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

Zareena Abidin, Mary Davoren, Leena Naughton, Olivia Gibbons, Andrea Nulty, Harry G Kennedy, Zareena Abidin, Mary Davoren, Leena Naughton, Olivia Gibbons, Andrea Nulty, Harry G Kennedy

Abstract

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.

References

    1. Doyle M, Dolan M. Predicting community violence from patients discharged from mental health services. Br J Psychiatr. 2006;189:520–526. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.105.021204.
    1. Monahan J, Steadman HJ. Violence and mental disorder. Developments in risk assessment. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago press; 1984.
    1. Douglas K, Cox D, Webster C. Violence risk assessment: science and practice. Leg Criminol Psychol. 1999;4:184–19.
    1. Dolan M, Doyle M. Violence risk prediction. Clinical and actuarial measures and the role of the Psychopathy Checklist. Br J Psychiatr. 2000;177:303–311. doi: 10.1192/bjp.177.4.303.
    1. Webster CD, Muller-Isberner R, Franson G. Violence risk assessment: using structured clinical guidelines professionally. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2002;1:185–193. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2002.10471173.
    1. Douglas KS, Ogloff JR, Hart SD. Evaluation of a model of violence risk assessment among forensic psychiatric patients. Psychiatr Serv. 2003;54:1372–1379. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.54.10.1372.
    1. Kennedy HG. Risk assessment is inseparable from risk management: comment on Szmuckler. Psychiatr Bull. 2001;25:208–211. doi: 10.1192/pb.25.6.208.
    1. Doyle M, Dolan M. Violence risk assessment: combining actuarial and clinical information to structure clinical judgements for the formulation and management of risk. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2002;9:649–657. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2850.2002.00535.x.
    1. Grove WM, Meehl PE. Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures. The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychol Publ Pol Law. 1996;2:293–323.
    1. Kraemer H, Kazdin A, Offord D, Kesler R, Jensen P, Kupfer D. Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Arch Gen Psychiatr. 1997;54:337–343. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1997.01830160065009.
    1. Hart SD. The role of psychopathy in assessing risk for violence: conceptual and methodological issues. Leg Criminol Psychol. 1998;3:121–137. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8333.1998.tb00354.x.
    1. Douglas K, Cox D, Webster C. Violence risk assessment: science and practice. Leg Criminol Psychol. 1999;4:194–184.
    1. Webster CD, Douglas KS, Eaves D, (1997) HCR–20: assessing risk for violence . Burnaby: Mental Health Law and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University; 1997.
    1. Clarke M, Davies S, Hollin C, Duggan C. Long-term suicide risk in forensic psychiatric patients. Arch Suicide Res. 2011;15:16–28. doi: 10.1080/13811118.2011.539951.
    1. Bouch J, Marshall JJ. S-RAMM: suicide risk assessment and management manual (research edition) vale of Glamorgan. Vale of Glamorgan: Cognitive Centre Foundation; 2003.
    1. Borum R, Bartel P, Forth A. Manual for the structured assessment of violence risk in youth (SAVRY) version 1.1. Florida: University of South Florida; 2003.
    1. Meyers JR. Predictive validity of the structured assessment for violence risk in youth (SAVRY) with juvenile offenders. Crim Justice Behav. 2008;35:344–355. doi: 10.1177/0093854807311972.
    1. Webster CD, Martin ML, Brink J, Nicholls TL, Desmarais SL. Short-term assessment of risk and treatability (START) version 1.1. Coquitlam. Hamilton, Ontario: British Columbia, Mental Health and Addiction Services & St Joseph’s Healthcare; 2009.
    1. Webster CD, Nicholls TL, Martin M-L, Desmarais MA, Brink J. Short-term assessment of risk and treatability (START):the case for a new structured professional judgment scheme. Behav Sci Law. 2006;24:747–766. doi: 10.1002/bsl.737.
    1. Doyle M, Lewis G, Brisbane M. Implementing the short-term assessment of risk and treatability (START) in a forensic mental health service. Psychiatrist. 2008;32:406–408. doi: 10.1192/pb.bp.108.019794.
    1. De Vogel V, De Ruiter C, Bouman Y, De Vries Robbe M. SAPROF. Structured assessment of PROtective factors for violence risk. Versie 1. Utrecht: Forum Educatief; 2007.
    1. Kennedy HG, O’Neill C, Flynn G, Gill P. The dundrum toolkit. Dangerousness, understanding, recovery and urgency manual (the dundrum quartet) V1.0.21 (18/03/10) Dublin: Trinity College Dublin; 2010. (Four structured professional judgment instruments for admission triage, urgency, treatment completion and recovery assessments). .
    1. O'Dwyer S, Davoren M, Abidin Z, Doyle E, McDonnell K, Kennedy HG. The DUNDRUM quartet: validation of structured professional judgement instruments DUNDRUM-3 assessment of programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 assessment of recovery in forensic mental health services. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:229. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-229.
    1. Davoren M, O'Dwyer S, Abidin Z, Naughton L, Gibbons O, Doyle E, McDonnell K, Monks S, Kennedy HG. 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. BMC Psychiatr. 2012;12:80. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-12-80.
    1. Davoren M, O’Dwyer S, Abidin Z, Naughton L, Gibbons O, Doyle E, McDonnell K, Monks S, Kennedy HG. Prospective study of factors influencing conditional discharge from a forensic hospital: the DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery structured professional judgement instruments and risk. BMC Psychiatr. 2013;13:185. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-13-185. .
    1. Flynn G, O’Neill C, McInerney C, Kennedy HG. The DUNDRUM-1 structured professional judgment for triage to appropriate levels of therapeutic security: retrospective-cohort validation study. BMC Psychiatr. 2011;11:43. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-11-43.
    1. Rutter M. Resilience in the face of adversity: protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. Br J Psychiatr. 1985;147:598–611. doi: 10.1192/bjp.147.6.598.
    1. Mossman D. Assessing predictions of violence: being accurate about accuracy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62:783–792.
    1. Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA. The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13:261–277. doi: 10.1093/schbul/13.2.261.
    1. Mullen P. A reassessment of the link between mental disorder and violent behaviour, and its implications for clinical practice. Aust N Z J Psychiatr. 1997;31:3–11. doi: 10.3109/00048679709073793.
    1. Hall RC. Global assessment of functioning (GAF). a modified scale. Psychosomatics. 1995;36:267–75. doi: 10.1016/S0033-3182(95)71666-8.
    1. Ijaz A, Papaconstantinou A, O’Neill H, Kennedy HG. The suicide risk assessment and management manual (S-RAMM) validation study 1Ir. J Psych Med. 2009;26:54–58.
    1. Fagan J, Papaconstantinou A, Ijaz A, Lynch A, O’Neill H, Kennedy HG. The suicide risk assessment and management manual (S-RAMM) validation study IIIr. J Psych Med. 2009;26:107–113.
    1. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2011. Released.
    1. Bryant T. Confidence interval analysis version 2.2.0 Build 57. University of Southampton; 2000–2011.
    1. World Health Organization. The ICD–10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva: WHO; 1992.
    1. Hillbrand M. Aggression against self and aggression against others in violent psychiatric patients. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1995;63:668–671.
    1. Gray NS, Hill C, McGleish A, Timmons D, MacCulloch MJ, Snowden RJ. Prediction of violence and self-harm in mentally disordered offenders: a prospective study of the efficacy of HCR-20, PCL-R, and psychiatric symptomatology. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003;71:443–451.
    1. Dernevik M, Grann M, Johansson S. Violent behaviour in forensic psychiatry patients: risk assessment and different risk-management levels using the HCR-20. Psychol Crime Law. 2002;8:93–102. doi: 10.1080/10683160208401811.
    1. Muller-Isberner M, Webster CD, Gretenkord L. Measuring progress in hospital order treatment: relationship between levels of security and C and R scores of the HCR-20. Int J Forensic Men Health. 2007;6:113–121. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2007.10471256.
    1. Pillay SM, Oliver B, Butler L, Kennedy HG. Risk stratification and the care pathway. Irish J Psychol Med. 2008;25:123–127.
    1. Ehmann TS, Smith GN, Yamamoto A, McCarthy N, Ross D, Au T. et al.Violence in treatment resistant psychotic inpatients. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2001;189:716–721. doi: 10.1097/00005053-200110000-00009.
    1. Fitzmaurice G. The meaning and interpretation of interaction. Nutrition. 2000;16:313–314. doi: 10.1016/S0899-9007(99)00293-2.
    1. Cortina-Borja M, Smith AD, Combarros D, Lehmann DJ. The synergy factor: a statistic to measure interactions in complex diseases. BMC Res Notes. 2009;2:105. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-2-105.
    1. Nicholls TL, Brink J, Desmarais SL, Webster CD, Martin M-L. The short-term assessment of risk and treatability (START). a prospective validation study in a forensic psychiatric sample. Assessment. 2008;13:313–317.
    1. De Vogel V, De Vries RM, De Ruiter C, Bouman THA. Assessing protective factors in forensic population practice: introducing the SAPROF. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2011;10:171–177. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2011.600230.
    1. De Vries RM, De Vogel V, De Spa E. Protective factors for violence risk in forensic psychiatric patients, a retrospective validation study of the SAPROF. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2011;10:178–186. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2011.600232.
    1. Carroll A. Good (or bad) vibrations: clinical intuition in violence risk assessment. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2012;18:447–456. doi: 10.1192/apt.bp.111.010025.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera