Patient-rated impulsivity and aggression compared with clinician-rated risk in a forensic psychiatric sample: Predicting inpatient incidents.

BACKGROUND: Measures of impulsivity and aggression help to indicate risk of future violence or rule-breaking. Both clinician-rated risk assessment and self-report measures have been used but hardly ever compared in their ability to predict inpatient incidents. AIMS: To compare the self-report on the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) and Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ) with the clinician-rated HKT-30, a Dutch adaptation of the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, for their capacity to predict inpatient incidents. METHODS: All men newly admitted to a forensic psychiatric hospital were invited to participate in this study unless in intensive care. Tests of correlation were run between the BIS-11 and BPAQ scale scores and the HKT-30. Each was then tested separately for capacity to predict the number of aggressive and nonaggressive incidents while resident. Finally, scores of all rating scales were entered together into a negative binomial regression to compare their relative strengths in predicting later incidents. RESULTS: Patient and staff baseline impulsivity and aggression ratings correlated moderately well. All measures performed well in univariate analyses of relationship between baseline measures and later incidents. In final models, which included both patient and staff baseline ratings, the HKT-30 generally outperformed the self-report measures in the prediction of aggressive and nonaggressive incidents in both the first year and total length of stay. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Our findings suggest that some reliance may be placed on patient ratings of their own propensity for impulsive and/or violent acts, but, when used, they should remain combined with clinician-rated risk assessment for the time being. Future research should explore their utility in dialogue about treatment, and also the relative strength of staff response to each.

Low doses of mirtazapine or quetiapine for transient insomnia: A randomised, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled trial.

Low doses of the antidepressant mirtazapine or the neuroleptic quetiapine are often prescribed off-label for insomnia. However, studies on the effects on sleep and hangover effects the following day are scarce. In this randomised, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled trial, the influence of 7.5 mg mirtazapine and 50 mg quetiapine on both normal sleep and sleep disturbed by acoustic stress (traffic noise) as a model for transient insomnia was assessed. Additionally, hangover effects on next-day alertness and cognitive functioning were examined. A total of 19 healthy men without sleep complaints completed three treatment sessions, each session consisting of three consecutive nights in one of the mirtazapine, quetiapine or placebo conditions. Sleep was assessed using polysomnography and the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire. Daytime sleepiness and cognitive functioning were assessed using the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire, Karolinska Sleepiness Scale, Digit Symbol Substitution Task, Psychomotor Vigilance Task and an addition task. Under acoustic stress, both mirtazapine and quetiapine increased total sleep time by half an hour and reduced the number of awakenings by 35-40% compared to placebo. While quetiapine specifically increased the duration of non-rapid eye movement sleep, stage N2, mirtazapine mainly increased deep sleep stage N3. Subjects reported that both mirtazapine and quetiapine eased getting to sleep and improved sleep quality. Both drugs caused daytime sleepiness and lessened sustained attention. These findings support the use of low doses of mirtazapine and quetiapine for the treatment of insomnia. Further prospective studies on the long-term effects regarding effectiveness and adverse effects are needed.

Specific risk factors of arsonists in a forensic psychiatric hospital.

Arsonists are often treated in forensic settings. However, high recidivism rates indicate that treatment is not yet optimal for these offenders. The aim of this case series study is to identify arsonist specific dynamic risk factors that can be targeted during treatment. For this study, we used patient files of and interviews with all patients that were currently housed at a forensic psychiatric hospital in the Netherlands (14 arsonists, 59 non-arsonists). To delineate differences in risk factors between arsonists and non-arsonists, scores on the risk assessment instrument the Historical Clinical Future-30 (HKT-30; completed for 11 arsonists and 35 non-arsonists), an instrument similar to the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR-20), were compared. The groups did not differ on demographic factors and psychopathology. Concerning dynamic risk factors, arsonists had significantly poorer social and relational skills and were more hostile. Although this study needs replication, these findings suggest that the treatment of people involved in firesetting should particularly target these risk factors.