Advancing research in adult secure mental health services in England

Ryland, Howard; Davies, Louise; Kenney‐Herbert, Jeremy; Kingham, Michael; Deshpande, Mayura

doi:10.1177/00258024211066981

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is in the wider context that collaboration in risk assessment is also limited in other settings, including forensic settings where it is a research priority. 22 Despite having been recommended for several years, such as in Department of Health best practice guidance, 23 the extent to which risk assessment is collaborative even in forensic settings, where it is a core service function, is not known. 24 The low frequency with which OxMIV led to changes in what support clinicians offered is in keeping with previous studies of prediction models that suggest an assessment tool has less impact on its own than when presented with linked therapeutic recommendations.…”

Section: Clinical Role and Moving Toward Linked Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of a violence risk prediction tool (OxMIV) in Early Intervention in Psychosis services: a mixed methods study of acceptability, feasibility and clinical role

Whiting,

Glogowska,

Mallett

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDScalable assessment tools for precision psychiatry are of increasing clinical interest. One clinical risk assessment that might be improved by such approaches is assessment of violence perpetration risk. This is an important adverse outcome to reduce for some people presenting to services for first episode psychosis. A prediction tool (OxMIV) has been externally validated in these services, but clinical acceptability and role need to be examined and developed. AIMSThis study aimed to understand clinical use of OxMIV to support violence risk management in Early Intervention in Psychosis services in terms of acceptability to clinicians, patients and carers, practical feasibility, utility, impact and role. METHODMixed methods integrated quantitative data on utility and patterns of use of OxMIV over 12-months in two services with qualitative data from interviews of 20 clinicians and 12 patients and carers. RESULTSOxMIV was used 141 times, mostly in new assessments. Required information was available, with only family history items scored unknown to any notable degree. OxMIV was deemed helpful by clinicians in most cases, especially if previous risk concerns. It was acceptable practically, and broadly for the service, for which its concordance with clinical judgement was important. Patients and carers thought it may improve openness. There was limited impact on plans for clinical support.CONCLUSIONSThis study yielded a detailed understanding of practical issues around the adoption of OxMIV and how it meets an identified clinical need to support risk assessments. Future work should focus on implementation studies and developing linked intervention pathways.

show abstract

Section: Clinical Role and Moving Toward Linked Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%