MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177360543 · doi:10.1192/bjo.2021.150

Training foundation doctors in mental health risk assessment as a tool in the fight against suicide

2021· article· en· W3177360543 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jeorghino Lodge, Michael Obidoa

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRobarts Research InstituteLawson Health Research Institute
KeywordsSuicidal ideationSpecialtyMental healthFoundation (evidence)PsychologyFamily medicineMedicinePsychiatrySuicide preventionPoison controlMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims To determine the perceptions of Junior Doctors on whether formal training in risk assessment could help to reduce the number of completed suicides following medical contact. Method Foundation trainees within the Great Western Trust were surveyed using a questionnaire. For those trainees that were not present on the acute hospital site, the same questionnaire was distributed by the postgraduate medical team to all trainees using survey monkey. The survey was left open for four weeks. The total response rate was 57/88 foundation trainees. Simple statistical analysis of the data was performed and outlined below. Result 87% of all the trainees have never done a rotation in psychiatry. 51% of foundation doctors have had between 1-5 patients with suicidal behaviour or ideations admitted under the care of a medical team on which they were the junior doctor and up to 26% have admitted to encountering greater than 10 such patients. Only 37% of foundation trainees who have managed patients with suicidal behaviours admitted to having had any formal training in mental health risk assessment. Foundation trainees report being only somewhat confident in the identifying of factors that make a person high risk of completing suicide. 63% of all foundation trainees would refer any patient who expressed suicidal ideation for formal psychiatric assessment. Majority of the trainees were ‘not so confident’ in their ability to assess a patient's risk of suicide and in offering any help to mitigate this risk. None of the trainees have the intention to pursue psychiatry as a medical specialty and majority (60%) intend to pursue medical specialties. 56% of the trainees felt that training foundation doctors formally to assess patient mental health risk, could reduce the percentage of patients with completed suicide following being seen for non-psychiatric reason. Conclusion The UK Foundation Program is a bridge that occupies that gap between undergraduate medical education and specialty training. It therefore an ideal opportunity for training clinicians in mental health risk assessment as one strategy to help reduce completed suicide following non-psychiatric health contact.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.183
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.367 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJPsych OpenSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207