Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T21:13:36.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An audit of service-user involvement and quality of HCR-20 version 2 risk assessments on rehabilitation and low secure wards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2015

Karen Gough ,
Charlotte Richardson  and
Hannah Weeks
Karen Gough*
Affiliation:
Forensic Liaison Team, Bridgwater, Somerset, UK
Charlotte Richardson
Affiliation:
Forensic Liaison Team, Bridgwater, Somerset, UK
Hannah Weeks
Affiliation:
Forensic Liaison Team, Bridgwater, Somerset, UK
*
Correspondence to: Dr Karen Gough; Forensic Liaison Team, Unit B, Woodlands Court Business Park, Bristol Road, Bridgwater, Somerset, TA6 4FJ; e-mail: karen.gough@sompar.nhs.uk
Get access

Abstract

The HCR-20 is the most widely used structured professional judgement instrument for assessing risk of violence. Recent developments in secure settings have addressed service user involvement in risk assessment to empower service users, and encourage them to take responsibility for their pathway through hospital. This audit aimed to examine the quality of, and service-user involvement in, the HCR-20 assessments completed on two wards (a low secure and a psychiatric rehabilitation ward) within Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. Data from the current RiO (electronic patient record system) Risk Screen and Risk Information sections and the most up-to date HCR-20 report (if there was one) was reviewed across a number of domains. The in-house HCR-20 training programme appeared to be effective, with most assessors following the appropriate data collection process. The quality of the risk assessments was mixed with the historical section being more consistently completed than the clinical and risk sections. The results of the audit facilitated the development of standards for the completion of HCR-20 risk assessments on the two wards reviewed. Limitations of the audit in terms of generalisation are noted. Nonetheless, this audit serves to give an early impression on the extent of collaboration with service users on risk assessments.

Type
Original Research Article
Information
Journal of Psychiatric Intensive Care , Volume 11 , Supplement S1 , December 2015 , e2
Copyright
Copyright © NAPICU 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashcraft, L. and Anthony, W. (2008) Eliminating seclusion and restraint in recovery-oriented crisis services. Psychiatric Services . 50: 1198–1202.Google Scholar
Clarke, A (2012) Risk and Recovery Group. Presentation to the DCP Forensic Faculty. Norwich: Spring Meeting.Google Scholar
Department of Health. (1996) Building Bridges: A guide to arrangements for inter-agency working for the care and protection of severely mentally ill people. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health. (2012a) Low Secure Services: Good practice commissioning guide, consultation draft. London: Secure Services Policies Team.Google Scholar
Department of Health. (2012b) Psychiatric Intensive Care: Good practice commissioning guide, consultation draft. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health National Risk Management Programme. (2007) Best Practice in Managing Risk: Principles and evidence for best practice in the assessment and management of risk to self and others in mental health services. London: National Mental Health Risk Management Programme.Google Scholar
Dixon, J. (2012) Mentally disordered offenders’ views of ‘their’ risk assessment and management plans. Health Risk & Society. 14: 667–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henagulph, S., McIvor, R. and Clarke, A. (2012) Risk and recovery group for offenders with mental disorders. Psychiatric Services. 63: 94–95.Google Scholar
Khiroya, R., Weaver, T. and Maden, T. (2009) Use and perceived utility of structured violence risk assessments in English medium secure forensic units. Psychiatric Bulletin. 33: 129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langan, J. (2008) Involving mental health service users considered to pose a risk to other people in risk assessment. Journal of Mental Health. 17: 471–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langan, J. and Lindow, V. (2004) Living With the Risk: Mental health service user involvement in risk assessment and management. Bristol: Joseph Rowntree Foundation & Policy Press.Google Scholar
NHS England. (2013) NHS Standard Contract for Medium and Low Secure Mental Health Services (Adults). London: NHS England.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, M. and Bailes, G. (2006) Risk Assessment and Management. Occasional Briefing Paper 4. Leicester: British Psychological Society.Google Scholar
Royal College of Psychiatrists. (2008) Rethinking Risk to Others in Mental Health Services. CR 150. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists.Google Scholar
South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and South West London & St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust. (2010) Recovery is For All: Hope, agency and opportunity in psychiatry. A Position Statement by Consultant Psychiatrists. London: SLAM/SWLSTG.Google Scholar
Webster, C.D., Douglas, K.S., Eaves, D. and Hart, S.D. (1997) Assessing risk for violence (version 2). Vancouver: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Webster, C.D., Douglas, K.S., Eaves, D. and Hart, S.D. (2013) HCR-20V3: Assessing risk for violence. Vancouver: Mental Health, Law, & Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar