We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Instruments for evaluating the risk of violence towards others have mostly been developed for assessment of risk for recidivism into violent crime in forensic psychiatry. In general psychiatry there is a considerable need for specialised, brief and structured assessment tools to inform risk decisions.
Method
The study aimed to validate a brief structured clinical risk assessment screen of inpatient violence (V-RISK-10), a 10-item structured clinical checklist with a good vignette-based interrater reliability (ICC=0.87). In this study it was used for risk assessment of a one-year sample of patients (N = 1.017) admitted to two acute psychiatric units. Risk assessments at admission were compared to prospective records of aggressive and violent acts during the hospital stay.
Results
Results showed a base rate for aggression of 9%. The predictive validity of the V-RISK-10 was estimated by Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC). It yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.83, with sensitivity/specificity of 0.81/0.73 and corresponding positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) of 0.24/0.97. The screen was easy-to-use and showed a short completion time.
Conclusion
Despite promising results further validation studies are required before the V-RISK-10 is adopted into routine clinical practise.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.