to better understand hospital providers’ current practices for assessing and managing suicide risk; determine providers’ perspectives on using automated suicide risk prediction algorithms; and identify barriers, facilitators, recommendations, and factors to consider for initiatives in this area. Methods: We conducted 10 two-hour focus groups with a total of 40 providers from psychiatry, internal medicine and primary care, emergency medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology departments within an urban academic medical center. Audio recordings of open-ended group discussions were transcribed and coded for relevant and recurrent themes by two independent study staff members. All coded text was reviewed and discrepancies resolved in consensus meetings with doctoral-level staff. Results: Though most providers reported using standardized suicide risk assessment tools in their clinical practices, existing tools were commonly described as unhelpful and providers indicated dissatisfaction with current suicide risk assessment methods. Overall, providers’ general attitudes toward the practical use of automated suicide risk prediction models and corresponding clinical decision support tools were positive. Providers were especially interested in the potential to identify high-risk patients who might be missed by traditional screening methods. Some expressed skepticism about the potential usefulness of these models in routine care; specific barriers included concerns about liability, alert fatigue, and increased demand on the healthcare system. Key facilitators included presenting specific patient-level features contributing to risk scores, emphasizing changes in risk over time, and developing systematic clinical workflows and provider trainings. Participants also recommended considering risk-prediction windows, timing of alerts, who will have access to model predictions, and variability across treatment settings.Conclusions: Providers were dissatisfied with current suicide risk assessment methods and open to the use of a machine learning-based risk prediction system to inform clinical decision-making. They also raised multiple concerns about potential barriers to the usefulness of this approach and suggested several possible facilitators. Future efforts in this area will benefit from incorporating systematic qualitative feedback from providers, patients, administrators, and payers on the use of new methods in routine care, especially given the complex, sensitive, and unfortunately still stigmatized nature of suicide risk.
Do implicit measures improve suicide risk prediction? An 18‐month prospective study using different tasks