Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T04:14:04.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk stratification and the care pathway

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2014

Selena M Pillay ,
Brid Oliver ,
Louise Butler  and
Harry G Kennedy
Selena M Pillay
Affiliation:
University of Dublin, Trinity College, Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum, Dublin 14, Ireland
Brid Oliver
Affiliation:
Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum, Dublin 14, Ireland
Louise Butler
Affiliation:
Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum, Dublin 14, Ireland
Harry G Kennedy*
Affiliation:
University of Dublin, Trinity College
*
National Forensic Mental Health Services, Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum, Dublin 14, Ireland. Email:[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: It was hypothesised that patients admitted to forensic mental health facilities are stratified along the pathway through care according to levels of need. Level of risk and psychopathology should vary with different levels of security.

Method: Seventy-five men in a forensic hospital were interviewed by three trained clinicians using the HCR-20 (Historical Clinical Risk Assessment) – clinical and risk items, The Health of the Nation Scales – Secure (HoNOS-SECURE), PANSS (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale), GAF (Global Assessment of Functioning) and the CANFOR (Camberwell Assessment of need Forensic Version).

Results: The mean scores on a variety of clinical measures were higher in admission/high security areas and progressively lower in rehabilitation and pre-discharge areas. As patients moved through the pathways of care, they improved in a number of areas including psychiatric morbidity, risk, function, unmet needs. The following results stratified significantly; the HCR-20 summated clinical and risk (F = 9.2, df = 5, p < 0.001), the HoNOS secure (F = 18.2, df = 5, p < 0.001), PANSS (positive, general and total), GAF, staff and user unmet needs on the CANFOR.

Conclusions: The data indicate that the theoretical organisation of the units of the hospital into high, medium and low security units to form a coherent pathway through care is reflected in practice. This is a transparent route out of secure care in which restrictions are proportionate to risk and supports proportionate to need. It is unclear whether alternative models, consisting of a series of generic unstratified units for admission and discharge, all at the same level of therapeutic security, allow for the provision of treatment programmes and relational interventions appropriate to the patient's stage of recovery and rehabilitation.

Keywords

Care pathwayRisk stratification
Type
Original Papers
Information
Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 123 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

1.Kennedy, HG. Risk assessment is inseparable from risk management: Comment on Szmuckler. Psychiatric Bull 2001; 25: 208–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Kennedy, HG. Therapeutic uses of security: mapping forensic mental health services by stratifying risk. Adv Psychiatric Treat 2002; 8: 433–443*CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Coid, J, Kahtan, N. An instrument to measure the security needs of patients in medium security. J Forensic Psychiatry 2000; 11: 119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Eastman, N. (unpublished) Admission Critieria for Secure Services Schedule (ACSeSS). St Georges Hospital Medical School.Google Scholar
5.Collins, , Davies, , Steffan, . The security needs assessment profile: A multidimensional approach to measuring security needs. Int J Forensic Men Health 2005; 4(1): 39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Dernevik, M, Grann, M, Johansson, S. Violent behaviour in forensic psychiatry patients: Risk assessment and different risk-management ievels using the HCR-20. Psychology, Crime & Law 2002; 8(1): 93–102; (AN 9021230)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Muller-Isberner, M, Webster, CD, Gretenkord, L. Measuring progress in hospital order treatment: relationship between levels of security and C and R scores of the HCR-20. Int J Forensic Men Health 2007; 6: 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.O'Neill, C, Heffernan, P, Goggins, P, Corcoran, C, Linehan, S, Duffy, D, O'Neill, H, Smith, C, Kennedy, HG. Long-stay forensic psychiatric inpatients in the Republic of Ireland: Aggregated needs assessment. J Psychol Med 2003; 20: 119–125Google ScholarPubMed
9.Pierzchniak, P, Farnham, F, DeTaranto, N, Bull, D, Gill, H, Bester, P, McCallum, A, Kennedy, A. Assessing the needs of patients in secure settings: a multidisciplinary approach. J Forensic Psychiatry 1999; 23: 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Shaw, J, McKenna, J, Snowden, P, Boyd, C, McMahon, D, Kilshaw, J. Clinical features and placement needs of all North West Region patients currently in Special Hospital. J Forensic Psychiatry 1994; 5: 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Snoden, P, McKenna, J, Jasper, A. Management of conditionally discharged patients and others who present similar risks in the community: integrated or parallel? J Forensic Psychiatry 1999; 10: 583–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.SPSS Inc (2004) SPSS for Windows version 12.0.1 (2003). Chicago: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
13.Webster, CD, Douglas, KS, Eaves, D, Hart, SD. HCR-20: Assessing risk for violence, version 2. Burnaby, British Colombia: Simon Fraser University, 1997.Google Scholar
14.Kay, SR, Fiszbein, A, Opler, LA. The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schiz Bull 1987; 13: 261–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders 4th edition. APA: Washington DC, 1994.Google Scholar
16.Thomas, S, Harty, MA, Parrott, J, McCrone, P, Slade, M, Thornicroft, G. CANFOR: Camberwell Assessment of Need – Forensic Version. London: Gaskell, 2003.Google Scholar
17.Sugarman, PA, Walker, L. HoNOS-SECURE version 2. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists College Research and Teaching Unit, 2004.Google Scholar
18.Andreasen, N, Carpenter, WT, Kane, JM, Lasser, RA, Marder, SR, Weinberger, DR. Remission in schizophrenia: proposed criteria and rationale for consensus. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162: 441–449CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed