Predictive accuracy of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 for violence in forensic psychiatric wards in Japan

Feasibility and Utility of Different Approaches to Violence Risk Assessment for Young Adults Receiving Treatment for Early Psychosis

This pilot study examined violence risk assessment among a sample of young adults receiving treatment for early psychosis. In this study, thirty participants were assessed for violence risk at baseline. Participants completed follow-up assessments at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months to ascertain prevalence of violent behavior. Individuals were on average 24.1 years old (SD = 3.3 years) and predominantly male (n = 24, 80%). In this sample, six people (20%) reported engaging in violence during the study period. Individuals who engaged in violence had higher levels of negative urgency (t(28) = 2.21, p = 0.035) This study sought to establish the feasibility, acceptability, and clinical utility of violence risk assessment for clients in treatment for early psychosis. Overall, this study found that most individuals with early psychosis in this study (who are in treatment) were not at risk of violence. Findings suggest that violent behavior among young adults with early psychosis is associated with increased negative urgency.

Violence risk assessment for young adults receiving treatment for early psychosis

AIM

Although the absolute risk of violence is small for individuals with mental illnesses, a specific subgroup of individuals who appear to be at increased risk for violence includes young people experiencing emerging or early psychosis. Prior research has identified risk factors for violence in this population, though no prior studies using a formal risk assessment tool have been identified. This study used the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, version 3 (HCR-20) to identify risk of future violence among a sample of young adults with early psychosis and relevant predictors of risk unique to this population.

METHODS

The HCR-20 was administered to a sample of young adults with early psychosis (N = 53) enrolled at one OnTrackNY site, part of a statewide program providing early intervention services to young adults presenting with a first episode of non-affective psychosis. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to explore the relative importance of the HCR-20 items for this population.

RESULTS

The average age of participants was 21.9 years (SD 3.6 years) and most were male (69.8%, n = 37). Most patients were assessed to be at low risk for future violence based on the Case Prioritization summary risk rating (67.9%, n = 36). The CFA identified 4 items that were not of relative predictive value in identifying the risk of violence in this sample: history of substance use (item H5), history of major mental disorder (item H6), living situation (item R2), and personal support (item R3).

CONCLUSION

This study presents a formal approach to assessing violence risk in a population at elevated risk of violence, demonstrates the feasibility of using a standardized risk assessment tool in early intervention services, and identifies factors of particular importance associated with predicting violence in this population. Future research should implement violence risk assessment with a structured tool such as the HCR-20 and assess its accuracy in predicting future violent behavior in this setting.

Risk Assessment in Mental Health Practice: An Integrative Review

Although risk assessment in mental health practice can influence and measure treatment outcomes and level of care provision, risk assessment practices are not standardised and different screening tools are used. The aim of this integrative review was to review the literature on risk assessment in mental health practice to promote evidence-based care. Electronic databases were searched for articles available in English and published from 2013 to 2019. The findings from 12 articles evaluated the evidence for risk assessment tools utilised and discussed the justification, barriers and enabling factors for risk assessment. Lastly, recommendations were made to improve risk assessment.

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.

Strength-based assessment for future violence risk: a retrospective validation study of the Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF) Japanese version in forensic psychiatric inpatients

BACKGROUND

The Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF) was recently developed as a strength-based addition to the risk assessment of future violent behavior. We examined the interrater reliability and predictive accuracy of the SAPROF for violence in forensic mental health inpatient units in Japan.

METHODS

This retrospective record study provides an initial validation of the SAPROF in a Japanese sample of 95 forensic psychiatric inpatients from a complete 2008-2013 cohort. Violent outcomes were assessed 6 and 12 months after hospitalization.

RESULTS

We observed moderate-to-good interrater reliability for the SAPROF total score and the internal factors, motivational factors, external factors, and the Final Protection Judgment scores. According to a receiver operating characteristic analysis, the SAPROF total score and all subscale scores predicted violence at both 6 and 12 months after hospitalization with high accuracy. Furthermore, the predictive validity of a combination of the SAPROF with the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) outperformed that of the HCR-20 alone.

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide evidence of the value of considering protective factors in the assessment of future violence risk among Japanese forensic psychiatric inpatients. The SAPROF might allow for a more balanced assessment of future violence risk in places where the population rates of violent crime are low, such as Japan, but a validation study in a different setting should confirm this. Moreover, future studies should examine the effectiveness of treatment and promoting community re-integration on motivating patients and treatment staff.