Finding the Right Level of Interruption to Improve Suicide Screening Compliance in the Emergency Department

Abstract

Background

The use of real-time clinical decision support (CDS), such as Our Practice Advisory (OPAs), augments clinical decisions while helping to reduce errors and ensuring compliance with organizational best practices.[1] In complex large health systems, processes for standardization and adherence to emergency department (ED)-based suicide screening practices are challenging and may benefit from the use of CDS-based tools adhering to the five rights of CDS.[2]

Objectives

To improve suicide screening compliance for the ED to 95% by implementing a contextually appropriate CDS-based tool within the electronic health record (EHR).

Methods

A multidisciplinary group of quality and ED nursing leadership aimed to develop a chief complaint-driven OPA that improved adherence to and completion of suicide screening in the ED. Using an iterative design process over 3 months, a series of two distinct suicide screening OPAs were developed with varying levels of interruption, but both relied on rule-based logic to identify if an ED patient met one of the 57 predefined “Reasons for Visit” or chief complaints requiring suicide screening. Use of chief complaint-driving CDS removed the need for manually remembering complex criteria while contributing to meeting regulatory and organizational standards.

Results

The ED suicide screening compliance improved from 64.96 to 77.66% with the initial implementation of the noninterruptive OPA. Subsequently, an interruptive OPA (pop-up window based on a defined trigger that stops the clinician and requires a response), was introduced which further increased screenings being completed to 91.69%. The use of CDS interruptive OPAs significantly improved compliance with suicide screening by including the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale tool directly in the OPA.

Conclusion

Use of contextually relevant information, such as reason for visit or chief complaint, and interruptive CDS tools embedded into EHR workflows may improve ED-based suicide screening.

Keywords

informatics - suicide screening - nursing documentation - clinical decision support - Our Practice Advisory

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

Human and/or animal subjects were not included in this project.

Publication History

Received: 18 December 2024

Accepted: 03 June 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
04 June 2025

Article published online:
07 November 2025

• References

• 1 eHealthUniversity. Clinical Decision Support Tipsheet. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Clinical Decision Support Tipsheet. September 2014. Accessed August 13, 2024 at: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Downloads/ClinicalDecisionSupport_Tipsheet-.pdf
• 2 Olfson M, Marcus SC, Bridge JA. Focusing suicide prevention on periods of high risk. JAMA 2014; 311 (11) 1107-1108
• 3 Boudreaux ED, Camargo Jr CA, Arias SA. et al. Improving suicide risk screening and detection in the emergency department. Am J Prev Med 2016; 50 (04) 445-453
• 4 Miller IW, Camargo Jr CA, Arias SA. et al; ED-SAFE Investigators. Suicide prevention in an emergency department population: the ED-SAFE study. JAMA Psychiatry 2017; 74 (06) 563-570
• 5 The Joint Commission. The Joint Commission Issues Quick Safety Advisory on Using Validated Tools for Suicide Risk Screening. March 30, 2023. Accessed August 29, 2024 at: https://www.jointcommission.org/resources/news-and-multimedia/news/2023/03/quick-safety-advisory-on-using-validated-tools-for-suicide-risk-screening/#:~:text=The%20Joint%20Commission%20requires%20hospitals,using%20a%20validated%20screening%20tool
• 6 The Joint Commission. National Patient Safety Goal for Suicide Prevention. Accessed August 29, 2024 at: https://www.jointcommission.org/-/media/tjc/documents/standards/r3-reports/r3_18_suicide_prevention_hap_bhc_cah_11_4_19_final1.pdf
• 7 Posner K, Brown GK, Stanley B. et al. The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale: initial validity and internal consistency findings from three multisite studies with adolescents and adults. Am J Psychiatry 2011; 168 (12) 1266-1277
• 8 Epic Systems Corporation. Epic. November 1, 2023. https://www.epic.com/
• 9 Campbell R. The Five Rights of Clinical Decision Support: CDS Tools Helpful for Meeting Meaningful Use. February 2016. Accessed May 4, 2023 at: https://library.ahima.org/doc?oid=300027#.ZFPMW-xuc-Q
• 10 Raban MZ, Gates PJ, Gamboa S, Gonzalez G, Westbrook JI. Effectiveness of non-interruptive nudge interventions in electronic health records to improve the delivery of care in hospitals: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2023; 30 (07) 1313-1322
• 11 Kruskal WH, Wallis WA. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 1952; 47 (260) 583-621
• 12 R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2024. Accessed April 23, 2025 at: https://www.R-project.org/
• 13 Kansara B, Basta A, Mikhael M. et al. Suicide risk screening for head and neck cancer patients: an implementation study. Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15 (02) 404-413