Enhancing Key Competencies of Health Professionals in the Assessment and Care of Adults at Risk of Suicide Through Education and Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This article describes efforts undertaken to improve the clinical competencies of health professionals in the area of suicide risk assessment, documentation, and care planning. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Best practices that fit the mental health and addictions setting were identified from the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario Best Practice Guideline on Assessment and Care of Adults at Risk for Suicidal Ideation and Behaviour. A variety of methods were used to implement the guidelines at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. These included 3 in-person educational modules, an e-learning module, and the creation of an electronic health record suicide risk assessment documentation form. OUTCOME: Results showed that interprofessional team members improved their suicide awareness and increased their confidence and knowledge in suicide risk assessment and the identification of interventions for clients at risk. Organizational level performance and quality improvement activities after implementation of the education and the electronic suicide risk assessment documentation form are being implemented through a collaboration between performance improvement, clinical education and informatics, and professional practice. CONCLUSION: The success of an interprofessional educational program of this nature is dependent on the collaboration of a number of stakeholders from a variety of areas of the organization.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".