Since 1995, roughly a dozen other SPJ scales have been published. There are scales that measure risk for spousal assault, sex offenses, and suicide. There are also scales that measure violence risk in boys and in girls younger than 12 years, in adolescents, and in persons remanded to jails.24-30 One scale measures a person’s potential for workplace violence.31 In this article, we have emphasized the Hare PCL-R and the HCR-20, but this is mainly for illustration purposes. Other scales are available.
Principle 8. Client strengths are important in creating plans for risk management.
There is increasing recognition of the importance of an evaluee’s strengths and other protective and promotive factors. First, consideration of these factors provides a more global and fair appraisal of risk. Second, doing so allows for potentially greater liberty and derestriction.32,33 The Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth departs from tradition by including a small number of “protective factors” (eg, prosocial involvement, strong social support, resilient personality).27
Recently, this recognition was carried a step further in the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START).5 All 20 dynamic factors are rated for strength (on a scale of 0, 1, or 2) and risk (again, on a 0, 1, or 2 scale). In one jurisdiction, staff members invite clients to rate themselves on the START items. These opinions help mold a plan that is agreeable to all concerned.
Principle 9. Risk of violence against others usually provides a focus for assessment, but there are other interrelated issues that may need to be taken into account.
It might be necessary to assess risk for suicide, self-harm, self-neglect, the taking of unauthorized leave, the tendency to become victims of others, relapse into substance abuse, and so on. The START assesses all of these topics.
Principle 10. Signature risk signs should be documented.
Some patients consistently show signs that violence or other violence-related risks may be inevitable. For example, a patient might have his hair cut a certain way, put on particular items of clothing, begin to talk about religion excessively, and so on. These early warning signs, which are unique to each patient, can be crucially important in averting violence if they are understood and documented by staff.34 Evocative and volatile environments and the presence of a particular potential victim can incite a patient to express injurious behavior that he was managing before the catalytic agents entered the equation.
Principle 11. All propensity for violence is not entirely inherent within the individual; rather, circumstances and situational effects also exert powerful influences.
This older idea of violence propensity coming from within revolved around “dangerousness,” as if the person carried around a certain static quantum of this assumed entity. John Monahan’s Predicting Violent Behavior: An Assessment of Clinical Techniques35 helped change our thinking toward the idea that risk can vary with the person and the situation. It is probably true that scales such as the HCR-20 could place greater weight on situational variables than they presently do (item R2, destabilizers, catches some of it).
Scales are now being created around the situational measurement.36 This is a necessary development because it helps us determine whether we could be doing more to eliminate orattenuate violence and other related risks—by paying attention to policy, procedures, building design, organizational issues, staff training, and the like. Specific schemes exist that focus exclusively on systemic risk factors for workplace violence.37
Principle 12. It is often vital and reassuring to obtain a second opinion from a trusted and experienced colleague.
Busy practitioners, even those who are able to spend adequate amounts of time with their patients, may need to avail themselves in some instances of that old, tried-and-true medical practice of seeking a second opinion. Transference issues remain very much alive. In therapeutic relationships, dangers can be overlooked, which later in the harsh lights cast by court hearings and inquests may well be noticed and dealt with.
It is not possible to make invariably correct assessments about violence and related risks. Some error is inevitable.35 Certainly, accurate evaluations cannot be completed in a few minutes or, in complex cases, a few hours.38 Yet by paying attention to these 12 principles, evaluators can reduce risks to society without imposing undue restriction on individual patients. Risk assessments require detailed, in-depth analyses of all factors—individual and systemic— relevant to the inquiry by informed, well-read, experienced, and committed evaluators.
Physicians appraise risks of all types in everyday clinical practice. We hope that these 12 principles will help guide and focus evaluations so that the most meaningful considerations concerning risk are brought to bear.
1. Makin K. Grisly killings expose system’s failure. globeandmail.com. September 23, 2008. http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080923.wbreakdown2309/BNStory/mentalhealth. Accessed June 2, 2009.
2. Scott PD. Assessing dangerousness in criminals. Br J Psychiatry. 1997;131:127-142.
3. American Psychiatric Association. Practice Guideline for the Assessment and Treatment of Patients With Suicidal Behaviors. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2003.
4. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Violence: The Short-Term Management of Disturbed/Violent Behaviour in Psychiatric In-Patient Settings and Emergency Departments. Quick Reference Guide. Clinical Guidelines 25. UK: National Collaborating Centre for Nursing and Supportive Care; February 2005.
5. Webster CD, Martin ML, Brink J, et al. Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START): An evaluation and planning guide Version 1.1. St Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton and Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission, BC; 2009.
6. Webster CD. A guide for conducting risk assessments. In: Webster CD, Jackson MA, eds. Impulsivity: Theory Assessment and Treatment. New York: Guilford Press; 1997:343-357.
7. Maden A. Treating Violence: A Guide to Risk Management in Mental Health. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2007.
8. Webster CD, Hucker SH. Violence Risk Assessment and Management. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2007.
9. Bloom H, Webster CD. Essential Writings in Violence Risk Assessment. Toronto: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; 2007.
10. Monahan J, Steadman H, Silver E, et al. Rethinking Risk Assessment: The MacArthur Study of Mental Disorder and Violence. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
11. Monahan J, Steadman HJ, Robbins PC, et al. An actuarial model of violence risk assessment for persons with mental disorders. Psychiatr Serv. 2005;56: 810-815.
12. Cleckley H. The Mask of Sanity. 5th ed. St Louis: Mosby; 1976.
13. Hare RD. Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. 2nd ed. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems; 2003.
14. Hart SD, Cox DN, Hare RD. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems; 1995.
15. Gray NS, Hill C, McGleish A, et al. Prediction of violence and self-harm in mentally disordered offenders: a prospective study of the efficacy of HCR-20, PCL-R, and psychiatric symptomatology. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003;71:443-451.
16. Hodgins S, Janson CG. Criminality and Violence Among the Mentally Disordered: The Stockholm Metropolitan Project. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
17. Quinsey VL, Harris GT, Rice ME, Cormier AC. Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2006.
18. Hart SD, Mitchie C, Cooke DJ. The precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: evaluating the “margins of error” of group versus individual predictions of violence. Br J Psychiatry. 2007;190:S60-S65.
19. Webster CD, Eaves D, Douglas KS, Wintrup A. The HCR-20 Scheme: The Assessment of Dangerousness and Risk—Version 1. Burnaby, BC: Mental Health, Law and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University; 1995.
20. Borum R. Improving the clinical practice of violence risk assessment: technology, guidelines, and training. Am Psychol. 1996;51:945-956.
21. Webster CD, Douglas KS, Eaves D, Hart SD. HCR-20: Assessing Risk for Violence (Version 2). Vancouver, BC: Mental Health, Law & Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University; 1997.
22. Bloom H, Webster C, Hucker S, De Freitas K. The Canadian contribution to violence risk assessment: history and implications for current psychiatric practice. Can J Psychiatry. 2005;50:3-11.
23. Webster CD, Müller-Isberner R, Fransson G. Violence risk assessment: using structured clinical guides professionally. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2002;1:185-193.
24. Kropp PR, Hart SD, Webster CD, Eaves D. Manual for the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide. 3rd ed. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems; 1999.
25. Boer DP, Hart SD, Kropp R, Webster CD. Manual for the Sexual Violence Risk–20: Professional Guidelines for Assessing Risk of Sexual Violence. Vancouver, BC: British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence; 1997.
26. Bouch J, Marshall JJ. Suicide Risk Assessment and Management Manual (S-RAMM) Research Edition. Dinas Powys, UK: Cognitive Centre Foundation; 2003.
27. Augimeri LK, Koegel CJ, Webster DD, Levin KS. Early Assessment Risk List for Boys (EARL-20B) Version 2. Toronto: Earlscourt Child Family Centre; 2001.
28. Levene KS, Augimeri LK, Pepler DJ, et al. Early Assessment Risk List for Girls (EARL-21G), Version 1 Consultation Edition. Toronto: Earlscourt Child Family Centre; 2001.
29. Borum R, Bartel P, Forth A. Manual for the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). Tampa, FL: University of Florida; 2002.
30. Nicholls TL, Roesch R, Olley MC, et al. Jail Screen Assessment Tool (JSAT): Guidelines for Mental Health Screening in Jails. Burnaby, BC: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University; 2005.
31. Bloom H, Webster CD, Eisen R. ERA-20. Employment Risk Assessment. A Guide for Evaluating Potential Workplace Violence Perpetrators. Toronto: workplace.calm, inc; 2002.
32. Stouthamer-Loeber M, Loeber R, Wei E, et al. Risk and promotive effects in the explanations of persistent serious delinquency in boys. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2002;70:111-123.
33. Loeber R, Pardini DA, Stouthamer-Loeber, Raine A. Do cognitive, physiological, and psychosocial risk and promotive factors predict desistance from delinquency in males? Dev Psychopathol. 2007;19:867-887.
34. Fluttert F, Van Meijel B, Webster C, et al. Risk management by early recognition of warning signs in patients in forensic psychiatric care. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2008;22:208-216.
35. Monahan J. Predicting Violent Behavior: An Assessment of Clinical Techniques. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1981.
36. Johnstone L, Cooke DJ. PRISM: Promoting Risk Intervention by Situational Management. Structured Professional Guidelines for Assessing Risk Factors for Violence in Institutions. Burnaby, BC: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University; 2008.
37. Bloom H, Eisen R, Pollock N, Webster CD. WRA-20. Workplace Risk Assessment. A Guide for Evaluating Systemic Violence Risk in the Workplace. Toronto: workplace.calm, inc; 2002.
38. Reid WH. Risk assessment, prediction, and foreseeability. J Psychiatr Pract. 2003;9:82-86.