Although risk assessment is common practice in forensic psychiatry, our results indicate that the primary goal of preventing recidivism was not reached through risk assessment embedded in shared decision-making.

It remains unclear whether prediction of violence based on historical factors can be improved by adding dynamic risks, protective strengths, selection of person-specific key strengths or critical vulnerabilities, and structured professional judgment (SPJ). We examine this in outpatient forensic psychiatry with the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) at 3 and 6 months follow-up. An incident occurred during 33 (13%) out of 252 3-month and 44 (21%) out of 211 6-month follow-up periods (n = 188 unique clients). Pearson correlations for all predictor variables were in the expected directions. Prediction of recidivism based on historical factor ratings (odds ratio [OR] = 1.10) could not be improved through the addition of dynamic risk, protective strength, or key or critical factor scores (all ORs ns). The addition of the SPJ improved the model to modest accuracy (area under the curve [AUC] = .64) but made no independent significant contribution (OR = 1.55, p = .21) for the 3-month follow-up. For the 6-month follow-up, SPJ scores also increased predictive accuracy to modest (AUC = .67) and made a significant independent contribution to the prediction of the outcome (OR = 1.98, p = .04). Multicollinearity limits were unviolated. Limitations apply, however, results are similar to those from clinical, researcher rated samples and are discussed in the light of setting specific characteristics. Although it is too early to advocate implementing risk assessment instruments in clinical practice, we can conclude that clinicians in a heterogeneous outpatient forensic psychiatric setting can achieve similar results with the START as clinicians and research staff in more homogeneous inpatient settings.

BackgroundIn outpatient forensic psychiatry, assessment of re-offending risk and treatment needs by case managers may be hampered by an incomplete view of client functioning. The client’s appreciation of his own problem behaviour is not systematically used for these purposes. The current study tests whether using a new client self-appraisal risk assessment instrument, based on the Short Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START), improves the assessment of re-offending risk and can support shared decision making in care planning.MethodsIn a sample of 201 outpatient forensic psychiatric clients, feasibility of client risk assessment, concordance with clinician assessment, and predictive validity of both assessments for violent or criminal behaviour were studied.ResultsAlmost all clients (98 %) were able to fill in the instrument. Agreement between client and case manager on the key risk and protective factors of the client was poor (mean kappa for selection as key factor was 0.15 and 0.09, respectively, and mean correlation on scoring −0.18 and 0.20). The optimal prediction model for violent or criminal behaviour consisted of the case manager’s structured professional risk estimate for violence in combination with the client’s self-appraisal on key risk and protective factors (AUC = 0.70; 95%CI: 0.60–0.80).ConclusionsIn outpatient forensic psychiatry, self-assessment of risk by the client is feasible and improves the prediction of re-offending. Clients and their case managers differ in their appraisal of key risk and protective factors. These differences should be addressed in shared care planning. The new Client Self-Appraisal based on START (CSA) risk assessment instrument can be a useful tool to facilitate such shared care planning in forensic psychiatry.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-015-0500-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The 'rest of medicine' and psychiatry: why paradigms would differ 4 Krieger N, Smith GD. 'Bodies count' and body counts: social epidemiology and embodying inequality. Epidemiol Rev 2004; 26: 92-103. 5 Leucht S, Hierl S, Kissling W, Dold M, Davis JM. Putting the efficacy of psychiatric and general medicine medication into perspective: review of meta-analyses. Br J Psychiatry 2012; 200: 97-106. 6 Crawford R. Healthism and the medicalization of everyday life.