The utility of the Historical Clinical Risk-20 Scale as a predictor of outcomes in decisions to transfer patients from high to lower levels of security--a UK perspective

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.

Predictors of recovery in a medium secure service: Influence of the Welsh Government's Mental Health (2010) Measure

BACKGROUND

Research to date has failed to examine the effectiveness of MSUs in facilitating recovery, or the influence that mental health policy may have on this process. Examining predictors of short-term clinical outcomes during inpatient admission and the effects of policy changes may inform future policy, treatment planning and may improve service user outcomes.

AIMS

To examine whether service user admission characteristics and length of stay predicted recovery status at discharge from medium secure care and whether a recovery-focused change in policy (introduction of the Mental Health (Wales) Measure (2010)) impacted either on recovery or the relationship between service user characteristics and recovery.

METHODS

The study adopted a retrospective analysis of quantitative data obtained from healthcare records from a Welsh MSU between 2007 and 2017 (n = 198). The DUNDUM-4 scale assessed recovery whilst DUNDRUM-2 assessed security need at admission. Service user admission characteristics included HCR-20 subscale scores, previous security-level transitions, adverse childhood experiences, substance misuse histories.

RESULTS

Shorter inpatient stays and higher scores on the dynamic HCR-20 clinical subscale were associated with poorer recovery outcomes. The relationship between admission characteristics and recovery endured despite changes in policy. Implementation of recovery focused legislation was associated with improved recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that treatment should focus on dynamic risk factors to improve service user outcomes and highlights the need for long-term medium-secure provision for some. Further research is needed to evaluate the success of MSUs and the validity of the DUNDRUM-4 across UK secure services.

Models of care in forensic psychiatry

Forensic psychiatry services have grown and become more complex in structures, processes and pathways. Legacy customs, practices and changing policy are now organised into formal models of care. These are written accounts of how a health service is delivered, outlining best practice and services for patients progressing through the stages of their condition and the care and treatment available. This article explores the four key elements of a model of care: goals; pathways and processes; treatment programmes; and systematic evaluation. It describes the most common model of care in forensic services, which builds on structures of stratified therapeutic security. It also considers variations on this basic or standard model matched to needs arising from the complex interrelationship with other parts of the mental health service for the population served and with criminal justice, primary care and physical health, housing and welfare agencies.

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.

The Utility of the HCR-20 in an Australian Sample of Forensic Psychiatric Patients

The Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) is utilised internationally to assess an individual's risk for violence. Despite being widely administered in Australian correctional and forensic populations, the predictive validity of the HCR-20 instrument has never been explored in Australian settings. This retrospective study investigated the predictive validity of the HCR-20 for an Australian cohort of 136 forensic psychiatric patients. Findings support the relationship between the HCR-20 and violent offending post hospital discharge. The HCR-20 Total, Historical, and Risk Management scales shared moderate to large positive correlations with several reconviction categories.

Assessment and management of agitation in psychiatry: Expert consensus

BACKGROUND

Psychomotor agitation is associated with different psychiatric conditions and represents an important issue in psychiatry. Current recommendations on agitation in psychiatry are not univocal. Actually, an improper assessment and management may result in unnecessary coercive or sedative treatments. A thorough and balanced review plus an expert consensus can guide assessment and treatment decisions.

METHODS

An expert task force iteratively developed consensus using the Delphi method. Initial survey items were based on systematic review of the literature. Subsequent surveys included new, re-worded or re-rated items.

RESULTS

Out of 2175 papers assessing psychomotor agitation, 124 were included in the review. Each component was assigned a level of evidence. Integrating the evidence and the experience of the task force members, a consensus was reached on 22 statements on this topic.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations on the assessment of agitation emphasise the importance of identifying any possible medical cause. For its management, experts agreed in considering verbal de-escalation and environmental modification techniques as first choice, considering physical restraint as a last resort strategy. Regarding pharmacological treatment, the "ideal" medication should calm without over-sedate. Generally, oral or inhaled formulations should be preferred over i.m. routes in mildly agitated patients. Intravenous treatments should be avoided.

Factors associated with recommitment of NGRI acquittees to a forensic hospital

The current archival study assesses risk factors associated with recommitment of 142 individuals adjudicated Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) from civil settings to a forensic hospital in New York State. Within 10 years of transfer from a forensic hospital, 40 (28.2%) were recommitted. Using survival analyses to account for the wide range in opportunity for recommitment, period of transfer (i.e., pre versus post the 1995 case of George L, which clarified factors related to assessments of dangerousness) and the Historical scale and specific items of the HCR-20 emerged as important risk factors for recommitment. Specifically, hazard of recommitment was 2.9 times higher for those with high Historical scores as compared to those with low scores. However, few individual risk factors were associated with recommitment. Prior supervision failure, negative attitude, problems with substance use, and absent or less serious major mental illness and relationship problems were informative in predicting recommitment over 10 and 3 year follow-up periods.

Validation of the Violence Risk Screening-10 instrument among clients discharged from a psychiatric hospital in Beijing

The Violence Risk Screening-10 is one of the few instruments available for evaluating violence risk in mental health clients during and after hospitalization. This prospective study examined the applicability of this brief instrument with a sample of 289 clients in the 6 months after discharge from a general psychiatric hospital in Beijing. During the research period, 24 of the 289 clients demonstrated aggression. The receiver-operator characteristic curve yielded an area under the curve of 0.62. At the cut-off point of 4.5, its sensitivity/specificity was 79.2%/33.3%, and the corresponding positive/negative predictive value was 9.9%/94.5%. The predictive accuracy of this instrument was lower compared with the results of the original study, and was also less accurate than when it was administered while the clients were in the hospital. While promising in its utility for use beyond the hospital, it deserves further modification prior to its wide use across culturally-diverse China.

Prospective in-patient cohort study of moves between levels of therapeutic security: the DUNDRUM-1 triage security, DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales and the HCR-20

BACKGROUND

We examined whether new structured professional judgment instruments for assessing need for therapeutic security, treatment completion and recovery in forensic settings were related to moves from higher to lower levels of therapeutic security and added anything to assessment of risk.

METHODS

This was a prospective naturalistic twelve month observational study of a cohort of patients in a forensic hospital placed according to their need for therapeutic security along a pathway of moves from high to progressively less secure units in preparation for discharge. Patients were assessed using the DUNDRUM-1 triage security scale, the DUNDRUM-3 programme completion scale and the DUNDRUM-4 recovery scale and assessments of risk of violence, self harm and suicide, symptom severity and global function. Patients were subsequently observed for positive moves to less secure units and negative moves to more secure units.

RESULTS

There were 86 male patients at baseline with mean follow-up 0.9 years, 11 positive and 9 negative moves. For positive moves, logistic regression indicated that along with location at baseline, the DUNDRUM-1, HCR-20 dynamic and PANSS general symptom scores were associated with subsequent positive moves. The receiver operating characteristic was significant for the DUNDRUM-1 while ANOVA co-varying for both location at baseline and HCR-20 dynamic score was significant for DUNDRUM-1. For negative moves, logistic regression showed DUNDRUM-1 and HCR-20 dynamic scores were associated with subsequent negative moves, along with DUNDRUM-3 and PANSS negative symptoms in some models. The receiver operating characteristic was significant for the DUNDRUM-4 recovery and HCR-20 dynamic scores with DUNDRUM-1, DUNDRUM-3, PANSS general and GAF marginal. ANOVA co-varying for both location at baseline and HCR-20 dynamic scores showed only DUNDRUM-1 and PANSS negative symptoms associated with subsequent negative moves.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians appear to decide moves based on combinations of current and imminent (dynamic) risk measured by HCR-20 dynamic score and historical seriousness of risk as measured by need for therapeutic security (DUNDRUM-1) in keeping with Scott's formulation of risk and seriousness. The DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales have utility as dynamic measures that can off-set perceived 'dangerousness'.