Inpatient violence can have a major impact in terms of traumatic experiences for victims and witnesses, an unsafe treatment climate, and high-financial costs. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to gain more insight into patterns of violent behavior, so that adequate preventive measures can be taken.
LINK
Achtergrond Het is bekend dat gestructureerde instrumenten voor taxatie van het kortetermijnrisico bijdragen aan het voorspellen van fysiek agressief gedrag bij patiënten in de acute psychiatrie. Doel Onderzoeken of de Brøset Violence Checklist (BVC), een instrument voor de inschatting van fysieke agressie op korte termijn, kan bijdragen aan het voorspellen van fysieke agressie-incidenten binnen de forensische psychiatrie en onderzoeken hoe het gebruik van de BVC wordt ervaren. Methode Tweemaal per 24 uur op min of meer vaste momenten werd voor alle patiënten die in 2019 verbleven op een crisisafdeling binnen een forensisch psychiatrisch centrum een BVC-score geregistreerd. De totaalscores van de BVC werden vervolgens gerelateerd aan fysieke agressie-incidenten. Daarnaast werden focusgroepen en interviews gehouden met sociotherapeuten om de ervaringen met het gebruik van de BVC te onderzoeken. Resultaten Uit de analyse kwam een significante voorspellende waarde van de BVC-totaalscore naar voren (AUC = 0,69; p < 0,01). Bovendien ervoeren de sociotherapeuten de BVC als gebruikersvriendelijk en weinig tijdsintensief. Conclusie De BVC heeft toegevoegde waarde voor de forensische psychiatrie. Dit geldt met name voor patiënten bij wie de primaire diagnose géén persoonlijkheidsstoornis betreft.
DOCUMENT
The HCR-20V3 is a violence risk assessment tool that is widely used in forensic clinical practice for risk management planning. The predictive value of the tool, when used in court for legal decisionmaking, is not yet intensively been studied and questions about legal admissibility may arise. This article aims to provide legal and mental health practitioners with an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the HCR-20V3 when applied in legal settings. The HCR-20V3 is described and discussed with respect to its psychometric properties for different groups and settings. Issues involving legal admissibility and potential biases when conducting violence risk assessments with the HCR-20V3 are outlined. To explore legal admissibility challenges with respect to the HCR-20V3, we searched case law databases since 2013 from Australia, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. In total, we found 546 cases referring to the HCR-20/HCR-20V3. In these cases, the tool was rarely challenged (4.03%), and when challenged, it never resulted in a court decision that the risk assessment was inadmissible. Finally, we provide recommendations for legal practitioners for the cross-examination of risk assessments and recommendations for mental health professionals who conduct risk assessments and report to the court. We conclude with suggestions for future research with the HCR-20V3 to strengthen the evidence base for use of the instrument in legal contexts.
DOCUMENT
This study explores variables that predict physical violence in 614 (forensic) psychiatric inpatients. All violent incidents that occurred in a Dutch forensic psychiatric hospital between 2014 and 2019 (N = 3,713) were coded with the Modified Overt Aggression Scale+ based on daily hospital reports and patients’ medical records. Binary logistic regression analyses examined which patient variables could differentiate between patients with and without physical violence during treatment and between patients with single and multiple incidents of physical violence. Variables included in the analyses were gender, legal status, borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, schizophrenia spectrum disorder, psychopathy (Psychopathy Checklist–Revised [PCL-R] score), self-harm during treatment, impulsivity, intellectual disability, and length of stay. A clear association was found between self-harm and inpatient physical violence on all outcome measures and in all analyses. Adequate monitoring of self-harm is advised as a strategy to early identify patients with a high risk to threaten ward safety.
MULTIFILE
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
Women and girls represent only a minority in the penitentiary system and in forensic mental health care. About 6%–10% of both prison and forensic psychiatric populations in Western countries comprise women (see for the most recent offi cial statistics in the UK w ww.gov. uk/government, in Canada w ww.statcan.gc.ca, and in the US w ww.bjs.gov) . However, there seems to be widespread agreement that in the past 20 years female offending has been on the rise, especially violent offending and particularly among young women ( Miller, Malone, and Dodge, 2010; M oretti, Catchpole, and Odgers, 2005) . Overall, a disproportionate growth of females entering the criminal justice system and forensic mental health care has been observed in many countries (for reviews, see Nicholls, Cruise, Greig, and Hinz, 2015; Odgers, Moretti, and Reppucci, 2005 ; Walmsley, 2015) . In addition, it should be noted that the ‘dark number’ for women is suggested to be bigger than for men. Offi cial prevalence rates of female offending might constitute an underestimation as women usually commit less reported offences, for example, domestic violence (N icholls, Greaves, Greig, and Moretti, 2015) . Furthermore, it has been found that – if apprehended – girls and women are treated more leniently by professionals and the criminal justice system. Generally, they receive lower prison sentences and are more often admitted to civil psychiatric institutions instead of receiving a prison sentence or mandatory forensic treatment after committing violence ( Javdani, Sadeh, and Verona, 2011 ; Jeffries, Fletcher, and Newbold, 2003 ). Hence, although female offenders compared to male offenders are a minority, female violence is a substantial problem that deserves more attention. Our understanding of female offenders is hindered by the general paucity of theoretical and empirical investigations of this population. In order to improve current treatment and assessment practices, our knowledge and understanding of female offenders should be enlarged and optimised (d e Vogel and Nicholls, 2016 ).
DOCUMENT
Most violence risk assessment tools have been validated predominantly in males. In this multicenter study, the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 (HCR-20), Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 Version 3 (HCR-20V3), Female Additional Manual (FAM), Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START), Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF), and Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) were coded on file information of 78 female forensic psychiatric patients discharged between 1993 and 2012 with a mean follow-up period of 11.8 years from one of four Dutch forensic psychiatric hospitals. Notable was the high rate of mortality (17.9%) and readmission to psychiatric settings (11.5%) after discharge. Official reconviction data could be retrieved from the Ministry of Justice and Security for 71 women. Twenty-four women (33.8%) were reconvicted after discharge, including 13 for violent offenses (18.3%). Overall, predictive validity was moderate for all types of recidivism, but low for violence. The START Vulnerability scores, HCR-20V3, and FAM showed the highest predictive accuracy for all recidivism. With respect to violent recidivism, only the START Vulnerability scores and the Clinical scale of the HCR-20V3 demonstrated significant predictive accuracy.
MULTIFILE
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.
DOCUMENT
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.
DOCUMENT
The past two decades, a disproportionate growth of females entering the criminal justice system and forensic mental health services has been observed worldwide. However, there is a lack of knowledge on the background of women who are convicted for violent offenses. What is their criminal history, what are their motives for offending and in which way do they differ from men convicted for violent offenses? In this study, criminal histories and the offenses for which they were admitted to forensic care were analyzed of 218 women and 218 men who have been treated between 1984 and 2014 with a mandatory treatment order in one of four Dutch forensic psychiatric settings admitting both men and women. It is concluded that there are important differences in violent offending between male and female patients. Most importantly, female violence was more often directed towards their close environment, like their children, and driven by relational frustration. Furthermore, female patients received lower punishments compared to male patients and were more often considered to be diminished accountable for their offenses due to a mental illness.
MULTIFILE
