Projecting Risk: The Importance of the HCR‐20 Risk Management Scale in Predicting Outcomes with Forensic Patients

Vitacco, Michael J.; Tabernik, Holly E.; Zavodny, Denis; Bailey, Karen Michelle Alice; Waggoner, Christina

doi:10.1002/bsl.2221

Cited by 8 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a subsequent study of 116 forensic inpatients who were assessed with the HCR-20 prior to conditional release from state forensic facilities, of which 39 were released and returned, 19 were released but not readmitted, and 58 were not released during the seven year study period. In this study, higher scores on the Risk management scale predicted either non-release, or if released, readmission ( Vitacco et al, 2016 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Differences Between Readmitted and Non-readmitted Women in an Italian Forensic Unit: A Retrospective Study

Rossetto¹,

Clerici

Franconi³

et al. 2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main objective of this study was to compare readmitted (RW) and non-readmitted (NRW) female psychiatric patients after being conditionally or unconditionally released from Italian inpatient forensic psychiatry services, in order to identify variables that were significantly linked with readmission. This study included all patients who were discharged from the female Residences for the Execution of the Security Measure (REMS) of Castiglione delle Stiviere from January 2008 to June 2015 who were not readmitted until December 31, 2018 (48). In addition, data were collected on female patients who were discharged from the same REMS before 2008 and readmitted from January 2008 to December 2018 (42). A key finding of our study was that the readmission into a female REMS was positively associated with the presence of substance use disorders (SUD) and a primary diagnosis on Axis II. To a lesser extent, younger age, being unconditionally discharged when first released, having had a shorter length of inpatient stay and having committed a crime against property for the first REMS admission was also variables that were apparently linked with readmission. The present research continues the previous research on gender-specific mentally ill offenders. Hence, the decision to proceed separately with a sample of men only and one of women only. For all these reasons, young female patients with personality disorder and SUD perhaps should remain longer in REMS and be released with conditions. In most European countries, the length of stay depends on the clinical condition and risk assessment, with some exceptions where the courts set a maximum length of stay at the outset, as in Italy. All the factors listed above influence the risk assessment. Finally, from integrating these findings into the increasing international literature on conditional release and considering the recent changes in the Italian forensic treatment model, we recommend continuing research on individual risk and protective factors as well as risk assessment instruments on conditionally and unconditionally released inpatients with genders studied separately.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Differences Between Readmitted and Non-readmitted Women in an Italian Forensic Unit: A Retrospective Study

Rossetto¹,

Clerici

Franconi³

et al. 2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a Georgia study, Vitacco, Tabernik, Zavodny, Bailey, & Waggoner (2016) examined the association of HCR-20 items with release decisions. They reported that all five risk items were associated with a higher likelihood of release, but not the historical and clinical items.…”

Section: Decisions By Oversight Boards Regarding Transfer or Releasementioning

confidence: 99%

“…They reported that all five risk items were associated with a higher likelihood of release, but not the historical and clinical items. They emphasized the importance of clinician recognition of dynamic risk factors to the success of release decisions (Vitacco et al, 2016). Gowensmith, Murrie, Boccaccini, & McNichols (2017) studied the assessments of acquittee readiness for discharge by three independent evaluators in Hawaii.…”

Section: Decisions By Oversight Boards Regarding Transfer or Releasementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hospital treatment of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity

Kapoor

Wasser

Funaro

et al. 2020

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After being found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI), individuals are typically admitted to a secure forensic hospital for evaluation and treatment. This patient population can pose a challenge to clinicians in the hospital setting due to significant violence risk, complex psychiatric presentations, and scrutiny from oversight boards and the public. This article reviews the scientific literature around several key aspects of hospital-based treatment of insanity acquittees, including the management of inpatient aggression, the

show abstract

“…Collectively, these advances hold the potential to provide low-cost and time-efficient assessment procedures that are translatable to a wide array of risk-states. To date, a number of projects have been proposed and evaluated to improve risk assessment of suicide/self-harm (Bridge, Horowitz, & Campo, 2017;Gaynes et al, 2004), homicide/harm-to-others (Vitacco, Tabernik, Zavodny, Bailey, & Waggoner, 2016), psychosis onset and decompensation (Ben-Zeev et al, 2013;Cannon et al, 2016;Carrión et al, 2016), cognitive decline (Harrison et al, 2017) and mania (Hafeman et al, 2017). The potential of these efforts has garnered support from major organizations (Boudreaux & Horowitz, 2014;Cannon et al, 2008aCannon et al, , 2016Heeringa et al, 2013;Hoffmire et al, 2016a;Insel, 2008;Schoenbaum et al, 2014a).…”

Section: The State Of Risk Assessment For Serious Mental Illnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychiatric Risk Assessment from the Clinician’s Perspective: Lessons for the Future

Cohen

Fedechko

Schwartz

et al. 2019

Community Ment Health J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate prediction of risk-states in Serious Mental Illnesses (SMIs) is critical for reducing their massive societal burden. Risk-state assessments are notably inaccurate. Recent innovations, including widely available and inexpensive mobile technologies for ambulatory "biobehavioral" data, can reshape risk assessment. To help understand and accelerate clinician involvement, we surveyed 90 multidisciplinary clinicians serving SMI populations in various settings to evaluate how risk assessment is conducted and can improve. Clinicians reported considerable variability in conducting risk assessment, and few clinicians explicated their procedures beyond tying it to broader mental status examinations or interviews. Very few clinicians endorsed using currently-available standardized risk measures, and most reported low confidence in their utility. Clinicians also reported spending approximately half the time conducting individual risk assessments than optimally needed. When asked about improvement, virtually no clinicians acknowledged biobehavioral, objective technologies, or ambulatory recording. Overall, clinicians seemed unaware of meaningful ways to improve risk assessment.

show abstract

Projecting Risk: The Importance of the HCR‐20 Risk Management Scale in Predicting Outcomes with Forensic Patients

Cited by 8 publications

References 24 publications

Differences Between Readmitted and Non-readmitted Women in an Italian Forensic Unit: A Retrospective Study

Differences Between Readmitted and Non-readmitted Women in an Italian Forensic Unit: A Retrospective Study

Hospital treatment of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity

Psychiatric Risk Assessment from the Clinician’s Perspective: Lessons for the Future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About