Tag Archives: Suicidality

Clinical Interviewing, Suicide Assessment and Intervention

To Hospitalize or Not to Hospitalize? A Suicide Assessment Conundrum

Leave a comment

Yesterday I had a chance to do a 3-hour online workshop with a very cool group of about 22 smart, skilled, and dedicated professionals. They engaged with the content and consequently, we had some great discussions. One of the discussions has kept percolating for me today. The topic: How do we handle situations where clients are clearly suicidal, but are reluctant or unwilling to develop and agree to a collaborative safety plan.  

We talked about how, often, the knee-jerk impulse is to pursue hospitalization. While that’s a viable and reasonable option, the problem is that hospitalization and discharge is a notable risk factor for death by suicide. The other problem is that it’s pretty much impossible for us to know if the client’s resistance to a safety plan indicates increased risk, or just resistance to what s/he/they view as a coercive mandate.

There’s no perfect clinician response to this dilemma. Hospitalization helps some clients, and causes demoralization and regression in others. Not hospitalizing can feel too risky for practitioners.

We talked about a few guidelines in dealing with this conundrum. They include: (a) consulting with colleagues, (b) reflecting on the client’s engagement in other aspects of treatment (increased engagement in treatment is a protective factor), (c) evaluating client intent and client impulsivity, and (d) documenting your decision-making process (including citations indicating that psychiatric hospitalization may not be the best alternative). But again, there’s no perfect guideline.

Below is an excerpt from a CEU course I wrote about a year ago. For the whole CEU (actually there are two different CE courses), you can check out this link: https://www.continuingedcourses.net/active/courses/course114.php

Similar content is also in our brand new Clinical Interviewing textbook: https://www.wiley.com/en-cn/Clinical+Interviewing%2C+7th+Edition-p-9781119981992

Here’s the CEU excerpt:

Decision-Making Dilemmas

When discussing Kate’s situation and other scenarios that involve outpatient work with highly suicidal clients, the following question usually comes up, “What if your judgment is wrong and she either makes a suicide attempt, or she kills herself before your next session?” This is a great question and gets to the core of practitioner anxiety.

The answer is that, yes, she could kill herself, and if she does, I’ll feel terrible about my clinical judgment. Also, I might get sued. And, if I’m inclined toward suicidal thoughts myself, Kate killing herself might precipitate a suicidal crisis in me. Sometimes suicide tragedies happen, and sometimes we will feel like the tragedy was our fault and that we should have or could have prevented it. That said, most suicides are more or less unpredictable. Even if you think you’re correct in categorizing someone as high or low risk, chances are you’ll be wrong; many high-risk clients don’t die by suicide and some low-risk clients do (see Sommers-Flanagan, 2021, for a personal essay on coping with the death of a client to suicide; https://www.psychotherapynetworker.org/magazine/article/2565/the-myth-of-infallibility).

More depressing is the reality that hospitalization – the main therapeutic option we turn to when clients are highly suicidal – isn’t very effective at treating suicidality and preventing suicide (Large & Kapur, 2018). Hospitalization sometimes causes clients to regress and destabilize, and suicide risk is often higher after hospitalization (Kessler et al., 2020). Because hospitalization isn’t a good fit for many clients who are suicidal and because we can’t predict suicide very well anyway, some cutting edge suicide researchers recommend intensive safety planning as a viable (and often preferred) alternative to hospitalization. In the case of Kate, as long as she’s willing to collaborate, and I’m able to contact her husband, and we can construct a plan that provides safety, then I’m on solid professional ground (or at least as solid as professional ground gets when working with highly suicidal clients).

Kessler, R. C., Bossarte, R. M., Luedtke, A., Zaslavsky, A. M., & Zubizarreta, J. R. (2020). Suicide prediction models: A critical review of recent research with recommendations for the way forward. Molecular Psychiatry, 25(1), 168-179. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41380-019-0531-0

Large, M. M., & Kapur, N. (2018). Psychiatric hospitalisation and the risk of suicide. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 212(5), 269-273.

Sommers-Flanagan, J. (2021, July/August). The myth of infallibility: A therapist comes to terms with a client suicide. Psychotherapy Networker. https://www.psychotherapynetworker.org/magazine/article/2565/the-myth-of-infallibility

And here’s an excerpt from Clinical Interviewing.

Collaborate with Clients Who Are Suicidal

The idea that healthcare professionals must take an authoritarian role when evaluating and treating suicidal clients has proven problematic (Konrad & Jobes, 2011). Authoritarian clinicians can activate oppositional or resistant behaviors (Miller & Rollnick, 2013). If you try arguing clients out of suicidal thoughts and impulses, they may shut down and become less open.

For decades, no-suicide contracts were a standard practice for suicide prevention and intervention (Drye et al., 1973). These contracts consisted of signed statements such as: “I promise not to commit suicide between my medical appointments.” In a fascinating turn of events, during the 1990s, no-suicide contracts came under fire as (a) coercive and (b) as focusing more on practitioner liability than client well-being (Edwards & Sachmann, 2010; Rudd et al., 2006). Suicide experts no longer advocate using no-suicide contracts.

Instead, collaborative approaches to working with suicidal clients are strongly recommended. One such approach is the collaborative assessment and management of suicide (CAMS; Jobes, 2016). CAMS emphasizes suicide assessment and intervention as a humane encounter honoring clients as experts regarding their suicidal thoughts, feelings, and situation. Jobes and colleagues (2007) wrote:

CAMS emphasizes an intentional move away from the directive “counselor as expert” approach that can lead to adversarial power struggles about hospitalization and the routine and unfortunate use of coercive “safety contracts.” (p. 285)

Clinical Interviewing, Counseling and Psychotherapy Theory and Practice, Suicide Assessment and Intervention, Writing

Strategies for Dealing with Insomnia and Nightmares, Part I

3 Comments

What follows is an excerpt from, Suicide Assessment and Treatment Planning: A Strengths-Based Approach (American Counseling Association, 2021). We address insomnia and nightmares in Chapter 7 (the Physical Dimension). This is just a glimpse into the cool content of this book.

Insomnia and nightmares directly contribute to client distress in general and suicidal distress in particular. In this section, we use a case example to illustrate how counselors can begin with a less personal issue (insomnia), use empathy, psychoeducation, and curiosity to track insomnia symptoms, eventually arrive at nightmares, and then inquire about trauma. Focusing first on insomnia, then on nightmares, and later on trauma can help counselors form an alliance with clients who are initially reluctant to talk about death images and trauma experiences.

Focusing on Insomnia

Miguel was a 19-year-old cisgender heterosexual Latino male working on vocational skills at a Job Corps program. He arrived for his first session in dusty work clothes, staring at the counselor through squinted eyes; it was difficult to tell if Miguel was squinting to protect his eyes from masonry dust or to communicate distrust. However, because the client was referred by a physician for insomnia, he also might have just been sleepy.

Counselor: Hey Miguel. Thanks for coming in. The doctor sent me a note. She said you’re having trouble sleeping.

Miguel: Yeah. I don’t sleep.

Counselor: That sucks. Working all day when you’re not sleeping well must be rough.

Miguel: Yeah. But I’m fine. That’s how it is.

To start, Miguel minimizes distress. Whether you’re working with Alzheimer’s patients covering their memory deficits or five-year-olds who get caught lying, minimizing is a common strategy. When clients say, “I’m fine” or “It is what it is” they may be minimizing.

But Miguel was not fine. For many reasons (e.g., pride, shame, or age and ethnicity differences), he was reluctant to open up. However, given Miguel’s history of being in a gang and his estranged relationship with his parents, the expectation that he should quickly trust and confide in a white male adult stranger is not appropriate.

Rather than pursuing anything personal, the counselor communicated empathy and interest in Miguel’s insomnia experiences.

Counselor: Not being able to sleep can make for very long nights. What do you think makes it so hard for you sleep?

Miguel: I don’t know. I just don’t sleep.

When asked directly, Miguel declines to describe his sleep problems. Rather than continue with questioning, the counselor fills the room with words (i.e., psychoeducation). Psychoeducation is a good option because sitting in silence is socially painful and because multicultural experts recommend that counselors speak openly when working with clients from historically oppressed cultural groups (Sue & Sue, 2016). The reasoning goes: If counselors are open and transparent, culturally diverse clients can evaluate their counselor before sharing more about themselves. As Miguel’s counselor talks, Miguel can decide, based on what he hears, whether his counselor is safe, trustworthy, and credible. 

Counselor: Miguel, there are three main types of insomnia. There’s initial insomnia—that’s when it takes a long time, maybe an hour or more, to get to sleep. They call that difficulty falling asleep. There’s terminal insomnia—that’s when you fall asleep pretty well and sleep until maybe 3am and then wake up and can’t get back to sleep. They call that early morning awakening. Then there’s intermittent insomnia—that’s like being a light sleeper who wakes up over and over all night. They call that choppy sleep. Which of those fits for you?”

Miguel: I got all three. I can’t get to sleep. I can’t stay asleep. I can’t get back to sleep.

Counselor: That’s sounds terrible. It’s like a triple dose of bad sleep.

As Miguel begins opening up, he says “I haven’t slept in a week.” Although it’s obvious that zero minutes of sleep over a week isn’t accurate, for Miguel, it feels like he hasn’t slept in a week, and that’s what’s important.

Exploring Nightmares

After Miguel yawns, the counselor asks permission to share his thoughts.

Counselor: Miguel, if you don’t mind, I’d like to tell you what I’m thinking. Is that okay?

Miguel: Sure. Fine.

Counselor: When someone says they’re having as much trouble sleeping as you’re having, there are usually two main reasons. The first is nightmares. Have you been having nightmares?

Miguel: Shit yeah. Like every night. When I fall asleep, nightmares start.

Counselor: Okay. Thanks. I’m pretty sure I can help you with nightmares. We can probably make them happen less often and be less bad in just a few meetings.

The counselor’s confidence is based on previous successful experiences, including using a nightmare treatment protocol that has empirical support (Imagery Rehearsal Therapy; Krakow & Zadra, 2010). Although evidence-based treatments aren’t effective for all clients, they can establish credibility and instill hope. Nevertheless, Miguel doesn’t immediately experience hope.

Miguel: Yeah. But these aren’t normal nightmares.

Counselor: What’s been happening?

Miguel: I keep having this dream where I’m sticking a gun in my mouth. People are all around me with their voices and shit telling me, “pull the trigger.” Then I wake up, but I can’t get it out of my head all day? What the hell is that all about?”

Counselor: That’s a great question.

When the counselor says, “That’s a great question,” his goal is to start a discussion about all the reasons why someone (Miguel in this case), might have a “gun in the mouth” dream. If Miguel and his counselor can brainstorm different explanations and possible meanings for the dream images, it’s less likely for Miguel to interpret his dream as a sign that he should die by suicide. What’s important, we tell our clients, is to look at many different possible meanings the unconscious or God or the Great Spirit or the universe or indigestion might be sending to the dreamer. To help clients expand their thinking and loosen up on their conclusions about their dream’s meaning, we’ve used statements like the following:

You may be right. Your dream might be about you dying or killing yourself. But our goal is to listen to the message your brain sent you and be open to what it might mean. It’s perfectly normal to think your dream was about you dying by suicide—but that’s not necessarily true. That’s not the way the brain and dreams usually work.               Some counselors use self-disclosure about dreams or nightmares they’ve had themselves. Others offer hypothetical or historical dream examples. Either way, normalizing nightmares helps clients become more comfortable talking about their bad dreams and nightmares.

To be continued . . . NEXT TIME . . . we ask about trauma.

If you’re interested in this content, you can buy the whole darn book from ACA here: https://imis.counseling.org/store/detail.aspx?id=78174

If you want the eBook, you can buy it through John Wiley & Sons: https://www.wiley.com/en-ai/Suicide+Assessment+and+Treatment+Planning%3A+A+Strengths+Based+Approach-p-9781119783619

The eBook is also available through Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Assessment-Treatment-Planning-Strengths-Based-ebook/dp/B08T7VNCMK/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&qid=1621798923&refinements=p_27%3AJohn+Sommers-Flanagan%3BRita+Sommers-Flanagan&s=books&sr=1-9