Strong Associations Between Childhood Victimization and Community Violence in Male Forensic Mental Health Patients.

Background: Childhood abuse and neglect increase the risk of both mental disorders and violent behavior. Associations between child relational adversities and violent behavior have not been extensively investigated in forensic mental health settings. We asked whether the extent of child adversities predicts the extent of violence in the community in forensic mental health patients. Methods: We included 52 male patients at a medium security forensic mental health ward, with diagnoses of predominantly paranoid schizophrenia and other schizophrenia and psychotic disorders. Seventy-five percent had comorbid substance abuse. We extracted information on six types of child adversities based on clinicians' administrations of the Historical Clinical Risk Management 20 version 3 (HCR 20) scale and summary notes in electronic patient journals. These same sources were used to extract information on war trauma and interpersonal violence in the community. We established cumulative scales for exposure to number of types of child adversities and number of incidents of community violence. Results: Physical and emotional abuse, emotional and physical neglect, and bullying were associated with higher levels of community violence. We observed a linear, significant increase in the frequency of community violence with cumulative numbers of child adversity types. Conclusions: Cumulative exposure to child adversities may be associated with higher degrees of violence in forensic mental health patients, with the most violent patients having the most extensive exposures to adversities. An enhanced focus on child adversities in risk assessment and management of violence may be considered in forensic inpatient settings.

Violence after discharge from forensic units in the safe pilot study: a prospective study with matched pair design.

OBJECTIVE: This paper reports on a prospective naturalistic study of violent recidivism after discharge from forensic mental health. Main aims were to find predictors of violence and to test the feasibility of a matched pair design for this purpose. METHODS: Patients from the Safe pilot project (n=18) and a group of controls (n=18) were matched on 10 variables, such as diagnosis, seriousness of violence, setting after discharge, and risk management plans. All the Safe pilot patients had been through repeated measurement of dynamic risk factors of violence the year before discharge to develop efficient risk management plans for use after discharge. We wanted to test whether violent recidivism during follow-up would be lower and less serious in the Safe pilot group. RESULTS: We found no significant between-group difference concerning number of patients with violent recidivism. However, the Safe pilot patients had significantly lower rates of violence and fewer severe violent episodes. In the control group, there was a significant association between a high number of risk management plans and high rates of violence. There was a statistical trend for the opposite association in the Safe pilot group. CONCLUSION: We discuss this in terms of a possible gap between the development and implementation of plans.

Concurrent validity and clinical utility of the HCR-20V3 compared with the HCR-20 in forensic mental health nursing: similar tools but improved method.

The main scope of this small-scale investigation was to compare clinical application of the HCR-20V3 with its predecessor, the HCR-20. To explore concurrent validity, two experienced nurses assessed 20 forensic mental health service patients with the tools. Estimates of internal consistency for the HCR-20 and the HCR-20V3 were calculated by Cronbach's alpha for two levels of measurement: the H-, C-, and R-scales and the total sum scores. We found moderate (C-scale) to good (H- and R- scales and aggregate scores) estimates of internal consistency and significant differences for the two versions of the HCR. This finding indicates that the two versions reflect common underlying dimensions and that there still appears to be differences between V2 and V3 ratings for the same patients. A case from forensic mental health was used to illustrate similarities and differences in assessment results between the two HCR-20 versions. The case illustration depicts clinical use of the HCR-20V3 and application of two structured nursing interventions pertaining to the risk management part of the tool. According to our experience, Version 3 is superior to Version 2 concerning: (a) item clarity; (b) the distinction between presence and relevance of risk factors; (c) the integration of risk formulation and risk scenario; and (d) the explicit demand to construct a risk management plan as part of the standard assessment procedure.

User involvement in structured violence risk management within forensic mental health facilities -- a systematic literature review.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To examine empirical literature on user involvement in collaboration between patients and nurses. The scope of the review was limited to structured violence risk management interventions in forensic mental health settings. BACKGROUND: Violence in forensic mental health settings represents a significant problem for patients and staff. Structured violence risk management interventions in forensic mental health have been reported to ignore patient participation, despite the growing attention on user involvement in clinical practice. DESIGN: A systematic review. METHOD: Searches were conducted in six databases: the Cochrane Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ProQuest, ScienceDirect and PsycINFO. Papers were assessed according to a predetermined set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: After searches of the reference lists of retrieved articles were conducted, only three papers met the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This review has shown that empirical research on the topic of risk management interventions in which patients are involved is scarce. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: There is barely any research evidence of the clinical effect of user involvement approaches on violence risk management in forensic mental health practice. Therefore, we suggest that clinicians may learn from positive experiences concerning user involvement in general psychiatry and carefully adapt and test them out in the forensic treatment context.

Characteristics of patients frequently subjected to pharmacological and mechanical restraint--a register study in three Norwegian acute psychiatric wards.

This retrospective study from three catchment-area-based acute psychiatric wards showed that of all the pharmacologically and mechanically restrained patients (n=373) 34 (9.1%) had been frequently restrained (6 or more times). These patients accounted for 39.2% of all restraint episodes during the two-year study period. Adjusted binary logistic regression analyses showed that the odds for being frequently restrained were 91% lower among patients above 50 years compared to those aged 18-29 years; a threefold increase (OR=3.1) for those admitted 3 times or more compared to patients with only one stay; and, finally, a threefold increase (OR=3.1) if the length of stay was 16 days or more compared to those admitted for 0-4 days. Among frequently restrained patients, males (n=15) had significantly longer stays than women (n=19), and 8 of the females had a diagnosis of personality disorder, compared to none among males. Our study showed that being frequently restrained was associated with long inpatient stay, many admissions and young age. Teasing out patient characteristics associated with the risk of being frequently restraint may contribute to reduce use of restraint by developing alternative interventions for these patients.

Mechanical and pharmacological restraints in acute psychiatric wards--why and how are they used?

Restraint use has been reported to be common in acute psychiatry, but empirical research is scarce concerning why and how restraints are used. This study analysed data from patients' first episodes of restraint in three acute psychiatric wards during a 2-year study period. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify predictors for type and duration of restraint. The distribution of restraint categories for the 371 restrained patients was as follows: mechanical restraint, 47.2%; mechanical and pharmacological restraint together, 35.3%; and pharmacological restraint, 17.5%. The most commonly reported reason for restraint was assault (occurred or imminent). It increased the likelihood of resulting in concomitant pharmacological restraint. Female patients had shorter duration of mechanical restraint than men. Age above 49 and female gender increased the likelihood of pharmacological versus mechanical restraint, whereas being restrained due to assault weakened this association. Episodes with mechanical restraint and coinciding pharmacological restraint lasted longer than mechanical restraint used separately, and were less common among patients with a personality disorder. Diagnoses, age and reason for restraint independently increased the likelihood for being subjected to specific types of restraint. Female gender predicted type of restraint and duration of episodes.

Characteristics of psychiatric inpatients who experienced restraint and those who did not: a case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: Use of restraint in acute psychiatric wards is highly controversial. Knowledge is limited about the characteristics of patients who are restrained and the predictors of use of restraint. This study examined whether restrained patients differed from nonrestrained patients in demographic, clinical, and medicolegal variables and to what extent the variables predicted use of restraint. METHODS: A two-year retrospective case-control design was used. The sample comprised all restrained patients (N=375) and a randomly selected control group of nonrestrained patients (N=374) from three catchment-area-based acute psychiatric wards in Norway. Data sources were restraint protocols and electronic patient files. RESULTS: The restrained patients were significantly younger and more likely to be men, to reside outside the wards' catchment areas, and to have an immigrant background. Restrained patients also had more admissions and longer inpatient stays than nonrestrained patients and were more likely to be involuntarily referred and to have one or more of the following ICD-10 diagnoses: a substance use disorder, schizophrenia or a related psychotic disorder, and bipolar disorder. Binary logistic regression analyses, adjusting for age, gender, immigrant background, and catchment area, indicated that the number of admissions, length of stay, legal basis for referral, and diagnosis each independently predicted the use of restraint. No interactions were found. CONCLUSIONS: Use of restraint was predicted by multiple admissions, long inpatient stays, involuntary admission, and serious mental illness. Identifying patients at risk may inform the development of alternatives to restraint for these patients.