How short should short-term risk assessment be? Determining the optimum interval for START reassessment in a secure mental health service

Geoffrey L. Dickens, Laura E. O’Shea

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)
83 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) guides assessment of potential adverse outcomes. Assessment is recommended every 3 months but there is no evidence for this interval. We aimed to inform whether earlier reassessment was warranted. We collated START assessments for N = 217 adults in a secure mental health hospital, and subsequent aggressive, self-harm, self-neglect and victimization incidents. We used receiver operating characteristic analysis to assess predictive validity; survival function analysis to examine differences between low-, medium-, and high-risk groups; and hazard function analysis to determine the optimum interval for reassessment. The START predicted aggression and self-harm at 1, 2 and 3 months. At-risk individuals engaged in adverse outcomes earlier than low-risk patients. About half warranted reassessment before 3 months due to engagement in risk behaviour before that point despite a low-risk rating, or because of non-engagement by that point despite an elevated risk rating. Risk assessment should occur at appropriate intervals so that management strategies can be individually tailored. Assessment at 3-month intervals is supported by the evidence. START assessments should be revisited earlier if risk behaviours are not prevented; teams should constantly re-evaluate the need for restrictive practices.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)397-406
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing
Volume22
Issue number6
Early online date28 Jun 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2015

Fingerprint

Mental Health Services
Risk-Taking
Crime Victims
Psychiatric Hospitals
Survival Analysis
Aggression
ROC Curve
Mental Health

Cite this

@article{d84f4ae055154f96ba66bb7fa027b637,
title = "How short should short-term risk assessment be? Determining the optimum interval for START reassessment in a secure mental health service",
abstract = "The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) guides assessment of potential adverse outcomes. Assessment is recommended every 3 months but there is no evidence for this interval. We aimed to inform whether earlier reassessment was warranted. We collated START assessments for N = 217 adults in a secure mental health hospital, and subsequent aggressive, self-harm, self-neglect and victimization incidents. We used receiver operating characteristic analysis to assess predictive validity; survival function analysis to examine differences between low-, medium-, and high-risk groups; and hazard function analysis to determine the optimum interval for reassessment. The START predicted aggression and self-harm at 1, 2 and 3 months. At-risk individuals engaged in adverse outcomes earlier than low-risk patients. About half warranted reassessment before 3 months due to engagement in risk behaviour before that point despite a low-risk rating, or because of non-engagement by that point despite an elevated risk rating. Risk assessment should occur at appropriate intervals so that management strategies can be individually tailored. Assessment at 3-month intervals is supported by the evidence. START assessments should be revisited earlier if risk behaviours are not prevented; teams should constantly re-evaluate the need for restrictive practices.",
author = "Dickens, {Geoffrey L.} and O’Shea, {Laura E.}",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/jpm.12232",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "397--406",
journal = "Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing",
issn = "1351-0126",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

How short should short-term risk assessment be? Determining the optimum interval for START reassessment in a secure mental health service. / Dickens, Geoffrey L.; O’Shea, Laura E.

In: Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, Vol. 22, No. 6, 08.2015, p. 397-406.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - How short should short-term risk assessment be? Determining the optimum interval for START reassessment in a secure mental health service

AU - Dickens, Geoffrey L.

AU - O’Shea, Laura E.

PY - 2015/8

Y1 - 2015/8

N2 - The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) guides assessment of potential adverse outcomes. Assessment is recommended every 3 months but there is no evidence for this interval. We aimed to inform whether earlier reassessment was warranted. We collated START assessments for N = 217 adults in a secure mental health hospital, and subsequent aggressive, self-harm, self-neglect and victimization incidents. We used receiver operating characteristic analysis to assess predictive validity; survival function analysis to examine differences between low-, medium-, and high-risk groups; and hazard function analysis to determine the optimum interval for reassessment. The START predicted aggression and self-harm at 1, 2 and 3 months. At-risk individuals engaged in adverse outcomes earlier than low-risk patients. About half warranted reassessment before 3 months due to engagement in risk behaviour before that point despite a low-risk rating, or because of non-engagement by that point despite an elevated risk rating. Risk assessment should occur at appropriate intervals so that management strategies can be individually tailored. Assessment at 3-month intervals is supported by the evidence. START assessments should be revisited earlier if risk behaviours are not prevented; teams should constantly re-evaluate the need for restrictive practices.

AB - The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) guides assessment of potential adverse outcomes. Assessment is recommended every 3 months but there is no evidence for this interval. We aimed to inform whether earlier reassessment was warranted. We collated START assessments for N = 217 adults in a secure mental health hospital, and subsequent aggressive, self-harm, self-neglect and victimization incidents. We used receiver operating characteristic analysis to assess predictive validity; survival function analysis to examine differences between low-, medium-, and high-risk groups; and hazard function analysis to determine the optimum interval for reassessment. The START predicted aggression and self-harm at 1, 2 and 3 months. At-risk individuals engaged in adverse outcomes earlier than low-risk patients. About half warranted reassessment before 3 months due to engagement in risk behaviour before that point despite a low-risk rating, or because of non-engagement by that point despite an elevated risk rating. Risk assessment should occur at appropriate intervals so that management strategies can be individually tailored. Assessment at 3-month intervals is supported by the evidence. START assessments should be revisited earlier if risk behaviours are not prevented; teams should constantly re-evaluate the need for restrictive practices.

U2 - 10.1111/jpm.12232

DO - 10.1111/jpm.12232

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 397

EP - 406

JO - Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing

JF - Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing

SN - 1351-0126

IS - 6

ER -