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

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...

MPH Student Presentations on the NHS Care.Data Programme

As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments fo...

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...