Mental Health Crisis Intervention in Emergency Departments
This paper examines the critical gap in mental health treatment for patients who present to emergency departments (EDs) with self-harm, suicidal ideation, or risk of harm to others. Drawing on internship observations and a review of empirical literature, the paper argues that standard ED practice—typically limited to a Columbia Assessment followed by referral or commitment—is insufficient for a population at elevated suicide risk. The paper reviews three evidence-based strategies for improving care, with particular focus on the Safety Planning Intervention developed and tested by Stanley et al. (2018). It also addresses relevant policy principles drawn from the Belmont Report, multicultural practice considerations, and concrete steps for staff training, implementation, and outcome measurement.
- Introduction and Overview: ED gap in mental health care for self-harm patients
- Background and History: Historical roots and current scope of the problem
- Theoretical Framework: Gatekeeper theory applied to ED providers
- Literature Review: Three evidence-based strategies to improve ED care
- Interventions: Safety Planning Intervention steps and implementation
- Policy Considerations: Belmont Report principles and policy recommendations
- Conclusions: Call for systematic adoption of preventive intervention
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds abstract policy arguments in concrete firsthand observation from an ED internship, giving the analysis immediate practical credibility.
- Moves logically from problem identification through theory, literature, intervention design, and policy—each section building on the last rather than standing alone.
- Supports every major claim with peer-reviewed citations, and quantifies the problem with compelling statistics (660,000 annual ED visits for self-harm; 80% of suicide decedents had prior ED contact).
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates evidence-to-practice bridging: it synthesizes empirical findings from multiple studies and translates them into a specific, step-by-step intervention protocol with a realistic implementation and evaluation plan. This technique—moving from "what the research says" to "what practitioners should do"—is central to applied social work scholarship.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an overview of the problem observed in a real clinical setting, followed by a historical background section that traces the issue from the 1970s to the present. A brief theoretical framework (gatekeeper theory) anchors the literature review, which evaluates three competing intervention strategies. The Interventions section details the Safety Planning Intervention step by step. The Policy section applies Belmont Report principles and addresses stigma. A short conclusion synthesizes the argument and reaffirms the recommended intervention. References follow APA format throughout.
Introduction and Overview
Emergency departments (EDs) can play a major role in reducing the risk and occurrence of suicide, self-harm, and harm caused to others by taking steps to create a safety plan for the patient (Stanley et al., 2018). However, many EDs do very little to actually assist patients in this regard. Internship experience at a county mental health screening center located inside a hospital emergency room—where patients from across the county are processed—offered a direct view of this gap. At that facility, patients are screened using the Columbia Assessment to determine whether they are currently suicidal, homicidal, or a danger to others. However, these patients are not offered counseling services. Instead, they are referred to outside resources or are voluntarily or involuntarily committed.
The lack of any other treatment is a serious problem. As Olfson, Marcus, and Bridge (2013) point out, "each year in the United States, roughly two-thirds of a million patients present to emergency departments for the treatment of deliberate self-harm" (p. 1442). These patients are, moreover, at an elevated and very high risk of suicide (Cooper et al., 2005). Yet at many EDs there is no follow-up, and some clients return as often as once a week and still require evaluation. By not providing them with treatment beyond a list of resources to access on their own, facilities leave a significant gap in mental health services for the community. Clients are brought to the hospital via police, ambulance, school district referrals, nursing home referrals, or as walk-ins. The ER thus becomes a revolving door: clients are treated for chief complaints rather than for the underlying problem. This issue is directly relevant to social work because there is a pressing need to address the root concerns of this population so that the revolving-door dynamic can be broken and individuals can improve their lives.
Background and History
The problem of individuals not receiving proper care in the ER has emerged as a recognized concern for social work in recent years; however, it was present as far back as the 1970s, when Groner (1978) published a study describing an existing program so that others could understand the model. In more recent years, there has been greater emphasis on the need for solution-based interventions to be used in EDs rather than simply passing patients along without treatment (Kondrat & Teater, 2012). The target population for such interventions is the ER population presenting with issues of self-harm or suicidal ideation, or who may pose a threat to others. Past initiatives have focused on providing assessments like the Columbia Assessment, but more must be done in terms of follow-up care (Stanley et al., 2018).
In terms of multicultural practice, social workers must always possess cultural competence when working with individuals, because no two people are the same. Everyone has a unique background, set of experiences, beliefs, and cultural identity that should be understood before attempting to treat them. Leininger's transcultural model of care can be applied for this purpose. The central professional concern, however, remains that these patients are not receiving the help they need.
Individuals in this population who come to the ER and are assessed to be at risk for self-harm should receive additional care and specialized treatment precisely because they face a higher risk of suicide than the general patient population. Such a risk-reduction response would not be a reaction to any existing regulation but rather a response to the absence of proper interventions. This is a social work safety issue clearly exposed by the research literature. Any facility that does not address this risk by developing and implementing a strategy will be failing in its mission and not upholding its obligations to its patients.
One measure of how pervasive this problem is: currently, only approximately half of all Medicaid patients presenting to the emergency room for self-harm receive a mental health diagnosis before being discharged (Olfson et al., 2013). This statistic places half of all health care facilities in a precarious position with respect to their obligations to this population. If health care facilities and social workers are not providing these patients with the mental health assistance they require, they are failing in their core aim to deliver quality care to every patient who presents to them.
References
Appleby, L., Morriss, R., Gask, L., Roland, M., Lewis, B., Perry, A., ... & Davies, L. (2000). An educational intervention for front-line health professionals in the assessment and management of suicidal patients (The STORM Project). Psychological Medicine, 30(4), 805–812.
Belmont Report. (1979). Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Retrieved from
Browne, V., Knott, J., Dakis, J., Fielding, J., Lyle, D., Daniel, C., ... & Virtue, E. (2011). Improving the care of mentally ill patients in a tertiary emergency department: Development of a psychiatric assessment and planning unit. Australasian Psychiatry, 19(4), 350–353.
Burnette, C., Ramchand, R., & Ayer, L. (2015). Gatekeeper training for suicide prevention: A theoretical model and review of the empirical literature. RAND Health Quarterly, 5(1).
Callaghan, P., Eales, S., Coates, T., & Bowers, L. (2003). A review of research on the structure, process and outcome of liaison mental health services. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 10(2), 155–165.
Chatterjee, R. (2018). A simple emergency room intervention can help cut suicide risk. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/07/11/628029412/a-simple-emergency-room-intervention-can-help-cut-future-suicide-risk
Cooper, J., Kapur, N., Webb, R., Lawlor, M., Guthrie, E., Mackway-Jones, K., & Appleby, L. (2005). Suicide after deliberate self-harm: A 4-year cohort study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(2), 297–303.
Groner, E. (1978). Delivery of clinical social work services in the emergency room: A description of an existing program. Social Work in Health Care, 4(1), 19–29.
Jackson, K. (2019). Suicide prevention is every social worker's business. Social Work Today, 19(1), 1–10.
Joe, S., & Niedermeier, D. (2008). Preventing suicide: A neglected social work research agenda. British Journal of Social Work, 38(3), 507–530.
Kondrat, D. C., & Teater, B. (2012). Solution-focused therapy in an emergency room setting: Increasing hope in persons presenting with suicidal ideation. Journal of Social Work, 12(1), 3–15.
Olfson, M., Marcus, S. C., & Bridge, J. A. (2013). Emergency department recognition of mental disorders and short-term outcome of deliberate self-harm. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(12), 1442–1450.
Stanley, B., Brown, G. K., Brenner, L. A., Galfalvy, H. C., Currier, G. W., Knox, K. L., ... & Green, K. L. (2018). Comparison of the safety planning intervention with follow-up vs usual care of suicidal patients treated in the emergency department. JAMA Psychiatry, 75(9), 894–900.
Already a member? Log in
Unlock the rest of this paper
135,000+ research papers · AI writing tools · Plagiarism & AI detection
7-Day Pass
Does not renew
Get 7-Day PassMonthly
Renews at $12.99/month until canceled
Start MonthlyAnnual
Renews at $99/year until canceled
Start Annual- Unlimited AI writing tools
- Plagiarism and AI text detection tool
Plan details
Unlimited AI writing tools are for individual, non-automated use and are subject to our Terms of Service and abuse-prevention measures.
TextChecker scans: 3 during the 7-Day Pass, or 5 per month with Monthly and Annual.
Prices exclude applicable tax.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.