Cornish Robert, Lewis Alexandra, Parry Owen Curwell, Ciobanasu Oana, Mallett Susan, Fazel Seena
Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Thames Valley Forensic Mental Health Service, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Front Psychiatry. 2019 Dec 13;10:901. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00901. eCollection 2019.
Risk assessment informs decisions around admission to and discharge from secure psychiatric hospital and contributes to treatment and supervision. There are advantages to using brief, scalable, free online tools with similar accuracy to instruments currently used. We undertook a study of one such risk assessment, the Forensic Psychiatry and Violence Oxford (FoVOx) tool, examining its acceptability, feasibility, and practicality. We completed the FoVOx tool on all discharges from six secure psychiatric hospitals in one region in England over two years. We interviewed 11 senior forensic psychiatrists regarding each discharge using a standardized questionnaire. Their patient's FoVOx score was compared to clinical risk assessment, and the senior clinicians were asked if they considered FoVOx scores accurate and useful. A modified thematic analysis was conducted, and clinicians were surveyed about current risk assessment practice on discharge. Of 90 consecutive discharges, 84 were included in the final analysis. The median FoVOx probability score was 11% risk of violent recidivism in two years after discharge. We estimated that 12 (14%) individuals reoffended since discharge; all were in the medium or high risk FoVOx categories. Clinical assessment of risk agreed with the FoVOx categories in around half the cases. Clinicians were more likely to provide lower risk categories compared with FoVOx ones. FoVOx was considered to be an accurate representation of risk in 67% of cases; clinicians revised their view on some patient's risk assessment after being informed of their FoVOx scores. Completing FoVOx was reported to be helpful in the majority of cases. Reasons included improved communication with other agencies, reassurance to clinical teams, and identifying additional factors not fully considered. 10 of the 11 respondents reported that FoVOx was practical, and seven of 11 reported that they would use it in the future, highlighting its brevity and speed of use compared to existing risk assessment tools. Senior clinicians in this regional forensic psychiatric service found the FoVOx risk assessment tool feasible, practical, and easy to use. Its use addressed a lack of consistency around risk assessment at the point of discharge and, if used routinely, could assist in clinical decision-making.
风险评估为安全精神病医院的入院和出院决策提供依据,并有助于治疗和监管。使用简短、可扩展且免费的在线工具具有诸多优势,其准确性与当前使用的工具相近。我们对一种此类风险评估工具——牛津法医精神病学与暴力评估工具(FoVOx)进行了研究,考察其可接受性、可行性和实用性。我们在两年时间里,针对英格兰一个地区六家安全精神病医院的所有出院患者完成了FoVOx工具评估。我们使用标准化问卷就每次出院情况采访了11位资深法医精神病学家。将他们患者的FoVOx评分与临床风险评估进行比较,并询问资深临床医生是否认为FoVOx评分准确且有用。我们进行了改进的主题分析,并就出院时当前的风险评估实践对临床医生进行了调查。在连续的90例出院病例中,84例纳入最终分析。FoVOx暴力再犯风险概率评分中位数显示出院后两年内暴力再犯风险为11%。我们估计有12人(14%)自出院后再次犯罪;他们均属于FoVOx评估的中高风险类别。临床风险评估与FoVOx类别在约半数病例中相符。与FoVOx评估相比,临床医生更倾向于给出较低风险类别。67%的病例中,FoVOx被认为能准确反映风险;临床医生在得知患者的FoVOx评分后,对一些患者的风险评估观点有所改变。多数情况下,完成FoVOx评估被认为是有帮助的。原因包括改善与其他机构的沟通、让临床团队安心以及识别未充分考虑的其他因素。11位受访者中有10位表示FoVOx实用,11位中有7位表示他们未来会使用该工具,凸显了其与现有风险评估工具相比的简洁性和使用速度。该地区法医精神病服务机构的资深临床医生发现FoVOx风险评估工具可行、实用且易于使用。其使用解决了出院时风险评估缺乏一致性的问题,若常规使用,有助于临床决策。