University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2013 Aug;47(8):728-36. doi: 10.1177/0004867413484368. Epub 2013 May 21.
From time to time misconceptions about violence risk assessment raise debate about the role mental health professionals play in managing aggression, with associated concerns about the utility of violence risk assessment. This paper will address some of the misconceptions about risk assessment in those with serious mental illness.
The authors have expertise as clinicians and researchers in the field and based on their accumulated knowledge and discussion they have reviewed the literature to form their opinions.
This paper reflects the authors' views.
There is a modest yet statistical and clinically significant association between certain types of mental illness and violence. Debate about the appropriateness of clinician involvement in violence risk assessment is sometimes based on a misunderstanding about the central issues and the degree to which this problem can be effectively managed. The central purpose of risk assessment is the prevention rather than the prediction of violence. Violence risk assessment is a process of identifying patients who are at greater risk of violence in order to facilitate the timing and prioritisation of preventative interventions. Clinicians should base these risk assessments on empirical knowledge and consideration of case-specific factors to inform appropriate management interventions to reduce the identified risk.
关于精神卫生专业人员在管理攻击性方面所扮演的角色，不时会出现一些关于暴力风险评估的误解，这引发了相关人士对暴力风险评估实用性的担忧。本文将讨论一些关于严重精神疾病患者风险评估的误解。
作者在该领域具有临床和研究方面的专业知识，他们根据自己的积累知识和讨论，对文献进行了回顾，以形成自己的观点。
本文反映了作者的观点。
某些类型的精神疾病与暴力之间存在适度但具有统计学意义和临床意义的关联。关于临床医生是否应参与暴力风险评估的争论，有时是基于对核心问题的误解，以及这个问题在多大程度上可以得到有效管理。风险评估的核心目的是预防而不是预测暴力。暴力风险评估是一个识别更易发生暴力行为的患者的过程，以便于确定预防干预的时间和优先级。临床医生应该根据实证知识和考虑具体病例的因素来进行这些风险评估，以提供适当的管理干预措施，从而降低已识别的风险。
