A significant proportion of emergency referrals to on-call psychiatrists, particularly by the police or accident and emergency (A&E) departments is for individuals intoxicated with drugs or alcohol (Reference Suckas and LonnqvistSuckas & Lonnqvist, 1995). There is a generally held belief that it is difficult to assess individuals who are intoxicated because this state can temporarily mimic or obscure psychiatric symptoms. However, delay in assessment may present a special problem when an individual who is intoxicated also expresses acute suicidal ideation. It is established that ingestion of alcohol is a frequent accompaniment of suicidal behaviours; 80% of individuals who complete suicide are believed to have consumed alcohol prior to the act and a similar number of individuals who engage in deliberate self-harm are also believed to have consumed alcohol (Reference Patel, Roy and WilsonPatel et al, 1972; Reference Murphy and WetzelMurphy & Wetzel, 1990). These associations clearly suggest that alcohol can play a role in exacerbating suicidal thinking or suicidal behaviours.

Undertaking an accurate mental state examination and devising an appropriate management plan can be very difficult. The usual options available are to keep the individual at an A&E department, police station or place of safety until an appropriate assessment can be undertaken. This requires the consent of the individual and a sufficient staffing level to allow regular observation of the individual. Alternatively, the person could be transferred to a psychiatric setting. The latter has obvious resource implications for already stretched mental health services. As approaches varied considerably we decided to explore what guidance was currently available to help junior psychiatrists in the appropriate assessment and management of individuals intoxicated with alcohol who express ideas of suicide.

Method

We identified several potential sources of information that might offer guidance or clarify the legal position with regards to assessment of individuals intoxicated with alcohol who also express ideas of suicide (we decided to focus on alcohol, although we anticipate that similar issues may arise if individuals are intoxicated following the use of illicit drugs). We sought guidelines from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the opinion of the Medical Defence Union (MDU). We undertook a Medline literature search of papers on legal aspects of suicide. In addition, a lawyer undertook a study of recent digests of Scots Law (Law Society of Scotland, 2000), the current Law Yearbook for England and Scotland (Law Society, 2000) and legal textbooks. The Scottish Central Legal Office (CLO) and the CLO of England and Wales were also contacted.

A questionnaire was sent to 218 psychiatrists in the west of Scotland (available from the author upon request). Those who did not respond to the initial letter were canvassed on at least one further occasion to maximise the response rate. The questionnaire sought opinions on three key topics: whether individuals who were intoxicated with alcohol and/or expressed ideas of suicide could be assessed; how the psychiatrist would respond to requests for such assessments; and the psychiatrist's usual management plans for these referrals. To try to help guide respondents in their descriptions of their management, they were offered two scenarios. Situation A asked how the psychiatrist would respond to a telephone referral of an individual intoxicated with alcohol who was acutely suicidal. Situation B asked how he/she would manage a patient who he/she realised was intoxicated only after the assessment had commenced. In both situations the respondents were offered a number of alternative management approaches, as well as another category where they could describe their own approach if it did not fit with the options provided. Statistically, differences in the answers to the questions for the whole group and between psychiatrists at different career grades were assessed using χ² tests and Wilcoxon rank order correlations.

Results

The Royal College of Psychiatrists has no specific guidelines on the issue. The Medline search revealed many interesting articles on the legal aspects of suicide and the role of alcohol intake in precipitating and predicting self-harm. However, no papers tackled specifically the subject of the assessment or management of intoxicated patients who are acutely suicidal. The search of case law and legal textbooks also failed to reveal any pertinent information.

The MDU provided the following information:

The CLO for England and Wales did not respond, but the Scottish CLO has stated:

Out of 218 questionnaires sent out, 141 were returned (65% response rate). The respondents comprised 60 consultants, 25 specialist registrars, 9 non-career grade staff, 46 senior house officers and 1 of unspecified clinical grade. Three consultants and 1 of non-training grade doctor specialised in the treatment of individuals with drug and alcohol problems.

With regard to general assessment, 21% of respondents stated that it was not possible to assess an individual who was intoxicated with alcohol, while 14% felt that this was feasible. The vast majority (47%) qualified their answer and suggested that limited assessment could be made. However, 58% (n=82) said they would agree to assess someone who was intoxicated who expressed suicidal ideas, 8% would only assess the individual if he/she had a history of mental health problems and 4% said they would make the assessment owing to the medico-legal implications of refusal. There were no statistically significant differences between the responses of any group of psychiatrists (junior v. senior, specialist v. generalist).

With regards to situation A (response to telephone referral of intoxicated suicidal person), 34% of psychiatrists would agree to assess the individual when they were no longer intoxicated and 29% said they would agree to assess the individual during the course of that day. A further 14% suggested that the referrer reassessed the patient when the individual was no longer intoxicated and 15% suggested that the referrer should contact the individual's general practitioner (GP) rather than the psychiatric services. Eleven individuals offered other plans or no responses to the question. There were no statistically significant differences in responses between consultants and other psychiatrists.

For situation B (management of a patient expressing suicidal ideas who the psychiatrist realised was intoxicated after commencing the assessment), 56% of individuals said that they would complete the assessment. However, 20% said that they would reassess the patient the next day, 9% said they would admit the patient and 5% suggested that they would refer the patient on to his/her GP. Again, there were no statistically significant differences in responses between consultants and psychiatrists of other training grades.

Discussion

The management of intoxicated individuals who express suicidal ideas and of the time between intoxication and sobriety has obvious resource implications for A&E departments, the policy and psychiatric services, as well as medico-legal implications for clinicians dealing with such patients.

It is disappointing that the College has no official opinion on this matter, as its guidance would clearly be helpful, particularly to junior doctors in the early stages of their psychiatry career. Different College Divisions or local hospitals and mental health services may have their own policies, but as psychiatric trainees rotate between posts it is important that all junior doctors are given guidance on this common clinical problem. A written document that reinforced any policy communicated verbally would also be helpful.

The legal advice states that the patient is the responsibility of the clinician in whose care the patient is. This would suggest that the police surgeon or the doctor at the A&E department or whoever is making the initial referral is responsible for the patient. However, it was notable that the Scottish CLO suggested that if a request for assessment was made (even if this is before the patient had recovered from his/her intoxicated state), the psychiatrist would then have to give an apposite reason for not making the assessment. Clarification is needed on what degree of intoxication means an assessment cannot be undertaken and whether the decision not to assess can be made without contact face to face. The information from the MDU was particularly useful. It suggested that to justify any clinical decision he/she made, a psychiatrist would have to demonstrate it was the accepted practice among a body of psychiatrists. The difficulty is that there did not appear to be a consensus among the psychiatrists surveyed as to the best way to manage such patients. In reality, when and how to assess an individual would partly depend on a balanced consideration of the degree of risk of any suicidal acts as compared with the degree of difficulty in undertaking a reliable assessment because of the level of intoxication. Given that this is known, it seems important that this is clearly recorded in a widely available document. Otherwise a psychiatrist may find his/her clinical judgement called into question because of an apparent lack of a consensus in clinical opinion.

In conclusion, there is no relevant College policy and no previous cases in law on the management of the acutely intoxicated suicidal patient. The medico-legal advice is useful, but the results of the questionnaire survey demonstrate different bodies of opinion within psychiatry. Clearly it is difficult for doctors, who are often junior, to balance the aforementioned issues when managing such patients in emergency settings. We hope that this survey will highlight this problem and encourage sharing of good practice guidelines. It is certainly a topic worthy of inclusion in all induction days for junior psychiatrists.

Declaration of interest

None.