* If you or someone you know is struggling or in crisis, help is available. Call or text 988 or chat 988lifeline.org. Text MHA to 741741 to connect with a trained Crisis Counselor from Crisis Text Line.
There are significant developments in the world, the United States, and our field in recent years that are significantly impacting contemporary clinical suicide prevention. The Covid-19 worldwide pandemic, the launch of the 3-digit 988 Suicide and Crisis Line in the U.S., and recent SAMHSA and Centers for Disease Control data are all examples of major forces that are fundamentally transforming the field of clinical suicidology. Many of these contemporary developments are spawning necessary and overdue changes and adaptations as to how mental health providers can more effectively work with suicidal risk. And to this end, I will explore these major developments and their impact on clinical suicidology.
As we were all collectively compelled to learn to provide care online perforce, many unexpected developments followed. For example, telehealth now offers a genuine opportunity to democratize the delivery of care to rural, frontier, and potentially more diverse populations. Another development in psychology was the advent of PSYPAC which enables providers to increase clinical care across state lines. Another notable Covid-based development was the common practice of instructing people who are acutely suicidal to go to their nearest emergency department for care.
With emergency departments brimming with coronavirus patients, such a recommendation became ethically and clinically dubious. Common reliance on inpatient care similarly posed the increased risk of patients contracting Covid during the pandemic's height. As the developer of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS), I have long been a vocal advocate of keeping patients who are at risk of suicide out of hospital emergency departments and inpatient care (if at all possible) by providing proven suicide-focused care supported by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In response to the early stages of the pandemic, our training company CAMS-care converted the training and delivery of CAMS to online modalities (including the use of CAMS in three RCTs). We soon discovered that both training and clinical care can be effectively rendered online, and this development is helping to transform clinical care for those at risk for suicide.
While all of this is very encouraging, the launch of 988 has created some growing pains and posed various challenges to policymakers, systems of care, and clinical providers. For example, how well do Americans know the difference between calling 911 and 988? There is a need to educate the public as to how to re-think emergencies that would have previously prompted calls to 911. There are significant issues related to “wellness checks” or “safety checks” that are primarily conducted by law enforcement officers who may have limited to no training as to how to deal effectively with mental health care crisis. For a person of color, having a police officer show up uninvited to protect you from yourself has inherent issues. 988 also brings a major focus to our existing healthcare model that is overly reliant on emergency departments and inpatient hospitalizations that too often may not be altogether therapeutic.
Fortunately, alternative models of crisis response are emerging. For example, “The Hope Institute” in Perrysburg, Ohio, provides intensive outpatient suicide-focused care using next day appointments (NDAs) wherein either CAMS or Dialectical Behavior Therapy (or both) can be provided up to four times a week to help stabilize a person who is suicidal as they await weeks — sometimes months — `to engage in available outpatient care. Within this model, adults are stabilized in six weeks while youth at risk are stabilized in just over five weeks. This is but one promising model that is re-imagining working with suicidal crises. Other promising approaches include mobile crisis response, respite care, retreat centers, certain crises-oriented technologies, and extensive use of peer support which can help reshape crisis responses.
While we grieve the loss of Americans to suicide, I would argue that we must do a much better job of identifying, assessing, and treating millions of those who suffer such that they seriously consider suicide. In truth, the suicide problem we have in the U.S. is a suicidal ideation problem — by a lot. It therefore behooves all mental health professionals to learn proven interventions like Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), suicide focused cognitive behavioral therapy (CT-SP and BCBT), CAMS, or Attachment-Based Family Therapy (ABFT) to name a few of the rigorously proven interventions for suicide risk. Moreover, there have been other demographic developments of note. As suicide rates among white males have decreased, we have seen in recent CDC data that suicide ideation and behavior is on the increase among young people, particularly those of color. We certainly know the pandemic has been tough on all of us with clear increases in depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation.
***
Given these recent developments in our world, I would assert that it is critical for mental health providers to become a part of the solution to suicidal suffering. We are uniquely positioned to make a life-saving difference and help decrease suicide-related suffering by keeping abreast of major developments in the field and learning to use evidence-based approaches to suicidal risk.
Questions for Thought and Discussion
In what ways did this article impact you personally and professionally?
How have you modified your own approach to suicidality in recent years?
How have you collaborated with colleagues in and around the mental health community to improve your services to suicidal clients?
File under: Therapy Training, Online Therapy
There are significant developments in the world, the United States, and our field in recent years that are significantly impacting contemporary clinical suicide prevention. The Covid-19 worldwide pandemic, the launch of the 3-digit 988 Suicide and Crisis Line in the U.S., and recent SAMHSA and Centers for Disease Control data are all examples of major forces that are fundamentally transforming the field of clinical suicidology. Many of these contemporary developments are spawning necessary and overdue changes and adaptations as to how mental health providers can more effectively work with suicidal risk. And to this end, I will explore these major developments and their impact on clinical suicidology.
Telehealth Care and Suicidal Risk
An impressive development in response to the coronavirus outbreak was the remarkably rapid embrace of telehealth to deliver mental health care. As the worldwide pandemic spread rapidly in early 2020 there was an initial hesitation of widespread use of telehealth with people who were suicidal. Indeed, there were certain large healthcare systems who moved, suspended, and even discontinued screening for suicidal risk with patients online because of a flawed presumption that one can only work with a person who is suicidal face-to-face. In other words, if you cannot tackle the patient at risk who is fleeing your office to take their life it is better not to ask! In response to this naive notion, certain leaders in the field of suicide prevention made significant efforts to identify key adaptations to working with suicide risk remotely. These adaptations mostly involve using informed consent carefully, identifying third parties who could intervene in case of an acute emergency, and anticipating issues such as a poor Wi-Fi connection and what to do in such an event (e.g., having a phone number to call if online connectivity is an issue).Like what you are reading? For more stimulating stories, thought-provoking articles and new video announcements, sign up for our monthly newsletter.
As we were all collectively compelled to learn to provide care online perforce, many unexpected developments followed. For example, telehealth now offers a genuine opportunity to democratize the delivery of care to rural, frontier, and potentially more diverse populations. Another development in psychology was the advent of PSYPAC which enables providers to increase clinical care across state lines. Another notable Covid-based development was the common practice of instructing people who are acutely suicidal to go to their nearest emergency department for care.
With emergency departments brimming with coronavirus patients, such a recommendation became ethically and clinically dubious. Common reliance on inpatient care similarly posed the increased risk of patients contracting Covid during the pandemic's height. As the developer of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS), I have long been a vocal advocate of keeping patients who are at risk of suicide out of hospital emergency departments and inpatient care (if at all possible) by providing proven suicide-focused care supported by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In response to the early stages of the pandemic, our training company CAMS-care converted the training and delivery of CAMS to online modalities (including the use of CAMS in three RCTs). We soon discovered that both training and clinical care can be effectively rendered online, and this development is helping to transform clinical care for those at risk for suicide.
The 988 Suicide and Crisis Line
In July of 2022, a major federal law was put into effect that is profoundly transforming how we must think about suicide risk and mental health crises. The “National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2018” is one of the most significant legislative developments in the history of U.S. mental health care. Suddenly, we have an easy-to-remember 3-digit number that connects callers who are suicidal or otherwise in a mental health crisis to crisis professionals who are ready and able to effectively deal with them. With the knowledge that the pre-existing Lifeline was already having capacity issues, millions of dollars were subsequently allocated to help better support the new 988 mental health crisis line.While all of this is very encouraging, the launch of 988 has created some growing pains and posed various challenges to policymakers, systems of care, and clinical providers. For example, how well do Americans know the difference between calling 911 and 988? There is a need to educate the public as to how to re-think emergencies that would have previously prompted calls to 911. There are significant issues related to “wellness checks” or “safety checks” that are primarily conducted by law enforcement officers who may have limited to no training as to how to deal effectively with mental health care crisis. For a person of color, having a police officer show up uninvited to protect you from yourself has inherent issues. 988 also brings a major focus to our existing healthcare model that is overly reliant on emergency departments and inpatient hospitalizations that too often may not be altogether therapeutic.
Fortunately, alternative models of crisis response are emerging. For example, “The Hope Institute” in Perrysburg, Ohio, provides intensive outpatient suicide-focused care using next day appointments (NDAs) wherein either CAMS or Dialectical Behavior Therapy (or both) can be provided up to four times a week to help stabilize a person who is suicidal as they await weeks — sometimes months — `to engage in available outpatient care. Within this model, adults are stabilized in six weeks while youth at risk are stabilized in just over five weeks. This is but one promising model that is re-imagining working with suicidal crises. Other promising approaches include mobile crisis response, respite care, retreat centers, certain crises-oriented technologies, and extensive use of peer support which can help reshape crisis responses.
Recent Trends in Suicide-Related Data
Over the last several years there have been notable developments in suicide-related phenomena. While we were initially encouraged when suicide rates declined a bit in 2019 and 2020, this decline was erased by an increase in 2021 (the most recent data reported by CDC). And with Covid-19 becoming a leading killer, suicide is no longer a top ten leading cause of death with 48,183 lives lost to suicide in 2021. But what has preoccupied my attention has been steady increases in the number of Americans who report having “serious thoughts of suicide” within 30 days of a survey completed by SAMHSA. Indeed, in 2021 this amounted to 12,300,000 adults and another 3,300,000 teens, altogether a whopping 15,600,000 Americans with serious suicidal thoughts! This number is over 300 times greater than the number who died by suicide in 2021.While we grieve the loss of Americans to suicide, I would argue that we must do a much better job of identifying, assessing, and treating millions of those who suffer such that they seriously consider suicide. In truth, the suicide problem we have in the U.S. is a suicidal ideation problem — by a lot. It therefore behooves all mental health professionals to learn proven interventions like Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), suicide focused cognitive behavioral therapy (CT-SP and BCBT), CAMS, or Attachment-Based Family Therapy (ABFT) to name a few of the rigorously proven interventions for suicide risk. Moreover, there have been other demographic developments of note. As suicide rates among white males have decreased, we have seen in recent CDC data that suicide ideation and behavior is on the increase among young people, particularly those of color. We certainly know the pandemic has been tough on all of us with clear increases in depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation.
***
Given these recent developments in our world, I would assert that it is critical for mental health providers to become a part of the solution to suicidal suffering. We are uniquely positioned to make a life-saving difference and help decrease suicide-related suffering by keeping abreast of major developments in the field and learning to use evidence-based approaches to suicidal risk.
Questions for Thought and Discussion
In what ways did this article impact you personally and professionally?
How have you modified your own approach to suicidality in recent years?
How have you collaborated with colleagues in and around the mental health community to improve your services to suicidal clients?
File under: Therapy Training, Online Therapy