Risk for Suicide and Risk for Violence: A Case for Separating the Current Violence Diagnoses

Abstract

PURPOSE. To identify accurate descriptive terms for risk for violence and risk for suicide and to provide operational definitions for these terms METHODS. The Delphi technique, with two rounds, was used to differentiate the operational definitions that represent risk for suicide from those that represent risk for violence. The expert panel consisted of 23 healthcare professionals with a minimum of a master's degree. In addition to the expert panel, a control group (N = 11) participated to assess content validity. FINDINGS. Thirty‐six definitions were agreed upon for suicide, 39 for violence. CONCLUSIONS. These definitions represent the basic distinctions between the two behavioral manifestations.

Using a multidisciplinary classification in nursing: the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health

“…Many nurse researchers contributed to the use of clear and uniform terminology, for instance through the development of valid nursing diagnoses (e.g. Sheppard 1993, Smith et al. 1997, Chambers 1998, Wooldridge et al.…”

Applying ICF in nursing practice: classifying elements of nursing diagnoses

“…From the international literature, it became clear that many nurse‐researchers contributed to the development of valid nursing diagnoses (see for example: Smith et al. 1997; Chambers 1998; Wooldridge et al.…”

Interventions for Risk for Suicide and Risk for Violence

“…Definitions for these diagnoses are given in Table 1. Table 2 lists indicators/defining characteristics elicited in a Delphi study using a 275% agreement level among participants are listed for these diagnoses (Smith et al, 1997).…”