Suicide and self‐harm in in‐patient psychiatric units: a study of nursing issues in 31 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant number of incidents of suicide and self-harm occur whilst patients are in receipt of care as in-patients. This audit comprises 31 cases which were referred to the first author for expert opinion, each case being the subject of legal action brought by patients and/or their families. The cases were referred from 31 different NHS trusts across England. All concerned suicide/serious self-harm in people in receipt of in-patient care. The aims of this audit were to carry out a detailed assessment of the 31 individual cases, so as to provide a nursing dimension to already established enquiries in this area and also to examine whether specific issues might be the subject of more systematic research. Further, this paper aims to provide some insights in the area of litigation, where nurses are becoming increasingly involved. The same broad approach to information-gathering and analysis was used, comprising a systematic review of case records, trust policies, expert reports and, where appropriate, inquest transcriptions. The sample comprised 12 suicides and 19 cases of serious self-harm. Factors associated with these events include: being male, having a dual diagnosis of mental illness and drug/alcohol abuse, and age between 21 and 30 years. Of the 12 deaths, five occurred in hospital, four by hanging and one by drowning. The audit highlighted environmental factors associated with these events which, arguably, could be simply addressed. There was a considerable variation in the content and quality of observation policy and practice. The results of this audit point to the need for further research but, above all, provide evidence requiring urgent action by the Department of Health regarding the setting of national standards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".