The Kennedy Axis V is a routine outcome measurement instrument which can assist the assessment of the short-term risk for violence and other adverse patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the interrater reliability and clinical utility of the instrument when used by mental health nurses in daily care of patients with mental illness. This cross-sectional study was conducted in inpatient and outpatient adult psychiatric care units and in one adolescent inpatient unit at a university hospital in the Netherlands. Interrater reliability was measured based on the independent scores of two different nurses for the same patients. The clinical utility of the instrument was evaluated by means of a clinical utility questionnaire. To gain a deeper understanding of rating difficulties at the adolescent unit, additional data were collected in two focus group interviews. The overall results revealed a substantial level of agreement between nurses (intraclass correlation coefficient and Pearson 0.79). Some rating challenges were identified, including difficulties with scoring the instrument and using tailor-made interventions related to the scores. These challenges can be resolved using refined training and implementation strategies. When the Kennedy Axis V is accompanied by a solid implementation strategy in adult mental health care, the instrument can be used for short-term risk assessment and thereby contribute in efforts to reduce violence, suicide, self-harm, severe selfneglect, and enhanced objectivity in clinical decision-making.
The aim of this project & work package is to develop a European action plan on mental health at work. A major and essential ingredient for this is the involvement of the relevant stakeholders and sharing experiences among them on the national and member state level. The Dutch Ministries of Health and Social Affairs and Employment have decided to participate in this “joint action on the promotion of mental health and well-being” with a specific focus on the work package directed at establishing a framework for action to promote taking action on mental health and well-being at workplaces at national level as well.
Aggressive incidents occur frequently in health care facilities, such as psychiatric care and forensic psychiatric hospitals. Previous research suggests that civil psychiatric inpatients may display more aggression than forensic inpatients. However, there is a lack of research comparing these groups on the incident severity, even though both frequency and severity of aggression influence the impact on staff members. The purpose of this study is to compare the frequency and severity of inpatient aggression caused by forensic and civil psychiatric inpatients in the same Dutch forensic psychiatric hospital. Data on aggressive incidents occurring between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017, were gathered from hospital files and analyzed using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale, including sexual aggression (MOAS+). Multilevel random intercept models were used to analyze differences between forensic and civil psychiatric patients in severity of aggressive incidents. In all, 3,603 aggressive incidents were recorded, caused by 344 different patients. Civil psychiatric patients caused more aggressive incidents than forensic patients and female patients caused more inpatient aggression compared with male patients. Female forensic patients were found to cause the most severe incidents, followed by female civil psychiatric patients. Male forensic patients caused the least severe incidents. The findings have important clinical implications, such as corroborating the need for an intensive treatment program for aggressive and disruptive civil psychiatric patients, as well as emphasizing the importance of gender-responsive treatment
MULTIFILE
