Expanding Access to Evidence-Based Suicide Risk Assessment and Intervention in a Crisis Stabilization Setting

Number of evidence-based interventions received during crisis stabilization treatment

Group differences (treatment as usual \[TAU\] vs. Jaspr) in the number of received evidence-based interventions while receiving crisis stabilization treatment. This frequency will be derived from an aggregate of crisis stabilization plans, lethal means counseling, behavioral skills, and shared stories from people with lived experience. The greater the number, the more evidence-based interventions received.

Thoroughness of evidence-based interventions received during crisis stabilization treatment

Group differences (treatment as usual \[TAU\] vs. Jaspr) in the thoroughness of evidence-based interventions while receiving crisis stabilization treatment. Thoroughness is derived from a 1 (not very thorough) to 5 (very thorough) scale, with higher numbers representing greater thoroughness. This number will be derived from the average thoroughness of four evidence-based interventions: crisis stabilization plans, lethal means counseling, behavioral skills, and shared stories from people with lived experience.

Overall rating of care

Group differences in overall rating of the care received at the Crisis Stabilization Unit will be measured using a modified Emergency Room-Patient Satisfaction Survey, which assesses patients' overall satisfaction with the visit. This item is assessed on a 5-point rating scale (1=poor, 5=excellent).

Suicide-related coping

Measured with the Suicide-Related Coping Scale (SRCS), a 17-item self-report measure that examines patients' ability to cope with suicidal thoughts and urges. The SCRS uses a 5-point rating scale from 0=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree. Thus, higher scores are associated with higher ability to cope with suicidal thoughts and urges.

Overall rating of care received by Jaspr

Participants' overall rating of care received by Jaspr will be measured with an item from the Jaspr Health Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire ("Overall rating of care received by Jaspr"), which is on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Higher scores represent a higher overall rating of care.

Extent to which providers and staff perceive the use of Jaspr as agreeable or satisfactory (acceptability)

Extent to which providers and staff perceive the use of Jaspr app in the Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) as agreeable or satisfactory. The investigators will use the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), a 4-item measure to determine whether an evidence-based practice is liked, appealing, welcomed and approved. The IAM is scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree), with higher scores indicating greater acceptability (range 4 through 20).

Providers' and staff's perceived fit, relevance, or compatibility of Jaspr (appropriateness)

Providers' and staff's perceived fit, relevance, or compatibility of Jaspr app with the Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU), and with their patient populations, measured by the Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM). The IAM is a 4-item measure to assess if an evidence-based practice is suitable, fitting, applicable and a good match with the particular setting. The IAM is scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree), with higher scores indicating greater appropriateness (range 4 through 20).

Providers' and staff's perceived feasibility of Jaspr (feasibility)

Extent to which providers and staff feel that Jaspr app can be successfully used or carried out within the Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU), measured by the Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM), a 4-item measure of how doable, easy to use, and implementable a practice is. The FIM is scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree), with higher scores indicating greater appropriateness (range 4 through 20).