Outcomes of the Suicidal Ideation Assessment Protocol Decision Tree Responses from the Tampa VA TBI Model Systems Research Study

Research Objectives To describe participant outcomes from implementation of the Suicidal Ideation Assessment Protocol (SIAP) as a tool for non-clinical research staff to appropriately assess and respond to suicide risk. Design Descriptive. Setting James A. Haley Veterans Affairs Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center. Participants N=155 participant follow-up interviews. Interventions Tampa VA TBIMS data collectors implemented the SIAP decision tree in response to participant endorsements of SI on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), a brief self-report rating scale to screen for depression (e.g. “thoughts that you would be better off dead or hurting yourself in some way”), on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), a self-report scale that measures trait pain catastrophizing (e.g. “I feel my life isn't worth living”), or through sporadic comments about death or suicide during remote follow-up telephone interviews. Main Outcome Measures SIAP as a tool for non-clinical research staff, percentage of participants who endorsed SI during follow-up interviews, and percentage of participants who accepted VCL resources or declined VCL resources because they already had, or did not want them. Results Data collectors conducted 155 interviews. 27 participants (17.42%) endorsed SI and were offered the VCL call and text numbers. 10 participants (37.04%) accepted VCL resources, 17 participants (62.96%) declined VCL resources, and 1 participant was transferred to the VCL. The PCS alone had the highest number of SI endorsements (n=8), followed by the PHQ-9 alone (n=7), and both the PCS and PHQ-9 (n=7). Conclusions Implementation of the SIAP and referral to VCL resources demonstrates the feasibility and importance of the decision tree for data collectors involved in research with high risk populations. Author(s) Disclosures Financial Disclosures: None. This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this abstract are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the Defense Health Agency, Department of Defense, or any other U.S. government agency. For more information, please contact dha.TBICOEinfo@mail.mil.