Prospective in-patient cohort study of moves between levels of therapeutic security: the DUNDRUM-1 triage security, DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales and the HCR-20

BMC Psychiatry

Harry G Kennedy²  Stephen Monks¹  Kim McDonnell¹  Elaine Doyle¹  Olivia Gibbons¹  Leena Naughton¹  Zareena Abidin¹  Sarah O'Dwyer¹  Mary Davoren² 

[1] National Forensic Mental Health Service, Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum, Dublin 14, Ireland;Department of Psychiatry, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland

关键词: HCR-20;    DUNDRUM;    Moves;    Secure hospital;    Forensic;    Violence;    Risk;   

Others  :  1124351
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-244X-12-80

 received in 2012-01-03, accepted in 2012-07-13,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

We examined whether new structured professional judgment instruments for assessing need for therapeutic security, treatment completion and recovery in forensic settings were related to moves from higher to lower levels of therapeutic security and added anything to assessment of risk.

Methods

This was a prospective naturalistic twelve month observational study of a cohort of patients in a forensic hospital placed according to their need for therapeutic security along a pathway of moves from high to progressively less secure units in preparation for discharge. Patients were assessed using the DUNDRUM-1 triage security scale, the DUNDRUM-3 programme completion scale and the DUNDRUM-4 recovery scale and assessments of risk of violence, self harm and suicide, symptom severity and global function. Patients were subsequently observed for positive moves to less secure units and negative moves to more secure units.

Results

There were 86 male patients at baseline with mean follow-up 0.9 years, 11 positive and 9 negative moves. For positive moves, logistic regression indicated that along with location at baseline, the DUNDRUM-1, HCR-20 dynamic and PANSS general symptom scores were associated with subsequent positive moves. The receiver operating characteristic was significant for the DUNDRUM-1 while ANOVA co-varying for both location at baseline and HCR-20 dynamic score was significant for DUNDRUM-1. For negative moves, logistic regression showed DUNDRUM-1 and HCR-20 dynamic scores were associated with subsequent negative moves, along with DUNDRUM-3 and PANSS negative symptoms in some models. The receiver operating characteristic was significant for the DUNDRUM-4 recovery and HCR-20 dynamic scores with DUNDRUM-1, DUNDRUM-3, PANSS general and GAF marginal. ANOVA co-varying for both location at baseline and HCR-20 dynamic scores showed only DUNDRUM-1 and PANSS negative symptoms associated with subsequent negative moves.

Conclusions

Clinicians appear to decide moves based on combinations of current and imminent (dynamic) risk measured by HCR-20 dynamic score and historical seriousness of risk as measured by need for therapeutic security (DUNDRUM-1) in keeping with Scott's formulation of risk and seriousness. The DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales have utility as dynamic measures that can off-set perceived 'dangerousness'.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Davoren et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kennedy HG, O’Neill C, Flynn G, Gill P: The Dundrum Toolkit. Dangerousness, Understanding, Recovery and Urgency Manual (The Dundrum Quartet) V1.0.21 (18/03/10). Four Structured Professional Judgment Instruments for Admission Triage, Urgency, Treatment Completion and Recovery Assessments. Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; 2010. http://hdl.handle.net/2262/39131 webcite
• [2]Flynn G, O'Neill C, McInerney C, Kennedy HG: The DUNDRUM-1 structured professional judgment for triage to appropriate levels of therapeutic security: retrospective-cohort validation study. BMC Psychiatry 2011, 11:43. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Flynn G, O'Neill C, Kennedy HG: DUNDRUM-2: Prospective validation of a structured professional judgment instrument assessing priority for admission from the waiting list for a Forensic Mental Health Hospital. BMC Research Notes 2011, 4:230. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]O'Dwyer S, Davoren M, Abidin Z, Doyle E, McDonnell K, Kennedy HG: The DUNDRUM Quartet: validation of structured professional judgement instruments DUNDRUM-3 assessment of programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 assessment of recovery in forensic mental health services. BMC Research Notes 2011, 4:229. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Dolan MC, Khawaja A: The HCR-20 and post-discharge outcome in male patients discharged from medium security in the UK. Aggress Behav 2004, 30:469-83.
• [6]Muller-Isberner M, Webster CD, Gretenkord L: Measuring progress in hospital order treatment: relationship between levels of security and C and R scores of the HCR-20. Int J Forensic Men Health 2007, 6:113-121.
• [7]Blattner R, Dolan M: Outcome of high security patients admitted to a medium secure unit - the Edenfield Centre study. Med Sci Law 2010, 49(4):247-56.
• [8]Dolan M, Blattner R: The utility of the Historical Clinical Risk-20 scale as a predictor of outcomes in decisions to transfer patients from high to lower levels of security: a UK perspective. BMC Psychiatry 2010, 10:76. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Robertson G: Treatment of offender patients: how should success be measured? Med Sci Law 1989, 29:303-7.
• [10]Roesch R, Ogloff JR, Eaves D: Mental health research in the criminal justice system: the need for common approaches and international perspectives. Int J Law Psychiatry 1995, 18(1):1-14.
• [11]Scott PD: Assessing dangerousness in criminals. Br J Psychiatry 1977, 131:127-142.
• [12]Kennedy H: The Annotated Mental Health Acts. Blackhall Publishing, Dublin; 2007.
• [13]Fagan J, Papaconstantinou A, Ijaz I, Lynch A, O’Neill H, Kennedy HG: The Suicide Risk Assessment and Management Manual (S-RAMM) Validation Study II: Prospective Study of a Structured Professional Judgement Tool for Suicide Risk Assessment. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine 2009, 26(3):107-113.
• [14]Pillay SM, Oliver B, Butler L, Kennedy HG: Risk stratification and the care pathway. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine 2008, 25(4):123-127.
• [15]Ijaz A, Papaconstantinou A, O'Neill H, Kennedy HG: The Suicide Risk Assessment and Management Manual (S-RAMM) Validation Study I: Inter-Rater Reliability, Internal Consistency, and Discriminatory Capacity. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine 2009, 26(2):54-58.
• [16]Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA: The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 1987, 13:261-277.
• [17]Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders . 4th edition. American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC; 1994.
• [18]Webster CS, Douglas KS, Eaves D, Hart SD: HCR-20: Assessing risk for violence, version 2. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia; 1997.
• [19]Thomas S, Harty M-A, Parrott J, McCrone P, Slade M, Thornicroft G: CANFOR: Camberwell Assessment of Need – Forensic Version. A needs assessment for forensic mental health service users, London, Gaskell; 2003.
• [20]Bouch J, Marshall JJ: S-RAMM: Suicide Risk Assessment and Management Manual (Research Edition). Cognitive Centre Foundation, Vale of Glamorgan; 2003.
• [21]Kozma CM, Dirani RG, Canuso CM, Mao L: Predicting hospital admission and discharge with symptom or function scores in patients with schizophrenia: pooled analysis of a clinical trial extension. Annals of General Psychiatry 2010, 9:24. Article URLhttp://www.annals-general-psychiatry.com/content/9/1/24 webcite
• [22]ICD-10 Classifications of Mental and Behavioural Disorder: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. World Health Organisation, Geneva; 1992.