The efficacy of the Historical, Clinical, and Risk Management Scales (HCR-20; C. D. Webster, D. Eaves, K. S. Douglas, & A. Wintrup, 1995), Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; R. D. Hare, 1991), Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS; A. T. Beck, A. Weissman, D. Lester, & L. Trexler, 1974), and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) to predict violence and self-harm in 34 institutionalized mentally disordered offenders was assessed. Both the HCR-20 and BPRS were strong predictors of violence whereas the PCL-R had moderate predictive ability. BHS was the only variable predictive of self-harm. Although risk assessment measures were successful at predicting in-patient violence, a clinical measure of mental state was at least as effective in these mentally disordered offenders.

The Central Mental Hospital is one of the oldest high secure mental health services in Europe dating back to 1845 but has been one of the last to introduce (forensic) psychiatric nurses. This paper describes the role of psychiatric nurses working in this high secure psychiatric facility in Ireland. The United Kingdom Central Council competency framework was considered to be a prudent starting point for beginning to understand this role in an Irish context. The study received a response rate of 74% and found that the Irish Forensic Mental Health Nurse experiences many of the same challenges as their international colleagues. A high proportion of nursing practice is focused on assessment, communication and creating a therapeutic environment based very much in keeping with the mainstream role in mental health nursing. Skills in specialist assessments and addressing offending behaviour were considered important but deficient at that time. The importance of recovery and human rights were considered paramount but challenged by the need for risk management and security.

Background Prevention of violence due to severe mental disorders in psychiatric hospitals may require intrusive, restrictive and coercive therapeutic practices. Research concerning appropriate use of such interventions is limited by lack of a system for description and measurement. We set out to devise and validate a tool for clinicians and secure hospitals to assess necessity and proportionality between imminent violence and restrictive practices including de-escalation, seclusion, restraint, forced medication and others. Methods In this retrospective observational cohort study, 28 patients on a 12 bed male admissions unit in a secure psychiatric hospital were assessed daily for six months. Data on adverse incidents were collected from case notes, incident registers and legal registers. Using the functional assessment sequence of antecedents, behaviours and consequences (A, B, C) we devised and applied a multivariate framework of structured professional assessment tools, common adverse incidents and preventive clinical interventions to develop a tool to analyse clinical practice. We validated by testing assumptions regarding the use of restrictive and intrusive practices in the prevention of violence in hospital. We aimed to provide a system for measuring contextual and individual factors contributing to adverse events and to assess whether the measured seriousness of threating and violent behaviours is proportionate to the degree of restrictive interventions used. General Estimating Equations tested preliminary models of contexts, decisions and pathways to interventions. Results A system for measuring adverse behaviours and restrictive, intrusive interventions for prevention had good internal consistency. Interventions were proportionate to seriousness of harmful behaviours. A ‘Pareto’ group of patients (5/28) were responsible for the majority (80%) of adverse events, outcomes and interventions. The seriousness of the precipitating events correlated with the degree of restrictions utilised to safely manage or treat such behaviours. Conclusion Observational scales can be used for restrictive, intrusive or coercive practices in psychiatry even though these involve interrelated complex sequences of interactions. The DRILL tool has been validated to assess the necessity and demonstrate proportionality of restrictive practices. This tool will be of benefit to services when reviewing practices internally, for mandatory external reviewing bodies and for future clinical research paradigms.

No abstract

Background: Prevention of violence due to severe mental disorders in psychiatric hospitals may require intrusive, restrictive and coercive therapeutic practices. Research concerning appropriate use of such interventions is limited by lack of a system for description and measurement. We set out to devise and validate a tool for clinicians and secure hospitals to assess necessity and proportionality between imminent violence and restrictive practices including de-escalation, seclusion, restraint, forced medication and others. Methods: In this retrospective observational cohort study, 28 patients on a 12 bed male admissions unit in a secure psychiatric hospital were assessed daily for six months. Data on adverse incidents were collected from case notes, incident registers and legal registers. Using the functional assessment sequence of antecedents, behaviours and consequences (A, B, C) we devised and applied a multivariate framework of structured professional assessment tools, common adverse incidents and preventive clinical interventions to develop a tool to analyse clinical practice. We validated by testing assumptions regarding the use of restrictive and intrusive practices in the prevention of violence in hospital. We aimed to provide a system for measuring contextual and individual factors contributing to adverse events and to assess whether the measured seriousness of threating and violent behaviours is proportionate to the degree of restrictive interventions used. General Estimating Equations tested preliminary models of contexts, decisions and pathways to interventions. Results: A system for measuring adverse behaviours and restrictive, intrusive interventions for prevention had good internal consistency and inter-rater reliability. Interventions were proportionate to seriousness of harmful behaviours. A ‘Pareto’ group of patients (5/28) were responsible for the majority (80%) of adverse events, outcomes and interventions. The seriousness of the precipitating events correlated with the degree of restrictions utilised to safely manage or treat such behaviours. Conclusion: Observational scales can be used for restrictive, intrusive or coercive practices in psychiatry even though these involve interrelated complex sequences of interactions. The DRILL tool has been validated to assess the necessity and demonstrate proportionality of restrictive practices. This tool will be of benefit to services when reviewing practices internally, for mandatory external reviewing bodies and for future clinical research paradigms.