Objective Suicide is a leading cause of death among children and adolescents. Suicide risk screening tools can detect the risk of suicide among patients presenting to healthcare settings. The aim of this review was to describe the effectiveness of universal suicide risk screening (all patients) compared with selective screening (behavioural health patients only) in children and adolescents in emergency departments (EDs).
Method A literature search was conducted on PubMed for articles related to suicide risk screening in paediatric EDs between January 2016 and February 2022.
Results 8 studies met the selection criteria. The review showed that 46%–93% of patients that screened positive for suicide risk had presented with a medical concern. These patients would have been missed without universal suicide risk screening. In both selective and universal screening scenarios, use of a suicide risk screening tool was better at detecting suicide risk compared with use of presenting problem alone. Suicide risk screening was found to be acceptable without increasing length of stay in the ED.
Conclusion Based on this review, using a suicide screening tool can help detect patients at risk who would otherwise have been missed.
- Child Psychiatry
- Emergency Service, Hospital
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Twitter @khaldialrisi, @Naim Alnasif, @FinzaLatif
Contributors All listed authors were involved in conceptualising the review. Dr KA and
Dr NA conducted the initial literature review and Dr FL, Dr KA and Dr NA drafted the initial manuscript. All authors reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.