Geoffrey L. Dickens

Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START): systematic review and meta-analysis.

This article describes a systematic review of the psychometric properties of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) and a meta-analysis to assess its predictive efficacy for the 7 risk domains identified in the manual (violence to others, self-harm, suicide, substance abuse, victimization, unauthorized leave, and self-neglect) among institutionalized patients with mental disorder and/or personality disorder. Comprehensive terms were used to search 5 electronic databases up to January 2013. Additional articles were located by examining references lists and hand-searching. Twenty-three papers were selected to include in the narrative review of STARTs properties, whereas 9 studies involving 543 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Studies about the feasibility and utility of the tool had positive results but lacked comparators. START ratings demonstrated high internal consistency, interrater reliability, and convergent validity with other risk measures. There was a lack of information about the variability of START ratings over time. Its use in an intervention to reduce violence in forensic psychiatric outpatients was not better than standard care. START risk estimates demonstrated strong predictive validity for various aggressive outcomes and good predictive validity for self-harm. Predictive validity for self-neglect and victimization was no better than chance, whereas evidence for the remaining outcomes is derived from a single, small study. Only 3 of the studies included in the meta-analysis were rated to be at a low risk of bias. Future research should aim to investigate the predictive validity of the START for the full range of adverse outcomes, using well-designed methodologies, and validated outcome tools.

Differential predictive validity of the Historical, Clinical and Risk Management Scales (HCR–20) for inpatient aggression

The Historical, Clinical and Risk Management Scales (HCR-20) may be a better predictor of inpatient aggression for selected demographic and clinical groups but homogeneity of study samples has prevented definitive conclusions. The aim of this study, therefore, was to test the predictive validity of the HCR-20 as a function of gender, diagnosis, age, and ethnicity while controlling for potential covariates. A pseudo-prospective cohort study (n=505) was conducted in a UK secure/forensic mental health setting using routinely collected data. The HCR-20 predicted aggression better for women than men, and for people with schizophrenia and/or personality disorder than for other diagnostic groups. In women, the presence of the risk management items (R5) was important while men׳s aggression was best predicted solely by current clinical features from the C5 scale. R5 items were better than C5 items for predicting aggression in people with organic and developmental diagnoses. Our data provide additional information on which HCR-20 raters can formulate overall summary judgements about risk for inpatient aggression based on important demographic and clinical characteristics.

The Predictive Validity of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) for Multiple Adverse Outcomes in a Secure Psychiatric Inpatient Setting

The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) aims to assist mental health practitioners to estimate an individual’s short-term risk for a range of adverse outcomes via structured consideration of their risk (“Vulnerabilities”) and protective factors (“Strengths”) in 20 areas. It has demonstrated predictive validity for aggression but this is less established for other outcomes. We collated START assessments for N = 200 adults in a secure mental health hospital and ascertained 3-month risk event incidence using the START Outcomes Scale. The specific risk estimates, which are the tool developers’ suggested method of overall assessment, predicted aggression, self-harm/suicidality, and victimization, and had incremental validity over the Strength and Vulnerability scales for these outcomes. The Strength scale had incremental validity over the Vulnerability scale for aggressive outcomes; therefore, consideration of protective factors had demonstrable value in their prediction. Further evidence is required to support use of the START for the full range of outcomes it aims to predict.

De-escalation: a survey of clinical staff in a secure mental health inpatient service

De-escalation is an important tool for preventing aggression in inpatient settings but definitions vary and there is no clear practice guideline. We aimed to identify how clinical staff define and conceptualize de-escalation, which de-escalation interventions they would use in aggressive scenarios, and their beliefs about the efficacy of de-escalation interventions. A questionnaire survey (n = 72) was conducted using open and closed questions; additionally, clinical vignettes describing conflict events were presented for participants to describe their likely clinical response. Qualitative data were subject to thematic analysis. The major themes that de-escalation encompassed were communication, tactics, de-escalator qualities, assessment and risk, getting help, and containment measures. Different types of aggression were met with different interventions. Half of participants erroneously identified p.r.n. medication as a de-escalation intervention, and 15% wrongly stated that seclusion, restraint, and emergency i.m. medication could be de-escalation interventions. Those interventions seen as most effective were the most commonly used. Clinical staffs views about de-escalation, and their de-escalation practice, may differ from optimal practice. Use of containment measures and p.r.n. medication where de-escalation is more appropriate could have a negative impact; work is needed to promote understanding and use of appropriate de-escalation interventions based on a clear guideline.

Barriers to the reporting of medication administration errors and near misses: an interview study of nurses at a psychiatric hospital

Accessible summary Medication administration errors and near misses are common including in mental health settings. Nurses should report all errors and near misses so that lessons can be learned and future mistakes avoided. We interviewed 50 nurses to find out if they would report an error that a colleague had made or if they would report a near-miss that they had. Less than half of nurses said they would report an error made by a colleague or a near-miss involving themselves. Nurses commonly said they would not report the errors or near misses because there was a good excuse for the error/near miss, because they lacked knowledge about whether it was an error/near miss or how to report it, because they feared the consequences of reporting it, or because reporting it was too much work. Mental health nurses mostly report similar reasons for not reporting errors and near misses as nurses working in general medical settings. We have not seen another study where nurses would not report an error or near miss because they thought there was a good excuse for it. Training programmes and policies should address all the reasons that prevent reporting of errors and near misses. Abstract Medication errors are a common and preventable cause of patient harm. Guidance for nurses indicates that all errors and near misses should be immediately reported in order to facilitate the development of a learning culture. However, medication errors and near misses have been under-researched in mental health settings. This study explored the reasons given by psychiatric nurses for not reporting a medication error made by a colleague, and the perceived barriers to near-miss reporting. We presented 50 nurses with clinical vignettes about error and near-miss reporting and interviewed them about their likely actions and about their views and perceptions. Less than half of participants would report an error made by a colleague (48%) or a near-miss involving themselves (40%). Thematic analysis revealed common themes for both not reporting an error or a near-miss were knowledge, fear, burden of work, and excusing the error. The first three themes are similar to results obtained from research in general medical settings, but the fourth appears to be novel. Many mental health nurses are not yet fully convinced of the need to report all errors and near misses, and that improvements could be made by increasing knowledge while reducing fear, burden of work, and excusing of errors.ACCESSIBLE SUMMARY Medication administration errors and near misses are common including in mental health settings. Nurses should report all errors and near misses so that lessons can be learned and future mistakes avoided. We interviewed 50 nurses to find out if they would report an error that a colleague had made or if they would report a near-miss that they had. Less than half of nurses said they would report an error made by a colleague or a near-miss involving themselves. Nurses commonly said they would not report the errors or near misses because there was a good excuse for the error/near miss, because they lacked knowledge about whether it was an error/near miss or how to report it, because they feared the consequences of reporting it, or because reporting it was too much work. Mental health nurses mostly report similar reasons for not reporting errors and near misses as nurses working in general medical settings. We have not seen another study where nurses would not report an error or near miss because they thought there was a good excuse for it. Training programmes and policies should address all the reasons that prevent reporting of errors and near misses. Medication errors are a common and preventable cause of patient harm. Guidance for nurses indicates that all errors and near misses should be immediately reported in order to facilitate the development of a learning culture. However, medication errors and near misses have been under-researched in mental health settings. This study explored the reasons given by psychiatric nurses for not reporting a medication error made by a colleague, and the perceived barriers to near-miss reporting. We presented 50 nurses with clinical vignettes about error and near-miss reporting and interviewed them about their likely actions and about their views and perceptions. Less than half of participants would report an error made by a colleague (48%) or a near-miss involving themselves (40%). Thematic analysis revealed common themes for both not reporting an error or a near-miss were knowledge, fear, burden of work, and excusing the error. The first three themes are similar to results obtained from research in general medical settings, but the fourth appears to be novel. Many mental health nurses are not yet fully convinced of the need to report all errors and near misses, and that improvements could be made by increasing knowledge while reducing fear, burden of work, and excusing of errors.

A Firesetting Offense Chain for Mentally Disordered Offenders

Relatively little effort has been made to develop and validate theories that explain firesetting. In this study, the first offense chain model of firesetting in mentally disordered offenders was developed. Twenty-three mentally disordered firesetters were interviewed about the affective, cognitive, behavioral, and contextual factors leading up to and surrounding one of their recorded firesetting offenses. Offense account interviews were analyzed using grounded theory. The resulting model consists of four main phases: (a) background, (b) early adulthood, (c) pre-offense period, and (d) offense and post-offense period. The model accounts for firesetting by male and female mentally disordered offenders and highlights the importance of early childhood experiences of fire and the onset of mental illness as precursors to firesetting within this population. Furthermore, the model is able to distinguish between different types of mentally disordered firesetters and their offense styles. The clinical implications and utility of the model are also discussed.

Predictive Validity of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) for Aggression and Self-Harm in a Secure Mental Health Service: Gender Differences

The START predicts aggressive outcomes and to some extent self-harm. However, it is not known whether gender moderates its performance. This study used routinely collected data to investigate the predictive ability of the START for aggression and self-harm in secure psychiatric patients. Utility of the START was examined separately for men and women. The START was a stronger predictor of aggression and self-harm in women than men. The specific risk estimates produced large effect sizes for the prediction of aggression and self-harm in women; none of the AUC values reached the threshold for a large effect size in the male sample.

Predictive validity of the HCR-20 for inpatient self-harm

BACKGROUND Few instruments have been developed to assess the risk of self-harm by psychiatric patients and the evidence for their predictive validity is limited. Given that individuals who self-harm may also engage in other-directed aggression, and that the behaviour can be a precursor to violence, we tested whether, and for which groups, the commonly used violence risk assessment HCR-20 demonstrated predictive validity for self-harm. PROCEDURES A pseudo-prospective cohort study (N=504) was conducted in a UK secure/forensic mental health setting using routinely collected data. HCR-20 assessments were completed by the clinical team and incidents of self-harm during the 3months following assessment were coded from patient records. FINDINGS The HCR-20 total score, H10 and R5 subscales, and SJ for violence significantly predicted self-harm; however, AUC values did not demonstrate large effect sizes (range .345 to .749). Personality disorder and impulsivity were the strongest predictors of self-harm, but the R5 scale contained the greatest proportion of relevant items. Predictive efficacy was superior for women compared with men and for those with schizophrenia or personality disorder compared with organic and developmental disorders. CONCLUSIONS The HCR-20 appears to be a significant predictor of self-harm. It may be possible to supplement HCR-20 ratings with case specific knowledge and additional known risk factors for self-harm to make a valuable summary judgement about the behaviour and thus minimise the need for multiple assessment tools.

The HCR-20 as a measure of reliable and clinically significant change in violence risk among secure psychiatric inpatients.

OBJECTIVE Periodic structured violence risk assessment is the principle method underlying treatment planning for mentally disordered offenders but little is known about how risk changes over time. We aimed to determine whether hospitalised patients underwent reliable clinical change in assessed risk. METHOD We used a pseudo-prospective longitudinal study design. Demographic, clinical and risk assessment data of adult inpatients (N=480) who had been routinely assessed with the HCR-20 on two to four occasions over a mean period of 17 months (SD=2) were collated. Linear mixed models regression was conducted to determine change over time on total, subscale, and individual item scores, and relative change between clinical and demographic groups. The Reliable Change Index was calculated to examine whether change was greater than that expected by measurement error; clinically significant change was defined as the extent to which HCR-20 scores reduced below previously reported scores for patients not requiring hospitalisation. RESULTS HCR-20 total score (Estimate -0.42, 95% CI=-0.84, -0.01, p<.05; d=.20) and clinical score (Estimate=-0.42, 95% CI=-0.64, -0.20, p<.001; d=.36) reduced over assessments. Significant differences in change were evident between clinically and demographically defined groups. A maximum of 3% of individuals showed clinically significant reliable reductions in HCR-20 total scores. The scores of patients whose overall level of risk was judged to have decreased did not reduce between assessments. CONCLUSION Violence risk changes very little over the course of treatment although there is some variation between groups. Most change cannot be demonstrated to be reliable or clinically significant. Important clinical management decisions should not depend solely on evidence from changes in HCR-20 risk assessment.

Off-licence prescribing and regulation in psychiatry: current challenges require a new model of governance:

The growing worldwide use of pharmaceuticals is managed in some countries by a regulatory system which sharply divides legal use into licensed and unlicensed categories. We examine how for the range of psychotropics this simultaneously restricts the possible benefits to patients, prescribers and producers in some domains, while failing to manage the risks in others. A more flexible system, which shares at an earlier stage experience and evidence on benefits and risks in patients, previously marginalized on the grounds of age, diagnosis or comorbidity, would aid the development of safer, more effective ‘real-world prescribing’. Practical recommendations are made for a new model of research and prescribing governance, to enable more effective repurposing of these treatments.