Geries Shaheen • February 16, 2023

Zero Suicide: A Model to Live By

Suicide is a leading cause of death in the United States: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, with a rate of 14.0 suicides per 100,000 people in 2020.


Suicide rates have been increasing in recent years: The CDC reports that suicide rates in the United States have been increasing since 1999, with the highest rate recorded in 2020.


Access to mental health services is a key factor in preventing suicide: Studies have shown that access to mental health services can play a critical role in preventing suicide. However, only about half of individuals in the United States with a mental illness receive treatment, which can lead to a higher risk of suicide. Improving access to mental health services, especially for those at high risk of suicide, is a key factor in reducing the rate of suicide.


This past year, I have had the opportunity to receive extensive training in the Zero Suicide Model, as well as join a Zero Suicide Collaborative! Yes, these exist!


The Zero Suicide Model is a comprehensive approach to suicide prevention in healthcare organizations. It is based on the idea that suicide deaths for individuals under the care of health systems are preventable, and it aims to reduce the number of suicide deaths through a combination of clinical, organizational, and cultural changes. The Zero Suicide Institute is a non-profit organization that provides training, resources, and technical assistance to healthcare organizations to implement the Zero Suicide Model.


This Model is an evidence-based approach that has been shown to reduce suicide deaths in health systems. It consists of seven key components: leadership commitment, clinical best practices, a suicide care management team, data-driven quality improvement, suicide risk assessment, and safety planning, employee training and cultural competence, and ongoing evaluation and improvement.

Leadership commitment is essential to the success of the Zero Suicide Model. The organization's leadership must make a public commitment to the prevention of suicide deaths and create an infrastructure to support the implementation of the model. This includes ensuring that the resources and support are in place for the staff to implement the model effectively.

Clinical best practices are an important component of the Zero Suicide Model. This includes evidence-based assessments, risk stratification, and evidence-based treatments for those at risk of suicide. It is essential for healthcare organizations to provide their staff with the training and resources they need to effectively assess and treat individuals at risk of suicide.

The Zero Suicide Model also includes a suicide care management team, which is responsible for ensuring that all patients at risk of suicide receive appropriate care. This team should include individuals from various departments, such as psychiatry, nursing, social work, and primary care. The team should also have the resources and support they need to effectively coordinate care for patients at risk of suicide.

Data-driven quality improvement is a crucial component of the Zero Suicide Model. This involves regularly collecting and analyzing data to monitor the effectiveness of the model and identify areas for improvement. The data should be used to inform clinical decision-making and guide the development of new best practices for suicide prevention.


Suicide risk assessment and safety planning are critical components of the Zero Suicide Model. All patients at risk of suicide should receive a comprehensive assessment to determine their level of risk and develop a safety plan to reduce that risk. This safety plan should include information on warning signs, coping strategies, and the steps to take in the event of a crisis.

Employee training and cultural competence are also important components of the Zero Suicide Model. All staff, including those who may not work directly with patients, should receive training on suicide prevention and risk assessment. This training should help staff understand the warning signs of suicide, how to respond to a crisis, and how to provide appropriate referrals for those at risk of suicide.

Finally, ongoing evaluation and improvement are essential to the success of the Zero Suicide Model. Regular evaluations should be conducted to monitor the effectiveness of the model and identify areas for improvement. This feedback should be used to make ongoing improvements to the model, to ensure that it remains effective in reducing the number of suicide deaths.


Consider these action steps in confronting suicide prevention in your agency or practice:


1) Integrative in-depth charting that showcases the golden thread regarding suicide prevention. A data-driven system that showcases comparative charts. How many clients indicated having suicidal hx, or suicidal ideation? Of these, how many received a safety plan? Of those, how many clients indicated utilizing said safety plan? Collectively, how many were assessed within sessions at each session for suicidality? This data-driven approach will help bring to light any gaps that may exist systematically.


2) Consider surveying your agency annually and upon hire. How many of your workforce know how to respond if another staff, a stakeholder, or a client presents signs of suicidality? For a long time, suicidality has been seen as a personal concept not to be discussed. This Model suggests the opposite. Suicide is a community disruptor, and thus it is everyone’s responsibility. You may be surprised at your findings. Connecting training completion numbers will also give you a sense of security knowing your agency is on the same page regarding suicide prevention.


3) Incident Reporting monitoring for charting EMS and Hospitalizations. Indicating how many are related directly to suicidality.


4) Collaboration with staff/ teams in developing effective/evidence-based responses to suicidality. These are to be constructed as action steps within the incident reports themselves. Mitigation both from a formal lens, and a 1x1 approach.


5) Incorporating accessibility to mental health services (even if they are not through you or your agency) after hours 24/7. Accessible care does not always mean it must be territorial care- you can not be all things to all people all of the time. Consider a variety of tools/ hotlines/ apps/ community centers/ private practices as means to equip the client.


In the most recent Zero Suicide Collaborative meeting, we discussed IFS- internal family systems, as well as the development/ implementation of Peer-Led Suicide Prevention groups. Derek Vaughn from the Gibson center in Cape Girardeau Missouri reflected on their groups called the 988 group.

We viewed resources like the following: 


https://drexel.edu/familyintervention/abft-training-program/abft-training/Self%20Paced%20Course/

https://didihirsch.org/download-best-practices-manuals-toolkits/

We even had a rep from the Missouri Department of Mental Health (DMH)/ Casey Muckler, showcase a new magazine type resources rolling out to schools! See below



https://www.flipsnack.com/pathtomysuccessprograms/988_guide-for-schools/full-view.html


In conclusion, the Zero Suicide Model is a comprehensive approach to suicide prevention that has been shown to be effective in reducing the number of suicide deaths in health systems. The Zero Suicide Institute provides training, resources, and technical assistance to healthcare organizations to implement the model effectively. By implementing the Zero Suicide Model, healthcare organizations can play a critical role in preventing suicide deaths and improving the lives of individuals at risk of suicide.


Geries Shaheen is a Licensed Professional Counselor and Nationally Certified Counselor operating in and around St. Louis Missouri. Geries holds his MA in Professional Counseling from Lindenwood University, BA in Intercultural Studies from Lincoln Christian University, and holds a certificate in Life Coaching, Geries provides life coaching services to clients online globally. Geries is EMDR trained and DBT Certified, practicing from a TIC lens.The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Pioneer Counseling Blog

By Geries Shaheen August 11, 2026
Conversations about DSM-6 are growing louder in professional spaces . Industry leaders, researchers, and clinicians are sharing insights about what the next revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders may look like. Some projections suggest a potential release window around 2029 to 2030 , though the American Psychiatric Association has not formally confirmed a publication date. For Licensed Professional Counselors, it is important to distinguish between confirmed information and thoughtful speculation. What follows is a grounded overview of both.  What Is Officially Confirmed There has been talks of the next DSM potentially being names something totally different, as well as potentially being a living breathing document housed online rather than a printed material. This has led to thoughts that it will include a full structural overhaul as it aims to find a balance between psychiatric insight as well as lived experience data. At the moment, there has been no official announcement of: A finalized DSM-6 release date A confirmed structural overhaul A change in name Adoption of biomarkers as diagnostic requirements The APA has historically used multi-year committee processes for revision, as documented during the development of DSM-5 (Regier et al., 2013, American Journal of Psychiatry). Any specific timeline, including projections of 2029 to 2030, remains speculative unless formally announced by the APA. Documented Criticisms of the DSM Many of the concerns you listed are well documented in peer-reviewed literature, including in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Historically cited critiques include: • The DSM uses a categorical model, which may not fully capture dimensional or nuanced symptom presentations. • Emphasis on diagnostic reliability has sometimes been prioritized over diagnostic validity. • Limited integration of biological markers despite advances in neuroscience. • Heavy reliance on expert consensus panels. • Concerns about Western cultural bias in diagnostic framing. These critiques have appeared in academic discussions surrounding DSM-5 and broader psychiatric nosology debates (Hyman, 2010; Regier et al., 2013). What is important to note is that these criticisms are part of ongoing scholarly dialogue. They do not automatically predict specific DSM-6 changes. Themes Being Discussed in Professional Circles While not formally confirmed, several themes are widely discussed among researchers and leaders: 1. Greater Dimensional Integration DSM-5 already introduced cross-cutting symptom measures and severity scales. Continued movement toward dimensional models is supported in academic literature (Krueger & Markon, 2014). A future DSM may further integrate dimensional frameworks alongside categorical diagnoses. 2. Stronger Alignment with ICD There has been ongoing effort to harmonize DSM diagnostic codes with the International Classification of Diseases, maintained by the World Health Organization. Future revisions may continue this integration to improve global diagnostic consistency. 3. Inclusion of Biomarkers Despite significant neuroscience research, no current psychiatric diagnosis relies on validated biomarkers. The National Institute of Mental Health developed the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework to explore biologically informed models. However, RDoC remains a research framework and is not a diagnostic manual. Any integration of biomarkers into DSM-6 would require strong empirical validation, and no official confirmation currently exists that biomarkers will be required for diagnosis. 4. Cultural and Social Determinants DSM-5-TR expanded cultural formulation tools and updated language related to gender and diversity. Ongoing discourse suggests future editions may further incorporate cultural, socioeconomic, and environmental determinants of mental health. 5. Lived Experience Input There is broader movement in healthcare toward incorporating lived experience perspectives. While stakeholder feedback has been part of past revisions, there has been no formal announcement detailing the extent of lived experience integration for DSM-6. The direction of greater inclusivity aligns with contemporary healthcare standards but remains under development. Autism and Potential Diagnostic Shifts Speculation regarding updates to Autism Spectrum Disorder criteria reflects ongoing research around gender differences, masking, and underdiagnosis in women and people of color. Research literature supports the idea that autism presentations may differ across populations. However, there is currently no official confirmation that DSM-6 criteria changes will create a diagnostic surge. Any future criteria updates would require field trials and empirical validation before implementation. Committee Structures The APA historically forms workgroups and task forces organized by diagnostic categories and thematic areas. Planned improvement committees include the "Structure and Dimensions committee", "Functioning and Quality of life committee" "Biomarkers and Biological factors committee" " Socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental determinants of mental health committee". What LPCs Should Do Now Continue practicing under DSM-5-TR standards. Strengthen dimensional assessment skills and measurement-based care. Stay informed through official APA channels and peer-reviewed publications. Approach social media claims with professional caution. :) It is reasonable to expect that DSM-6 will aim to reflect scientific advances, cultural responsiveness, and improved diagnostic validity. However, until the American Psychiatric Association releases formal statements, timelines, or draft criteria, any detailed structural predictions remain speculative. For Licensed Professional Counselors, preparation is less about anticipating dramatic changes and more about maintaining strong assessment practices, cultural competence, and evidence-based treatment planning. Geries Shaheen is a Licensed Professional Counselor and Nationally Certified Counselor operating in and around St. Louis Missouri. Geries holds his MA in Professional Counseling from Lindenwood University, BA in Intercultural Studies from Lincoln Christian University, and holds a certificate in Life Coaching, Geries provides life coaching services to clients online globally. Geries is EMDR trained and DBT Certified, practicing from a TIC lens.
By Geries Shaheen August 11, 2026
In behavioral health, we spend a significant amount of time discussing medical necessity. We complete assessments, symptom inventories, risk scales, progress reviews, treatment plans, and utilization documentation designed to justify levels of care to payors, agencies, and federal grant programs. Those systems are important. Accountability matters. Evidence-based care is crucial. But there is another clinical variable that often determines outcomes more than any assessment score alone: Cadence. The frequency and consistency of therapy can profoundly impact stabilization, insight development, emotional regulation, therapeutic alliance, and long-term outcomes. Yet cadence is often treated as an operational scheduling issue instead of a clinical intervention in itself. The reality is that not all clients need the same rhythm of care. Some clients benefit from: Daily therapy for intense instances. Twice-weekly sessions during periods of crisis stabilization or acute symptom escalation Weekly therapy for active trauma processing, emotional regulation development, or skill acquisition Biweekly sessions during maintenance phases Monthly sessions for relapse prevention, accountability, and long-term support after sustained improvement Research increasingly supports what many clinicians already observe in practice: matching cadence to client need improves outcomes. A 2024 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Affective Disorders found that increasing psychotherapy frequency from one session per week to two sessions per week was associated with significantly stronger treatment outcomes for depression, particularly during the acute phase of treatment. Researchers noted that session frequency appeared to matter more than total treatment duration alone. ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032724008061? ) Additional longitudinal research comparing weekly and biweekly therapy found that clients receiving weekly therapy demonstrated higher rates of early improvement and shorter durations of suffering compared to biweekly treatment schedules. The study also emphasized that therapy frequency should be individualized because client response trajectories vary considerably. ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37870790/ ) This aligns with what clinicians see every day: Clients in early trauma work often need tighter therapeutic containment Clients learning emotional regulation benefit from repetition and proximity Clients with attachment disruptions frequently require consistency before depth Clients in relapse recovery may need increased contact before symptom escalation becomes visible in formal assessments Therapy does not occur only during the 53-minute session. It unfolds between sessions , in how quickly a client can reconnect after dysregulation, revisit a cognitive distortion before it hardens into avoidance, process a triggering event while it remains emotionally accessible, or practice a coping strategy before disengagement returns. The interval between sessions can either sustain therapeutic momentum or unintentionally interrupt it. This is where the tension between clinical reality and administrative structure often emerges. Many large agencies rely heavily on standardized assessments and federally guided documentation frameworks to determine treatment frequency and level of care recommendations. These tools create accountability, consistency, and measurable outcomes across systems. As they should, but Measurement-based care has become increasingly important in behavioral health. Some recent findings suggest that structured measurement-informed care can improve patient outcomes by as much as 24%, while psychiatric treatment incorporating routine symptom monitoring has shown remission rates up to 75% higher than treatment without ongoing measurement practices. (https://www.twochairs.com/blog/two-chairs-publishes-first-of-its-kind-study-showing-measurement-based-care-training-improves-outcomes-by-24-at-scale) Thus, assessments are snapshots. Cadence is relational. An assessment may capture symptom severity at a single point in time. Cadence captures the pace of support a client clinically requires to sustain progress between those moments. Two clients can present with similar PHQ-9 or GAD-7 scores yet require entirely different treatment frequencies based on: emotional regulation capacity environmental stressors trauma acuity relapse history attachment dynamics coping skill generalization safety concerns psychosocial support systems Strong clinical work requires balancing measurable data with clinical judgment . (and often, clinical judgment comes from building clinician autonomy).( https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/measurement-based-care-in-psychiatry-clinical-outcomes-and-practical-applications ) Sometimes the most important question is not: “Can we justify this frequency to insurance?” Sometimes the more important question is: “What cadence gives this client the best opportunity to succeed?” Approximately 50% of clients discontinue therapy prematurely, with poor therapeutic fit, inconsistent engagement, and treatment structure often contributing factors. ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5600065/ ) As mental health systems continue evolving toward outcome-driven care, there is an opportunity to broaden how we define treatment effectiveness. Frequency of contact, continuity, relational consistency, and therapeutic pacing deserve greater recognition as active components of care. Otherwise they will be thrown to the wayside as mere operational details. In our industry, timing truly matters. And cadence is part of the treatment itself.  Geries Shaheen is a Licensed Professional Counselor and Nationally Certified Counselor operating in and around St. Louis Missouri. Geries holds his MA in Professional Counseling from Lindenwood University, BA in Intercultural Studies from Lincoln Christian University, and holds a certificate in Life Coaching, Geries provides life coaching services to clients online globally. Geries is EMDR trained and DBT Certified, practicing from a TIC lens.
More Posts