结构化判断与非结构化判断：DUNDRUM-1 与法庭判决比较。
Structured versus unstructured judgment: DUNDRUM-1 compared to court decisions.
机构信息
Knowledge Centre for Forensic Psychiatric Care (KeFor), OPZC, Rekem, Belgium.
National Forensic Mental Health Service, Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum, Ireland.
出版信息
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2019 May-Jun;64:205-210. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.04.006. Epub 2019 May 1.
BACKGROUND
Criteria to determine in which level of security forensic patients should receive treatment are currently non-existent in Belgium. Courts largely rely on the evaluations of the prison psychiatrists and psychologists to form their decision. None of the few available instruments - e.g., the DUNDRUM-1 - is currently used to provide structured clinical judgment when determining security level.
METHOD
DUNDRUM-1 scores were collected for 150 forensic patients. Security levels according to DUNDRUM-1 assessment were compared to security levels as decided by the court.
RESULTS
There was little agreement between DUNDRUM-1 scores and proposals for secure care made by the court. The DUNDRUM-1 predicted eventual admission to a high security setting, but not a medium security setting.
CONCLUSION
The DUNDRUM-1 is an instrument that can help clinicians and judges to make more reliable and transparent decisions regarding secure care. However, further research with regard to practical applicability is needed.
背景
目前在比利时，还没有确定法医患者应在哪个安全级别接受治疗的标准。法院在很大程度上依赖监狱精神科医生和心理学家的评估来做出决定。目前，在确定安全级别时，几乎没有使用任何可用的工具，例如 DUNDRUM-1，来提供结构化的临床判断。
方法
收集了 150 名法医患者的 DUNDRUM-1 评分。将 DUNDRUM-1 评估的安全级别与法院决定的安全级别进行比较。
结果
DUNDRUM-1 评分与法院提出的安全护理建议之间几乎没有一致性。DUNDRUM-1 预测最终会被安置在高度安全的环境中，而不是中度安全的环境中。
结论
DUNDRUM-1 是一种可以帮助临床医生和法官做出更可靠和透明的安全护理决策的工具。然而，还需要进一步研究其实用性。
Zotero 插件