Q/A Session Oct 2024: Why is risk stratification of a member’s peers/colleagues considered in an individual mental health assessment?
Question: Why is risk stratification of a member’s peers/colleagues considered in an individual mental health assessment?
Answer: Research findings have revealed that suicide risk classification systems often fail to identify those most at risk. A recent paper (Levis et al. 2024) from the US Veterans Health Administration showed 90% of patients who died by suicide were not classified as high-risk. In response, contemporary suicide prevention has shifted to emphasise the importance of conducting assessments that focus on understanding the needs of at-risk individuals and creating plans and interventions to address those needs (Carter et al., 2017; Hagwood & De Leo, 2016; Hawton et al., 2022; Soper et al., 2022). Prevention-oriented risk formulation is one such approach.
Consistent with these findings, Defence is moving away from describing risk as low, medium or high.
The goal of a mental health risk assessment is not prediction, but rather to inform plans and responses. Describing a member’s risk to their context - relative to others being supported in the same setting - becomes a helpful contextual anchor and description to inform what plans and supports are necessary to support safety and recovery.
For example, if a member’s risk status is higher than other members assessed at the health centre, the goal would be to develop a more robust plan member support plan. That might include engaging more support or more frequent follow-up or observation.
This sort of description can also be helpful in considering if support from a different setting might be useful. You can read about how Gold Coast Health - a partner of SafeSide - has found the integration of describing a person’s risk in context helpful in this chapter: Pisani et al., 2022.
RELATED RESOURCES: