Reconsidering the case against risk prediction in self-harm: routinely collected health data distinguishes groups at higher and lower risk of adverse outcomes following paracetamol overdose

Background. UK clinical guidance recommends that structured risk prediction tools and risk stratification should not be used in self-harm, to predict suicide or determine who is offered treatment. Underpinning this position is the premise that routinely collected health data contain no useful predictive signal, which has received little direct scrutiny. Objective. To test whether routinely collected electronic health record data can distinguish groups at higher and lower risk of severe outcomes following paracetamol overdose. Methods. We analysed 4,095 adults presenting to NHS Lothian emergency departments with paracetamol overdose (2017-2023). Elastic-net logistic regression was fitted to 37 routinely collected electronic health record features to predict a composite of death or mental health inpatient admission at 0-7, 8-30 and 31-365 days following attendance, evaluated on a held-out 20% test set with bootstrapping. Findings. Events occurred in 5.5% of patients at 0-7 days, 2.0% at 8-30 days and 7.9% at 31-365 days, dominated by mental health admission. Bootstrap AUROC 95% confidence intervals lay above 0.5 in every window (0.65-0.82, 0.63-0.90, 0.71-0.85): models ranked patients better than chance. Calibration slopes (1.04, 1.14, 1.07) were close to one. Ranking drew primarily on mental health-related features. Conclusions. Routinely collected health data carried predictive signal for severe outcomes after paracetamol overdose, although discrimination fell short of what is needed for individual-level clinical use. Clinical implications. These models are not proposed for clinical deployment; however, treating risk prediction as a settled question will redirect research efforts, potentially excluding this patient population from machine learning advances driving improvements in care in other medical specialties.