Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START): The case for a new structured professional judgment scheme

Risk assessment for aggressive behaviour in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Aggressive or violent behaviour is often associated with people with schizophrenia in common perceptions of the disease. Risk assessment methods have been used to identify and evaluate the behaviour of those individuals who are at the greatest risk of perpetrating aggression or violence or characterise the likelihood to commit acts. Although many different interventions have been developed to decrease aggressive or violent incidences in inpatient care, staff working in inpatient settings seek easy-to-use methods to decrease patient aggressive events. However, many of these are time-consuming, and they require intensive training for staff and patient monitoring. It has also been recognised in clinical practice that if staff monitor patients' behaviour in a structured manner, the monitoring itself may result in a reduction of aggressive/violent behaviour and incidents in psychiatric settings.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of structured aggression or violence risk assessment methods for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP, on 10 February 2021. We also inspected references of all identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing structured risk assessment methods added to standard professional care with standard professional care for the evaluation of aggressive or violent behaviour among people with schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data, and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated a standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies and created a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies in the review. The total number of participants was not identifiable, as some studies provided number of participants included, and some only patient days. The studies compared a package of structured assessment methods with a control group that included routine nursing care and drug therapy or unstructured psychiatric observations/treatment based on clinical judgement. In two studies, information about treatment in control care was not available. One study reported results for our primary outcome, clinically important change in aggressive/violent behaviour, measured by the rate of severe aggression events. There was likely a positive effect favouring structured risk assessment over standard professional care (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.85; 1 RCT; 1852 participants; corrected for cluster design: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial reported data for the use of coercive measures (seclusion room). Compared to standard professional care, structured risk assessment may have little or no effect on use of seclusion room as days (corrected for cluster design: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.07; N = 20; low-certainty evidence) or use of seclusion room as secluded participants (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.39 to 8.7; 1 RCT; N = 20; low-certainty evidence). However, seclusion room may be used less frequently in the standard professional care group compared to the structured risk assessment group (incidence) (corrected for cluster design: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.47; 1 RCT; N = 20; substantial heterogeneity, Chi2 = 0.0; df = 0.0; P = 0.0; I2 = 100%; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a clear effect on adverse events of escape (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence); fall down (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence); or choking (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence) when comparing structured risk assessment to standard professional care. There were no useable data for patient-related outcomes such as global state, acceptance of treatment, satisfaction with treatment, quality of life, service use, or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, it is not possible to conclude that structured aggression or violence risk assessment methods are effective for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses. Future work should combine the use of interventions and structured risk assessment methods to prevent aggressive incidents in psychiatric inpatient settings.

Reducing Risk for Future Violence From Forensic Psychiatric Patients by Using Critical Factors of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability as a Caring Tool

BACKGROUND

The dual task for forensic mental health care is community protection and treatment of mental disorders. The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) has become an established tool for risk assessment and care planning in forensic psychiatry. When using the START, items judged as critical factors are chosen to be addressed in the care plan. However, it is not known which critical factors that are of special interest need to be addressed to reduce the risk for future violence.

AIMS

The main aim of this study was to explore how staff's choice of critical factors in the care planning influences risk for future violence.

METHODS

The study is based on 787 START assessments from 285 convicted and involuntary admitted inpatients at the Forensic Psychiatric Clinic of Stockholm County, Sweden. The influence on risk for future violence by selecting a certain item as a critical factor in the care plan was measured by comparing patients' sum of vulnerabilities at the time this certain critical factor was selected with this sum at the next assessment.

RESULTS

The results show that a patient's overall risk for future violence decreases significantly when the items "insight," "attitudes," "mental state," "coping," and "drug use" were addressed as critical factors in the care planning. The importance of specified critical factors differs between diagnostic groups and time after admission.

CONCLUSIONS

When staff select certain specified items as critical factors in the care planning, the patients' risk of relapse into acts of violence was significantly reduced.

Prospective Field Validation of the START:AV in a Dutch Secure Youth Care Sample

The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV) is a risk assessment instrument for adolescents that estimates the risk of multiple adverse outcomes. Prior research into its predictive validity is limited to a handful of studies conducted with the START:AV pilot version and often by the instrument's developers. The present study examines the START:AV's field validity in a secure youth care sample in the Netherlands. Using a prospective design, we investigated whether the total scores, lifetime history, and the final risk judgments of 106 START:AVs predicted inpatient incidents during a 4-month follow-up. Final risk judgments and lifetime history predicted multiple adverse outcomes, including physical aggression, institutional violations, substance use, self-injury, and victimization. The predictive validity of the total scores was significant only for physical aggression and institutional violations. Hence, the short-term predictive validity of the START:AV for inpatient incidents in a residential youth care setting was partially demonstrated and the START:AV final risk judgments can be used to guide treatment planning and decision-making regarding furlough or discharge in this setting.

PROTOCOL: Are tools that assess risk of violent radicalization fit for purpose? A systematic review

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The main objective of this project is to gather, critically appraise, and synthesize evidence about the appropriateness and utility of tools used to assess the risk of violent radicalization.

Reform of Forensic Mental Health Services in Italy: Stigma and Blaming the Messenger: Hermenoia

About 40 years after the reforms leading to the closure of psychiatric hospitals (Ospedale Psichiatrico [OP]) in Italy in favor of a widespread model with a strong rehabilitation emphasis, Italy has chosen to close High Security Hospitals as well (Ospedale Psichiatrico Giudiziario [OPG]). The new forensic treatment model is expected to be more respectful of the person, including the perpetrators of violent crimes, and aims to be less stigmatizing and more rehabilitative. Despite the favorable premises of the reform (Law n. 81/2014), Italian psychiatrists are now obliged to answer calls to give evidence on strictly legal issues such as the social dangerousness of the mentally ill offender drawing on evidence or paradigms that many believe do not belong to medical knowledge. Psychiatrists must now learn to communicate about the relationship between psychiatry and society as required by law. This public expression engages with the cultural climate of society. Otherwise, the risk is of increasing the level of complexity leading to real misunderstandings that paradoxically may feed the stigma. The Italian reform provides an opportunity for reflection on some issues concerning psychiatric action, on how the public perceives the mentally ill and their psychiatrists, on the relationship between psychiatry and the world of law, on clinical methodologies for structured professional judgment, on public communication regarding severe mental illness, and the risk that psychiatrists may inadvertently be blamed for conveying an unwelcome message about mental illness and social dangerousness-we have called this social sensitivity against psychiatrists "hermanoia," blaming the messenger. The authors do not provide certain solutions but propose good practices.

Ten outcome measures in forensic mental health: A survey of clinician views on comprehensiveness, ease of use and relevance

BACKGROUND

Measurement of outcomes in forensic mental health services is essential to ensure that these services are delivering good quality care and treatment. Instruments for outcome measurement should cover all important domains, be easy to implement in a routine clinical context and facilitate transfer of relevant information between clinicians as the patient progresses along a recovery and rehabilitation pathway.

AIMS

We sought the views of clinicians on 10 common instruments used as outcome measures in forensic mental health services, especially on their perceived comprehensiveness and ease of use.

METHODS

An online survey was used to gather the views of clinicians from a range of professional backgrounds working in forensic mental health services in the United Kingdom. The selected instruments were identified from a previous systematic review of instruments for measuring outcomes in this context. Questions covered comprehensiveness, ease of use, patient involvement, relevance and use for progressing tracking and care planning.

RESULTS

Complete responses were received from 229 individuals. The range of respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing that individual instruments were comprehensive was 6-39%; easy to use 19%-69%; relevant 31%-78%; useful to measure progress 7-70%; and useful for care planning 33-81%. Respondents reported that, for each of the 10 instruments, full involvement of patients varied between 3% and 22%; partial involvement 12-45%, patients informed, but not involved 11%-28%; and patients not involved or informed 21%-64%.

CONCLUSIONS

The Health of the Nation Outcome Scale Secure, the only instrument designed as an outcome measure, is not regarded by clinicians as useful in that respect and the majority of clinicians do not inform patients they are using it. Clinicians appear most familiar with the Historical Clinical Risk 20 (HCR-20), which some respondents considered potentially useful as a progress measure but with limited patient involvement. Most respondents did not think that the HCR-20 is comprehensive. There is a need for outcome measures that are comprehensive, easy to use and have adequate patient involvement in their development and rating.

Outcome Measures in Forensic Mental Health Services: A Systematic Review of Instruments and Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

Background

Outcome measurement in forensic mental health services can support service improvement, research, and patient progress evaluation. This systematic review aims to identify instruments available for use as outcome measures in this field and assess the evidence for the most common instruments, specific to the forensic context, which cover multiple outcome domains.

Methods

Studies were identified by searching seven online databases. Additional searches were then performed for 10 selected instruments to identify additional information on their psychometric properties. Instrument manuals and gray literature was reviewed for information about instrument development and content validity. The quality of evidence for psychometric properties was summarized for each instrument based on the COnsensus-based Standards for health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) approach.

Results

A total of 435 different instruments or variants were identified. Psychometric information on the 10 selected instruments was extracted from 103 studies. All 10 instruments had a clinician reported component with only two having patient reported scales. Half of the instruments were primarily focused on risk. No instrument demonstrated adequate psychometric properties in all eight COSMIN categories assessed. Only one instrument, the Camberwell Assessment of Need: Forensic Version, had adequate evidence for its development and content validity. The most evidence was for construct validity, while none was identified for construct stability between groups.

Conclusions

Despite the large number of instruments potentially available, evidence for their use as outcome measures in forensic mental health services is limited. Future research and instrument development should involve patients and carers to ensure adequate content validity.

Implementation of a specialized program to treat violence in a forensic population

A shift within state psychiatric hospitals toward serving a predominantly forensic population has resulted in increased violent incidents within those settings. Thus, addressing criminogenic needs in addition to mental illness is an important paradigm shift. Relying on seclusion or restraint as the primary mechanisms to address violence interferes with the provision of effective care to patients struggling with aggressive behaviors. Implementing new treatment programs aimed at reducing violence in forensic inpatient settings is warranted. This article focuses on the step-by-step process of developing such a specialized treatment program within the California Department of State Hospitals. Leadership within this hospital system collaborated with labor unions and other stakeholders to obtain funding to create a novel treatment environment. This treatment program includes a ward design aimed to improve safety and delivers treatment based on the Risk Needs Responsivity Model. Treatment is guided by violence risk assessment and primarily focused on addressing criminogenic needs. The selection of treatments with a focus on violence reduction is discussed.

Principles and practices of risk assessment in mental health jail diversion programs

Eligibility criteria for participation in mental health jail diversion programs often specify that, to be diverted, a candidate must not pose a level of threat to public safety that cannot be managed in the community. Risk assessment tools were developed to increase consistency and accuracy in estimates of threat to public safety. Consequently, risk assessment tools are being used in many jurisdictions to inform decisions regarding an individual's appropriateness and eligibility for mental health jail diversion and the strategies that may be successful in mitigating risk in this context. However, their use is not without controversy. Questions have been raised regarding the validity and equity of their estimates, as well as the impact of their use on criminal justice outcomes. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the science and practice of risk assessment to inform decisions and case planning in the context of mental health jail diversion programs. Our specific aims include: (1) to describe the process and components of risk assessment, including differentiating between different approaches to risk assessment, and (2) to consider the use of risk assessment tools in mental health jail diversion programs. We anchor this review in relevant theory and extant research, noting current controversies or debates and areas for future research. Overall, there is strong theoretical justification and empirical evidence from other criminal justice contexts; however, the body of research on the use of risk assessment tools in mental health jail diversion programs, although promising, is relatively nascent.

Short-term clinical risk assessment and management: Comparing the Brockville Risk Checklist and Hamilton Anatomy of Risk Management

The current article aims to examine the performance of two brief, dynamic risk measures - the Brockville Risk Checklist (BRC4) and one of two versions of the Hamilton Anatomy of Risk Management [HARM-FV and electronic HARM-FV (eHARM-FV)] - scored at regular clinical case conferences for forensic psychiatric patients in two different settings. The eHARM represents a first-in-class dynamic risk assessment tool using data analytics. Two studies are presented from two forensic psychiatric hospitals in Ontario, Canada. The first study compared the HARM-FV, scored by trained research staff, with the BRC4, scored concurrently by clinical teams, on 36 forensic inpatients. In the second study, trained research staff scored both the BRC4 and the eHARM-FV on 55 forensic inpatients. Both studies demonstrated that the BRC4 and both HARM-FV tools were moderately and positively correlated with each other, with higher agreement for similar domains and items. In both samples, the risk measures performed better at identifying individuals who engaged in repeated or more serious problematic behavior. The HARM-FV and eHARM-FV produced higher area under the curve values for subsequent behavior compared with the BRC4. All three tools were effective at detecting future aggression and adverse incidents. We did not directly compare the HARM-FV and eHARM-FV.

Strategies for Assessing and Preventing Inpatient Violence in Forensic Hospitals: A Call for Specificity

Abstract. Violence within inpatient forensic hospitals is a significant and enduring problem that leads to harm to staff and patients and causes significant expenditures. This paper provides comprehensive recommendations for developing and implementing violence reduction strategies within forensic settings that are predicated on appropriate evaluation for violence risk. This paper posits that proper strategies must take into account subtypes of violence and classifying risk with systematic and continuous evaluations. Treatment interventions should be geared to patients most at-risk for violence. By recognizing the dynamic nature of violence, hospital administrators can work closely with institution staff to provide support for improving the environment of forensic hospitals. By employing empirically based treatment interventions on both acute and long-term units, forensic hospitals can provide a safer environment.

How Do Professionals Assess Sexual Recidivism Risk? An Updated Survey of Practices

Forensic evaluators may be assisted by comparing their use of instruments with that of their peers. This article reports the results of a 2017 survey of instrument use by forensic evaluators carrying out sexual recidivism risk assessments. Results are compared with a similar survey carried out in 2013. Analysis focuses primarily on adoption of more recently developed instruments and norms, and on assessment of criminogenic needs and protective factors, and secondarily, on exploring factors related to differences in evaluator practice. Findings indicate that most evaluators have now adopted modern actuarial instruments, with the Static-99R and Static-2002R being the most commonly used. Assessment of criminogenic needs is now common, with the STABLE-2007 being the most frequently used instrument. Evaluators are also increasingly likely to consider protective factors. While a majority of evaluators uses actuarial instruments, a substantial minority employs Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) instruments. Few factors discriminated patterns of instrument use.

The validity and utility of violence risk assessment tools to predict patient violence in acute care settings: An integrative literature review

To examine risk assessment tools to predict patient violence in acute care settings. An integrative review of the literature. Five electronic databases - CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, OVID, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were searched between 2000 and 2018. The reference list of articles was also inspected manually. The PICOS framework was used to refine the inclusion and exclusion of the literature, and the PRISMA statement guided the search strategy to systematically present findings. Forty-one studies were retained for review. Three studies developed or tested tools to measure patient violence in general acute care settings, and two described the primary and secondary development of tools in emergency departments. The remaining studies reported on risk assessment tools that were developed or tested in psychiatric inpatient settings. In total, 16 violence risk assessment tools were identified. Thirteen of them were developed to assess the risk of violence in psychiatric patients. Two of them were found to be accurate and reliable to predict violence in acute psychiatric facilities and have practical utility for general acute care settings. Two assessment tools were developed and administered in general acute care, and one was developed to predict patient violence in emergency departments. There is no single, user-friendly, standardized evidence-based tool available for predicting violence in general acute care hospitals. Some were found to be accurate in assessing violence in psychiatric inpatients and have potential for use in general acute care, require further testing to assess their validity and reliability.

Implementing the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) in a forensic mental health service

Aims and Method

To evaluate the practical utility and face validity of a new risk assessment guideline, the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START), within a forensic mental health service. Staff attended training and subsequently used the START to assess and formulate risk. Staff then completed an evaluation questionnaire about their experiences of using the START.

Results

The study proved useful in evaluating the practical utility and face validity of the START. the START demonstrated both good practical utility and face validity. Areas of difficulty in completing the START were identified and areas for developing the START were highlighted.

Clinical Implications

The service subsequently implemented a revised version of the START into routine practice. the results of the pilot study suggest that the START can usefully assist in structuring risk judgements in practice.

Forensic Assertive Community Treatment in a Continuum of Care for Male Internees in Belgium: Results After 33 Months

Non-forensic or regular assertive community treatment (ACT) has positive effects on non-forensic outcomes but has poor effects on forensic outcome measures. In this study, we examined non-forensic and forensic outcome measures of a forensic adaptation of ACT (ForACT) within a continuum of care for internees. Data were collected retrospectively from files of 70 participants in the ForACT group who had been released from a forensic hospital. The control group comprised internees who had left prison and entered community-based care (n = 56). The ForACT group demonstrated significantly better outcomes on forensic measures, such as arrests and incarcerations, and had better community tenure. However, this group showed high hospitalization rates. The findings indicate that this type of community-based care can be beneficial for such internees; however, internees continue to experience difficulties reintegrating into society.

[Patients assaulted in psychiatric institutions: Literature review and clinical implications]

BACKGROUND

The psychiatric ward is a place where all forms of violence are treated. Occasionally, this violence involves acts of aggression between patients in emergency psychiatric units or hospital wards. Such events can lead to the development or worsening of posttraumatic stress disorder.

METHODS

To establish the context, we first examined the epidemiology data concerning posttraumatic stress disorder in psychiatric patients who were frequently exposed to assaults. Secondly, we examined the issue of sexual and physical assaults between patients receiving treatment in a psychiatric ward. In this context, we studied possible occurrence of posttraumatic stress disorder associated with exposure to assaults of this kind.

RESULTS

In certain cases, potentially traumatic exposure to violence was unknown to the medical staff or not taken into consideration. This would induce a risk of later development of posttraumatic stress disorder that would not be treated during the stay in psychiatry.

CONCLUSION

To date, few scientific studies have focused on the proportion of patients assaulted by other patients during treatment in a psychiatric ward and the subsequent development of peritraumatic reactions and/or posttraumatic stress disorder associated with these assaults. We know that an insufficient number of public and private health institutions report the existence of such facts to the competent authorities. Also, a minority of clinicians and caregivers are trained in screening and management of trauma victims. Yet, these issues are particularly relevant in the scope of public health and health promotion.

Predictive validity of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) for multiple adverse outcomes: The effect of diagnosis

The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) assists risk assessment for seven risk outcomes based on scoring of risk and protective factors and assignment of clinically-informed risk levels. Its predictive validity for violence and self-harm has been established in males with schizophrenia, but accuracy across pathologically diverse samples is unknown. Routine START assessments and 3-month risk outcome data of N = 527 adult, inpatients in a UK secure mental health facility were collected. The sample was divided into diagnostic groups; predictive validity was established using receiver operating characteristics regression (rocreg) analysis in which potential covariates were controlled. In most single-diagnosis groups START risk factors ('vulnerabilities'), protective factors ('strengths'), and clinically-informed estimates predicted multiple risk outcomes with effect sizes similar to previous research. Self-harm was not predicted among patients with an organic diagnosis. The START risk estimates predicted physical aggression in all diagnostic groups, and verbal aggression, self-harm and self-neglect in most diagnostic groups. The START can assist assessment of aggressive, self-harm, and self-neglect across a range of diagnostic groups. Further research with larger sample sizes of those with multiple diagnoses is required.

Reliability and Validity of START and LSI-R Assessments in Mental Health Jail Diversion Clients

Risk assessment instruments are increasingly used in mental health jail diversion programs. This study examined the reliability and validity of Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) and Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) assessments overall and by client race. Research assistants completed START and LSI-R assessments for 95 diversion clients. Arrests and jail days were collected via official records and self-report 3, 6, 9, 12, and 18 months after baseline. Assessments demonstrated good interrater reliability and convergent validity. START strength total scores and LSI-R risk estimates were the strongest predictors of recidivism. Total scores and risk estimates did not differ as a function of client race, but there were some differences in accuracy of START vulnerability and LSI-R total scores and risk estimates in predicting jail days (but not arrests), over shorter follow-ups. No such differences were found for START strength total scores across any follow-up period or recidivism measure.

Proximal Risk Factors for Short-Term Community Violence Among Adults With Mental Illnesses

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the role of static indicators and proximal, clinically relevant indicators in the prediction of short-term community violence in a large, heterogeneous sample of adults with mental illnesses.

METHODS

Data were pooled from five studies of adults with mental illnesses (N=4,484). Follow-up data were available for 2,579 participants. A hierarchical linear regression assessed the incremental validity of a series of variable clusters in the prediction of violence risk at six months: static characteristics (age, sex, race-ethnicity, and primary diagnosis), substance use (alcohol use and drug use at baseline), clinical functioning (psychiatric symptoms at baseline and recent hospitalization), recent violence, and recent victimization.

RESULTS

Results demonstrated improved prediction with each step of the model, indicating that proximal indicators contributed to the prediction of short-term community violence above and beyond static characteristics. When all variables were entered, current alcohol use, recent violence, and recent victimization were positive predictors of subsequent violence, even after the analysis controlled for participant characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides empirical evidence for three proximal, clinically relevant indicators in the assessment and management of short-term violence risk among adults with mental illnesses: current alcohol use, recent violence, and recent victimization. Consideration of these indicators in clinical practice may assist in the identification of adults with mental illnesses who are at heightened risk of short-term community violence.

The HCR-20 as a measure of reliable and clinically significant change in violence risk among secure psychiatric inpatients

OBJECTIVE

Periodic structured violence risk assessment is the principle method underlying treatment planning for mentally disordered offenders but little is known about how risk changes over time. We aimed to determine whether hospitalised patients underwent reliable clinical change in assessed risk.

METHOD

We used a pseudo-prospective longitudinal study design. Demographic, clinical and risk assessment data of adult inpatients (N=480) who had been routinely assessed with the HCR-20 on two to four occasions over a mean period of 17 months (SD=2) were collated. Linear mixed models regression was conducted to determine change over time on total, subscale, and individual item scores, and relative change between clinical and demographic groups. The Reliable Change Index was calculated to examine whether change was greater than that expected by measurement error; clinically significant change was defined as the extent to which HCR-20 scores reduced below previously reported scores for patients not requiring hospitalisation.

RESULTS

HCR-20 total score (Estimate -0.42, 95% CI=-0.84, -0.01, p<.05; d=.20) and clinical score (Estimate=-0.42, 95% CI=-0.64, -0.20, p<.001; d=.36) reduced over assessments. Significant differences in change were evident between clinically and demographically defined groups. A maximum of 3% of individuals showed clinically significant reliable reductions in HCR-20 total scores. The scores of patients whose overall level of risk was judged to have decreased did not reduce between assessments.

CONCLUSION

Violence risk changes very little over the course of treatment although there is some variation between groups. Most change cannot be demonstrated to be reliable or clinically significant. Important clinical management decisions should not depend solely on evidence from changes in HCR-20 risk assessment.

Implementing an ecological approach to violence reduction at a forensic psychiatric hospital: approaches and lessons learned

Existing literature on aggression within psychiatric hospitals suggests that treating an aggressive patient's symptoms could be complemented by (a) milieu environments that mitigate violence and (b) hospital-wide policies and procedures that focus on creating a safe environment. Described as an ecological approach, examples of how this broader, situational approach can reduce inpatient violence in psychiatric settings are provided throughout. The authors identify potential barriers to focusing on wards and institutional rules as well as patient treatment. Last, details of how this ecological approach has been implemented at one state hospital in California are provided.

Offense Characteristics of Incompetent to Stand Trial Defendants Charged With Violent Offenses

The current study compared offender and offense characteristics of pretrial defendants found incompetent to stand trial (IST) against those described as general offenders by victims in the 2008 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) survey and evaluated factors that differentiated IST defendants who allegedly used weapons from those who did not during the course of a violent offense. IST defendants were older and used "weapons" more frequently than those reported in the BJS survey; however, other characteristics, including use of firearms, did not differ. No demographic, clinical, or legal factors differentiated pretrial defendants who used weapons from those who did not. Overall, pretrial defendants were frequently diagnosed with a comorbid substance use disorder, and were homeless, unemployed, and had an extensive history of psychiatric hospitalizations and prior arrests at the time of their alleged offenses. Such results indicate that models for comprehensive discharge planning may have utility in addressing the unique needs of this subgroup of mentally disordered offenders. The findings also raise questions about the federal and state prohibition of gun rights to all IST defendants.

Risk assessment by client and case manager for shared decision making in outpatient forensic psychiatry

BACKGROUND

In outpatient forensic psychiatry, assessment of re-offending risk and treatment needs by case managers may be hampered by an incomplete view of client functioning. The client's appreciation of his own problem behaviour is not systematically used for these purposes. The current study tests whether using a new client self-appraisal risk assessment instrument, based on the Short Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START), improves the assessment of re-offending risk and can support shared decision making in care planning.

METHODS

In a sample of 201 outpatient forensic psychiatric clients, feasibility of client risk assessment, concordance with clinician assessment, and predictive validity of both assessments for violent or criminal behaviour were studied.

RESULTS

Almost all clients (98 %) were able to fill in the instrument. Agreement between client and case manager on the key risk and protective factors of the client was poor (mean kappa for selection as key factor was 0.15 and 0.09, respectively, and mean correlation on scoring -0.18 and 0.20). The optimal prediction model for violent or criminal behaviour consisted of the case manager's structured professional risk estimate for violence in combination with the client's self-appraisal on key risk and protective factors (AUC = 0.70; 95%CI: 0.60-0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

In outpatient forensic psychiatry, self-assessment of risk by the client is feasible and improves the prediction of re-offending. Clients and their case managers differ in their appraisal of key risk and protective factors. These differences should be addressed in shared care planning. The new Client Self-Appraisal based on START (CSA) risk assessment instrument can be a useful tool to facilitate such shared care planning in forensic psychiatry.

California State Hospital Violence Assessment and Treatment (Cal-VAT) guidelines

Here we provide comprehensive guidelines for the assessment and treatment of violence and aggression of various etiologies, including psychotic aggression and impulsive aggression due to schizophrenia, mood disorders, ADHD, or trauma, and predatory aggression due to psychopathy and other personality disorders. These guidelines have been developed from a collection of prescribing recommendations, clinical trial results, and years of clinical experience in treating patients who are persistently violent or aggressive in the California Department of State Hospital System. Many of the recommendations provided in these guidelines employ off-label prescribing practices; thus, sound clinical judgment based on individual patient needs and according to institution formularies must be considered when applying these guidelines in clinical practice.

Violence risk assessment as a medical intervention: ethical tensions

Risk assessment differs from other medical interventions in that the welfare of the patient is not the immediate object of the intervention. However, improving the risk assessment process may reduce the chance of risk assessment itself being unjust. We explore the ethical arguments in relation to risk assessment as a medical intervention, drawing analogies, where applicable, with ethical arguments raised by general medical investigations. The article concludes by supporting the structured professional judgement approach as a method of risk assessment that is most consistent with the respect for principles of medical ethics. Recommendations are made for the future direction of risk assessment indicated by ethical theory.

The relevance of the early history of probability theory to current risk assessment practices in mental health care

Probability theory is at the base of modern concepts of risk assessment in mental health. The aim of the current paper is to review the key developments in the early history of probability theory in order to enrich our understanding of current risk assessment practices.

Susceptibility (risk and protective) factors for in-patient violence and self-harm: prospective study of structured professional judgement instruments START and SAPROF, DUNDRUM-3 and DUNDRUM-4 in forensic mental health services

BACKGROUND

The START and SAPROF are newly developed fourth generation structured professional judgement instruments assessing strengths and protective factors. The DUNDRUM-3 and DUNDRUM-4 also measure positive factors, programme completion and recovery in forensic settings.

METHODS

We compared these instruments with other validated risk instruments (HCR-20, S-RAMM), a measure of psychopathology (PANSS) and global function (GAF). We prospectively tested whether any of these instruments predict violence or self harm in a secure hospital setting (n = 98) and whether they had true protective effects, interacting with and off-setting risk measures.

RESULTS

SAPROF and START-strengths had strong inverse (negative) correlations with the HCR-20 and S-RAMM. SAPROF correlated strongly with GAF (r = 0.745). In the prospective in-patient study, SAPROF predicted absence of violence, AUC = 0.847 and absence of self-harm AUC = 0.766. START-strengths predicted absence of violence AUC = 0.776, but did not predict absence of self-harm AUC = 0.644. The DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales also predicted in-patient violence (AUC 0.832 and 0.728 respectively), and both predicted in-patient self-harm (AUC 0.750 and 0.713 respectively). When adjusted for the HCR-20 total score however, SAPROF, START-S, DUNDRUM-3 and DUNDRUM-4 scores were not significantly different for those who were violent or for those who self harmed. The SAPROF had a significant interactive effect with the HCR-dynamic score. Item to outcome studies often showed a range of strengths of association with outcomes, which may be specific to the in-patient setting and patient group studied.

CONCLUSIONS

The START and SAPROF, DUNDRUM-3 and DUNDRUM-4 can be used to assess both reduced and increased risk of violence and self-harm in mentally ill in-patients in a secure setting. They were not consistently better than the GAF, HCR-20, S-RAMM, or PANSS when predicting adverse events. Only the SAPROF had an interactive effect with the HCR-20 risk assessment indicating a true protective effect but as structured professional judgement instruments all have additional content (items) complementary to existing risk assessments, useful for planning treatment and risk management.

Risk assessment and shared care planning in out-patient forensic psychiatry: cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Forensic psychiatry aims to reduce recidivism and makes use of risk assessment tools to achieve this goal. Various studies have reported on the predictive qualities of these instruments, but it remains unclear whether their use is associated with actual prevention of recidivism in clinical care.

AIMS

To test whether an intervention combining risk assessment and shared care planning is associated with a reduction in violent and criminal behaviour.

METHOD

A cluster randomised controlled trial (Netherlands Trial Register number NTR1042) was conducted in three out-patient forensic psychiatric clinics. The intervention comprised risk assessment with the Short Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) and a shared care planning protocol formulated according to shared decision-making principles. The control group received usual care. The outcome consisted of the proportion of clients with violent or criminal incidents at follow-up.

RESULTS

In total 58 case managers and 632 of their clients were included. In the intervention group (n = 310), 65% received the intervention at least once. Findings showed a general treatment effect (22% of clients with an incident at baseline v. 15% at follow-up, P<0.01) but no significant difference between the two treatment conditions (odds ratio (OR) = 1.46, 95% CI 0.89-2.44, P = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Although risk assessment is common practice in forensic psychiatry, our results indicate that the primary goal of preventing recidivism was not reached through risk assessment embedded in shared decision-making.

Measurement of predictive validity in violence risk assessment studies: a second-order systematic review

The objective of the present review was to examine how predictive validity is analyzed and reported in studies of instruments used to assess violence risk. We reviewed 47 predictive validity studies published between 1990 and 2011 of 25 instruments that were included in two recent systematic reviews. Although all studies reported receiver operating characteristic curve analyses and the area under the curve (AUC) performance indicator, this methodology was defined inconsistently and findings often were misinterpreted. In addition, there was between-study variation in benchmarks used to determine whether AUCs were small, moderate, or large in magnitude. Though virtually all of the included instruments were designed to produce categorical estimates of risk - through the use of either actuarial risk bins or structured professional judgments - only a minority of studies calculated performance indicators for these categorical estimates. In addition to AUCs, other performance indicators, such as correlation coefficients, were reported in 60% of studies, but were infrequently defined or interpreted. An investigation of sources of heterogeneity did not reveal significant variation in reporting practices as a function of risk assessment approach (actuarial vs. structured professional judgment), study authorship, geographic location, type of journal (general vs. specialized audience), sample size, or year of publication. Findings suggest a need for standardization of predictive validity reporting to improve comparison across studies and instruments.

Risk assessment in mental health care: values and costs

Risk assessment has assumed increasing salience in mental health care in a number of countries. The frequency of serious violent incidents perpetrated by people with a mental illness is an insufficient explanation. Understandings of mental illness and of the role of those charged with their care (or control) play a key role. "Moral outrage", associated with an implied culpability when certain types of tragedy occur, is very significant. This leads to tensions concerning the role of post-incident inquiries, and contributes to a flawed conception of what such inquiries can offer. At the same time, understanding of probability and prediction is generally very poor, among both professionals and the public. Unrealistic expectations for risk assessment and management in general psychiatric practice carry a variety of significant costs, taking a number forms, to those with a mental illness, to mental health professionals and to services. Especially important are changes in professional practice and accountabilities that are significantly divorced from traditional practice, implications for trust in patient-clinician relationships and the organisations in which mental health professionals work, and practices that often breach the ethical principle of justice (or fairness) and heighten discrimination against people with mental illness.

Valuing structured professional judgment: predictive validity, decision-making, and the clinical-actuarial conflict

Structured professional judgment (SPJ) has received considerable attention as an alternative to unstructured clinical judgment and actuarial assessment, and as a means of resolving their ongoing conflict. However, predictive validity studies have typically relied on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the same technique commonly used to validate actuarial assessment tools. This paper presents SPJ as distinct from both unstructured clinical judgment and actuarial assessment. A key distinguishing feature of SPJ is the contribution of modifiable factors, either dynamic or protective, to summary risk ratings. With modifiable factors, the summary rating scheme serves as a prognostic model rather than a classification procedure. However, prognostic models require more extensive and thorough predictive validity testing than can be provided by ROC analysis. It is proposed that validation should include calibration and reclassification techniques, as well as additional measures of discrimination. Several techniques and measures are described and illustrated. The paper concludes by tracing the limitations of ROC analysis to its philosophical foundation and its origin as a statistical theory of decision-making. This foundation inhibits the performance of crucial tasks, such as determining the sufficiency of a risk assessment and examining the evidentiary value of statistical findings. The paper closes by noting a current effort to establish a viable and complementary relationship between SPJ and decision-making theory.

Taking Stock and Taking Steps: The Case for an Adolescent Version of the Short-Assessment of Risk and Treatability

The field of violence risk assessment has matured considerably, possibly advancing beyond its own adolescence. At this point in the field's evolution, it is more important than ever for the development of any new device to be accompanied by a strong rationale and the capacity to provide a unique contribution. With this issue in mind, we first take stock of the field of adolescent risk assessment in order to describe the rapid progress that this field has made, as well as the gaps that led us to adapt the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START; Webster, Martin, Brink, Nicholls, & Desmarais, 2009) for use with adolescents. We view the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV; Nicholls, Viljoen, Cruise, Desmarais, & Webster, 2010; Viljoen, Cruise, Nicholls, Desmarais, & Webster, in progress) as complementing other risk measures in four primary ways: 1) rather than focusing solely on violence risk, it examines broader adverse outcomes to which some adolescents are vulnerable (including self-harm, suicide, victimization, substance abuse, unauthorized leave, self-neglect, general offending); 2) it places a balanced emphasis on adolescents' strengths; 3) it focuses on dynamic factors that are relevant to short-term assessment, risk management, and treatment planning; and 4) it is designed for both mental health and justice populations. We describe the developmentally-informed approach we took in the adaptation of the START for adolescents, and outline future steps for the continuing validation and refinement of the START:AV.

Assessment of Multiple Risk Outcomes, Strengths, and Change with the START:AV: A Short-Term Prospective Study with Adolescent Offenders

The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV; Nicholls, Viljoen, Cruise, Desmarais, & Webster, 2010; Viljoen, Cruise, Nicholls, Desmarais, & Webster, in preparation) is a clinical guide designed to assist in the assessment and management of adolescents' risk for adverse events (e.g., violence, general offending, suicide, victimization). In this initial validation study, START:AV assessments were conducted on 90 adolescent offenders (62 male, 28 female), who were prospectively followed for a 3-month period. START:AV assessments had good to excellent inter-rater reliability and strong concurrent validity with Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth assessments (SAVRY; Borum, Bartel, & Forth, 2006). START:AV risk estimates and Vulnerability total scores predicted multiple adverse outcomes, including violence towards others, offending, victimization, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse. In addition, Strength total scores inversely predicted violence, offending, and street drug use. During the 3-month follow-up, risk estimates changed in at least one domain for 92% of youth, and 27% of youth showed reliable changes in Strength and/or Vulnerability total scores (reliable change index, 90% confidence interval; Jacobsen & Truax, 1991). While these findings are promising, a strong need exists for further research on the START:AV, the measurement of change, and on the role of strengths in risk assessment and treatment-planning.

Using dynamic risk and protective factors to predict inpatient aggression: reliability and validity of START assessments

The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START; C. D. Webster, M. L. Martin, J. Brink, T. L. Nicholls, & S. L. Desmarais, 2009; C. D. Webster, M. L. Martin, J. Brink, T. L. Nicholls, & C. Middleton, 2004) is a relatively new structured professional judgment guide for the assessment and management of short-term risks associated with mental, substance use, and personality disorders. The scheme may be distinguished from other violence risk assessment instruments because of its inclusion of 20 dynamic factors that are rated in terms of both vulnerability and strength. This study examined the reliability and validity of START assessments in predicting inpatient aggression. Research assistants completed START assessments for 120 male forensic psychiatric patients through review of hospital files. They also completed Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20; C. D. Webster, K. S. Douglas, D. Eaves, & S. D. Hart, 1997) and Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV; S. D. Hart, D. N. Cox, & R. D. Hare, 1995) assessments. Outcome data were coded from hospital files for a 12-month follow-up period using the Overt Aggression Scale (OAS; S. C. Yudofsky, J. M. Silver, W. Jackson, J. Endicott, & D. W. Williams, 1986). START assessments evidenced excellent interrater reliability and demonstrated both predictive and incremental validity over the HCR-20 Historical subscale scores and PCL:SV total scores. Overall, results support the reliability and validity of START assessments and use of the structured professional judgment approach more broadly, as well as the value of using dynamic risk and protective factors to assess violence risk.

Operationalizing the assessment and management of violence risk in the short-term

Assessing risk of violence in the short term is crucial for managing and preventing violence, especially in institutions such as psychiatric units and prisons. Despite a lack of consensus on the definition of "short term", a number of recent tools and guidelines have been developed to aid short-term clinical decision-making. Whereas the supporting evidence for the new tools is impressive, limitations remain in terms of the focus on prediction, limited consideration of strengths, and poor integration with formulation and risk management. The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) is a brief clinical guide for the dynamic assessment of risks, strengths and treatability. It focuses on short-term risks and the characteristics of the individual that, if changed, might lead to an increase or decrease in risk. The START has the potential to operationalize the structured professional judgment (SPJ) approach in order to inform the evaluation of multiple risk domains relevant to everyday psychiatric clinical practice. However, explicit guidance on integrating risk assessment, formulation and management is limited in the START and this paper describes the SPJ approach, reviews recent developments in approaches to risk, and considers how the START can be used to inform SPJ approaches and link risk assessment, formulation, and management.

Characteristics of START assessments completed in mental health jail diversion programs

Many different instruments have been developed to assist in the assessment of risk for violence and other criminal behavior. However, there is limited evidence regarding how these instruments work in the 'real world'. Even less is known about how these instruments might work for assessing risk in jail diversion populations, whether in research or practice. To address these knowledge gaps, the present study examined the characteristics of risk assessments completed by program staff (n=10) on 96 mental health jail diversion clients (72 men and 24 women) using the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START). The findings provide preliminary support for the reliability and validity of START assessments completed in jail diversion programs, the first evidence of the transportability of START outside psychiatric settings, and further evidence regarding the reliability and validity of START assessments completed in the field. They additionally support the consideration of an eighth, general offending risk domain in START assessments.

Violence risk: re-defining variables from the first-person perspective

Over the past 25 years, there have been notable advances in violence risk assessment of mentally ill individuals using actuarial methods to define high versus low risk groups. A focus on readily observable risk factors, however, has led to a relative neglect of how the offender's subjective states may be valuable to consider in research on the ongoing assessment and prevention of violence. We argue for the relevance of considering idiographic features of subjective experience in the development of structured assessment methods. We then identify three heuristic groups of existing constructs related to aggressive and illegal behavior that may capture modifiable, time-varying aspects of mental functioning leading up to involvement in an act of violence. These hypothesized domains are: (i) construal of intent and cause; (ii) normative reference points; and (iii) emotion recognition and regulation. We suggest that risk state for violence can be studied in a parsimonious and direct manner through systematic research on coded speech samples. The coding method for such an assessment procedure would be almost identical to existing structured clinical judgment instruments with the difference that variables be defined from a first-person point of view. Some implications of this approach for the tertiary prevention of violence in high-risk individuals are described.

Violence risk assessment and women: predictive accuracy of the HCR-20 in a civil psychiatric sample

Research to date has not adequately demonstrated whether the HCR-20 Violence Risk Assessment Scheme (HCR-20; Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997), a structured violence risk assessment measure with a robust literature supporting its validity in male samples, is a valid indicator of violence risk in women. This study utilized data from the MacArthur Study of Mental Disorder and Violence to retrospectively score an abbreviated version of HCR-20 in 827 civil psychiatric patients. HCR-20 scores and predictive accuracy of community violence were compared for men and women. Results suggested that the HCR-20 is slightly, but not significantly, better for evaluating future risk for violence in men than in women, although the magnitude of the gender differences was small and was largely limited to historical factors. The results do not indicate that the HCR-20 needs to be tailored for use in women or that it should not be used in women, but they do highlight that the HCR-20 should be used cautiously and with full awareness of its potential limitations in women.

Psychosis and violence: stories, fears, and reality

Individuals with psychosis are often feared. In fact, they are themselves likely to be victims of violence; however, the main aim of this review is to provide an overview of the evidence on relations between psychosis and violence to others. The terms psychosis and violence were used in a literature search limited to the Cochrane Library and PubMed, a manual search of 8 journals, and a follow-up of additional references in the articles found. The overview draws on new empirical data and major reviews. Almost all sound epidemiologic data on psychosis and violence dates from 1990. There is consistency on a small but significant relation between schizophrenia and violent acts. Since then there has also been movement toward understanding the nature of associations and progress on strategies for managing individuals who have psychosis and are violent. Public fears about individuals with psychotic illnesses are largely unfounded, although there would be benefit in greater attention to the safety of those in their close social circle. The task for the next 10 years must be the development and application of knowledge to improve specific treatments-that is, interventions that go beyond holding and caring to bring about substantial change.