Skip to main content

Suicide survey in a London borough

About one million people worldwide die each year from suicide. Hence, strategies to reduce deaths from suicide are a key public health priority in many countries. A recent study by Dennis Ougrin and colleagues published in the Journal of Public Health aimed to collate relevant data from local and national sources, which will demonstrate the incidence of death from suicide and undetermined injury in the London Borough of Brent. The study also aimed to determine the characteristics of the subjects dying of suicide and undetermined injury in the locality and to identify what structures and processes are in place for recognizing, monitoring and sharing information about suicide between primary care, secondary care and public health.

The authors identified all deaths by suicides and open verdicts in the residents of Brent between February 2005 and February 2008. Health records of the identified subjects were analysed by two researchers. The annual rate of suicide in the study period was 6.8 per 100 000 inhabitants. Of the 54 cases of suicide in the , 45% had a psychiatric diagnosis and 18% were in current contact with mental health services. Hanging was the most frequent mode of suicide. Only 25% had seen their general practitioner within a month of suicide.

The study showed that a suicide survey is a feasible method of monitoring suicide, sharing data between key stakeholders and learning from the trends uncovered. The role for primary care in suicide prevention seems important but may be limited by an unexpectedly large proportion of the subjects not being in contact with primary care. In addition, the majority of the last primary care consultations were not for mental health problems This emphasizes the importance of wider societal initiative to improve suicide rates in addition to NHS interventions (e.g. reducing access to methods of suicide; and better employment, education and housing).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

UK Covid-19 Inquiry - The Importance of a Strong Primary Healthcare System

In my witness statement for Module 10 of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, I discuss the pandemic's impact through from the perspectives of  primary care and public health, drawing on my extensive experience as a senior academic at Imperial College London and as a practising GP and NHS Public Health Specialist.  I emphasise that the pandemic disproportionately affected people who were clinically vulnerable, the disabled, ethnic minority communities and those living in deprived areas. The pandemic highlighted how structural inequalities, multigenerational housing, and employment in high-risk frontline roles exacerbated health disparities.  My statement also critiques the weakening of public health infrastructure - particularly for the control of infectious diseases - and the lack of integrated health data systems to identify at-risk groups such as the clinically vulnerable. I also advocated for a more robust preventive healthcare model that prioritises community-based primary care ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.  Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.  This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...
Post a Comment
Read more