“I was Close to Helping him but Couldn't Quite get There”: Psychiatrists’ Experiences of a Patient’s Death by Suicide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A patient's death by suicide is a common experience for psychiatrists, ranging from 33% to 80%, however, research about the impact of patient suicide on psychiatrists is limited to a few survey studies. This study had three main objectives: (1) understanding the emotional and behavioural impact of a patient's suicide on psychiatrists, (2) exploring if and how the experience of a patient's suicide results in changes in psychiatrist practice patterns, and (3) understanding the tangible steps that psychiatrists and institutions take to manage the emotional and behavioural impact of patient suicide on psychiatrists. METHODS: Eighteen psychiatrists were recruited using snowball sampling and interviewed to collect demographic data, followed by an in-depth exploration of their experiences of patient suicide. Interviews were then transcribed verbatim and analysed using constructivist grounded theory. RESULTS: Study participants described strong emotional reactions in response to patient suicide. Emotional reactions were mediated by a physician, patient, relationship and institutional factors. While psychiatrists did not change the acuity or setting of their practice in response to patient suicide, they made several changes in their practice, including increased caution regarding discharges and passes from inpatient units, more thorough documentation and continuing education about suicide. CONCLUSIONS: Patient suicide has a profound impact on psychiatrists and based on the findings of this study, we propose steps that psychiatrists and institutions can take to manage the emotional, psychological and behavioural burden of this event.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".