ABSTRACT
Standards for assessing and managing suicide risk were developed and incorporated into a guidance manual for general practitioners. The effects of the manual on opinions and practice were evaluated using a quasi-experimental controlled before/after design, comparing participating general practitioners with others who did not use the manual. Thirty four general practitioners participated over a six-month period. The intervention group showed changes in perceptions, with increased satisfaction with their own methods and in their recognition and assessment of suicide risk. Their practice changed, with increased recording of relevant factors in notes. The comparison group did not change in these ways. It is concluded that general practitioners' practice and opinions in assessing and managing suicide risk were significantly improved using a minimal intervention. Given the importance of the topic and the small size of this study, further research is needed, examining changes in professional practice, knowledge and attitudes.
Subject(s)
Family Practice/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Risk Assessment/standards , Suicide/psychology , Affective Symptoms/complications , Affective Symptoms/diagnosis , Clinical Competence , Depression/complications , Depression/diagnosis , Diagnosis, Differential , Humans , Manuals as Topic , Medical Audit/statistics & numerical data , Mental Disorders/complications , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Patient Care Team/standards , Risk Factors , Substance-Related Disorders/complications , Substance-Related Disorders/diagnosis , Suicide, Attempted , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom , Suicide PreventionABSTRACT
As a first step in planning primary care services for a whole district, the Northumberland Local Medical Committee undertook a postal survey of all 51 practices in the county. Questionnaires were returned by 154 doctors (95%). Information was collected from every practice on doctors' qualifications and postgraduate training, aspects of professional commitments in addition to patient care, professional appointments outside the practice, and clinical services being offered by the practice. A wide range of clinical services was reported. In general, preventive services in singlehanded practices were provided within normal consulting sessions while the larger practices offered many special sessions and a multidisciplinary approach. In addition to establishing baseline information for planning primary care initiatives, this first exercise provided valuable experience in data collection and management. Having shown that such a role is feasible, the experience will be used to expand the information and planning activities of the committee.
