Methodological development of the Hoeven Outcome Monitor (HOM): A first step towards a more evidence based medicine in forensic mental health

Keune, Lobke H.; Vogel, Viviënne de; Marle, H.J.C. van

doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.02.009

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the absence of shared definitions and frameworks to evaluate implementation in the field of structured risk assessment instruments in clinical settings (Schuringa et al, 2018;Keune et al, 2016), borrowing frameworks such as CFIR from the field of implementation science can be alternative (Haque, 2016). CFIR in turn synthesize several implementation theories and previous research from different research fields within the health care services (Damschroder et al, 2009).…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The definitions and evaluations of the outcome of implementation in clinical settings vary, as well as what constitutes a successful or failed implementation, making comparisons between studies difficult (Schuringa et al, 2018;Keune et al, 2016;Grimshaw et al, 2006;Cohn, 2002). This is particularly true for "people serving" services with multiple goals (Cohn, 2002, p. 6).…”

Section: Determinants Influencing Implementation and Clinical Use Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The outcome measures used to evaluate the implementation and clinical use of SRAIs in clinical settings varies, which might make comparison between studies complicated (Keune et al, 2016). Examples of outcome measures can be the number of realized risk assessments (Kroppan et al, 2017;Vincent et al, 2012b), the inclusion of risk assessments in care and management plans, challenging behaviours (Crocker et al, 2011), incidents, reconvictions, readmissions (Vojt, 2013) and or changes in staff attitudes and clinical decisions (Vincent et al, 2012b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The importance of defining different outcome measures of SRAI implementation and clinical use respectively has also been stressed (Kroppan et al, 2017;Elbogen, 2016;Crocker et al, 2011). The need to develop common concepts and frameworks to evaluate the forensic psychiatric care has also been raised (Schuringa et al, 2018;Keune et al, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The challenges of using structured risk assessment instruments in forensic psychiatric care

Levin

2019

Linköping University Medical Dissertations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The purpose of psychiatric forensic care is to provide treatment for mentally ill offenders and to prevent future acts of violence and other adverse events. During care, the type of restrictions of freedom, the patient's continuous need for involuntary treatment and readiness for discharge, are continuously evaluated based on the assessment of risk the patient pose to themselves and others as well as the progress achieved with treatment. The use of structured risk assessment instruments is recommended in clinical guidelines to assess such risks. However, unstructured clinical assessments, considered to be less valid, are often used in clinical practice. There is insufficient research evidence concerning several aspects related to the clinical use of structured risk assessment instruments in terms of guiding the planning and realization of care and risk management interventions. There is also a lack of knowledge about what patients themselves perceive to be mediating factors for their use of violence. The challenges of using structured risk assessment instruments 8 al care givers. Patients are often actively striving and struggling to understand and manage their own risk of acting out in violence. Real-life experiences in forensic psychiatric care sparked my interest in trying to understand more about the barriers and facilitators of the clinical use of structured risk assessments to prevent violence and other adverse events as well as the patient perspectives on factors that contribute to or inhibit violence. This PhD thesis is the product of this endeavour. NICE, 2007; Risk Management Authority, 2006). SRAIs have been developed for and implemented and used in forensic mental health services, secure psychiatric in-care services and correctional services to assess the risk of adverse events. Much of the research of risk assessment instruments comes from these different types of services.

show abstract