Considering the care of the suicidal client and the case for ‘engagement and inspiring hope’ or ‘observations’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychiatric/mental health (P/MH) nursing has rightly been described as a 'broad church', and one that contains many contested matters and areas of differing opinion. One such contested matter is that of the appropriate care for the person who is at risk of suicide. Recent, albeit limited, debate of this issue has taken place, and the literature, such as it is, indicates two principal (though linked) positions. These can be summarized as the 'engagement and hope inspiration' position and the 'observations' position. Given the P/MH nurse's unique position in providing 24-hour, day-to-day care to suicidal clients and the growing problem of suicide within people who suffer from mental health problems, it is both necessary and perhaps timely to consider this debate in more detail. Accordingly, this paper considers the debate regarding care for suicidal mental health care clients. First, the paper briefly describes the historical policy context of care for the suicidal client. Next, it focuses on 'observations' and concludes that there is a range of well-established, empirically based problems or drawbacks to this approach. Following this, it focuses on 'engagement, inspiring hope' and points out the key processes of engagement: forming a relationship, a human-human connection, conveying acceptance and tolerance, and hearing and understanding. The value and importance of these most fundamental of interpersonal processes is described and alluded to throughout the limited research into care of the suicidal client. The paper then describes the range of criticisms that have been levelled at the engagement-inspiring hope approach and considers these criticisms in more detail. As a result of this detailed examination, the paper then reiterates the need to replace 'observations' with 'engagement-hope inspiration' as the principal approach to caring for suicidal mental health clients.
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 | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".