Use of the HCR-20 for violence risk assessment: views of clinicians working in a secure inpatient mental health setting

Geoffrey L. Dickens, Laura E. O'Shea

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)
540 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Purpose: To explore how raters combine constituent components of HCR-20 risk assessment for inpatient aggression, and how relevant they rate the tool for different diagnostic and demographic groups. Design/methodology/approach: A cross-sectional survey design was used. N=45 mental health clinicians working in a secure hospital responded to an online survey about their risk assessment practice. Findings: HCR-20 Historical and Clinical sub-scales were rated the most relevant to violence prediction but four of the five items rated most relevant were Historical items. A recent history of violence was rated more important for risk formulation than Historical and Risk management items, but not more important than Clinical items. While almost all respondents believed predictive accuracy would differ by gender, the tool was rated similarly in terms of its relevance for their client group by people working with men and women respectively. Research limitations/ implications: This was an exploratory survey and results should be verified using larger samples. Practical implications: Clinicians judge recent violence and Clinical items most important in inpatient violence risk assessment but may over-value historical factors. They believe that recent violent behaviour is important in risk formulation; however, while recent violence is an important predictor of future violence, the role it should play in SPJ schemes is poorly codified. Social implications: It is important that risk assessment is accurate in order to both protect the public and to protect patients from overly lengthy and restrictive detention. Originality/ value: Despite the vast number of studies examining the predictive validity of tools like HCR-20 very little research has examined the actual processes and decision-making behind formulation in clinical practice.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)130-138
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Forensic Practice
Volume19
Issue number2
Early online date13 Mar 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 8 May 2017

Fingerprint

Violence
risk assessment
Inpatients
Mental Health
mental health
violence
Risk Management
online survey
Aggression
Research
risk management
aggression
Values
Decision Making
diagnostic
Group
Cross-Sectional Studies
Demography
decision making
gender

Cite this

@article{64dc9cd0f6e24148ac1362fc7f12b9fe,
title = "Use of the HCR-20 for violence risk assessment: views of clinicians working in a secure inpatient mental health setting",
abstract = "Purpose: To explore how raters combine constituent components of HCR-20 risk assessment for inpatient aggression, and how relevant they rate the tool for different diagnostic and demographic groups. Design/methodology/approach: A cross-sectional survey design was used. N=45 mental health clinicians working in a secure hospital responded to an online survey about their risk assessment practice. Findings: HCR-20 Historical and Clinical sub-scales were rated the most relevant to violence prediction but four of the five items rated most relevant were Historical items. A recent history of violence was rated more important for risk formulation than Historical and Risk management items, but not more important than Clinical items. While almost all respondents believed predictive accuracy would differ by gender, the tool was rated similarly in terms of its relevance for their client group by people working with men and women respectively. Research limitations/ implications: This was an exploratory survey and results should be verified using larger samples. Practical implications: Clinicians judge recent violence and Clinical items most important in inpatient violence risk assessment but may over-value historical factors. They believe that recent violent behaviour is important in risk formulation; however, while recent violence is an important predictor of future violence, the role it should play in SPJ schemes is poorly codified. Social implications: It is important that risk assessment is accurate in order to both protect the public and to protect patients from overly lengthy and restrictive detention. Originality/ value: Despite the vast number of studies examining the predictive validity of tools like HCR-20 very little research has examined the actual processes and decision-making behind formulation in clinical practice.",
author = "Dickens, {Geoffrey L.} and O'Shea, {Laura E.}",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "8",
doi = "10.1108/JFP-08-2016-0039",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "130--138",
journal = "Journal of Forensic Practice",
issn = "2050-8794",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

Use of the HCR-20 for violence risk assessment : views of clinicians working in a secure inpatient mental health setting. / Dickens, Geoffrey L.; O'Shea, Laura E.

In: Journal of Forensic Practice, Vol. 19, No. 2, 08.05.2017, p. 130-138.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of the HCR-20 for violence risk assessment

T2 - views of clinicians working in a secure inpatient mental health setting

AU - Dickens, Geoffrey L.

AU - O'Shea, Laura E.

PY - 2017/5/8

Y1 - 2017/5/8

N2 - Purpose: To explore how raters combine constituent components of HCR-20 risk assessment for inpatient aggression, and how relevant they rate the tool for different diagnostic and demographic groups. Design/methodology/approach: A cross-sectional survey design was used. N=45 mental health clinicians working in a secure hospital responded to an online survey about their risk assessment practice. Findings: HCR-20 Historical and Clinical sub-scales were rated the most relevant to violence prediction but four of the five items rated most relevant were Historical items. A recent history of violence was rated more important for risk formulation than Historical and Risk management items, but not more important than Clinical items. While almost all respondents believed predictive accuracy would differ by gender, the tool was rated similarly in terms of its relevance for their client group by people working with men and women respectively. Research limitations/ implications: This was an exploratory survey and results should be verified using larger samples. Practical implications: Clinicians judge recent violence and Clinical items most important in inpatient violence risk assessment but may over-value historical factors. They believe that recent violent behaviour is important in risk formulation; however, while recent violence is an important predictor of future violence, the role it should play in SPJ schemes is poorly codified. Social implications: It is important that risk assessment is accurate in order to both protect the public and to protect patients from overly lengthy and restrictive detention. Originality/ value: Despite the vast number of studies examining the predictive validity of tools like HCR-20 very little research has examined the actual processes and decision-making behind formulation in clinical practice.

AB - Purpose: To explore how raters combine constituent components of HCR-20 risk assessment for inpatient aggression, and how relevant they rate the tool for different diagnostic and demographic groups. Design/methodology/approach: A cross-sectional survey design was used. N=45 mental health clinicians working in a secure hospital responded to an online survey about their risk assessment practice. Findings: HCR-20 Historical and Clinical sub-scales were rated the most relevant to violence prediction but four of the five items rated most relevant were Historical items. A recent history of violence was rated more important for risk formulation than Historical and Risk management items, but not more important than Clinical items. While almost all respondents believed predictive accuracy would differ by gender, the tool was rated similarly in terms of its relevance for their client group by people working with men and women respectively. Research limitations/ implications: This was an exploratory survey and results should be verified using larger samples. Practical implications: Clinicians judge recent violence and Clinical items most important in inpatient violence risk assessment but may over-value historical factors. They believe that recent violent behaviour is important in risk formulation; however, while recent violence is an important predictor of future violence, the role it should play in SPJ schemes is poorly codified. Social implications: It is important that risk assessment is accurate in order to both protect the public and to protect patients from overly lengthy and restrictive detention. Originality/ value: Despite the vast number of studies examining the predictive validity of tools like HCR-20 very little research has examined the actual processes and decision-making behind formulation in clinical practice.

U2 - 10.1108/JFP-08-2016-0039

DO - 10.1108/JFP-08-2016-0039

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 130

EP - 138

JO - Journal of Forensic Practice

JF - Journal of Forensic Practice

SN - 2050-8794

IS - 2

ER -