暴力风险评估:第一部分

J. Howard, J. L. Cavanaugh
{"title":"暴力风险评估:第一部分","authors":"J. Howard, J. L. Cavanaugh","doi":"10.1097/01.IDT.0000388862.58629.3d","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When performing a violence risk assessment, there are competing viewpoints as to which variables should be considered. Such variables are generally integrated into a theoretical model of the patient’s personality and behavior to either stratify the likelihood of becoming violent or inform treatment decisions. In the past, psychiatrists relied solely on unstructured “clinical” judgment, which was harshly described by Ennis and Litwack as having “absolutely no expertise in predicting dangerous behavior” and further marginalized by Lidz and colleagues in a case-controlled study. The introduction of actuarial methods (statistically oriented structured risk assessment), which identify and weigh various factors to minimize error-prone clinician subjectivity, offers promise but remains underutilized by psychiatrists. This may be defensive posturing in response to state ments such as “Actuarial methods are too good and clinical judgment is too poor to risk contaminating the former with the latter.” 3 In 1999, one-third of US psychiatric residents stated that they had no training in violence risk assessment, whereas another third described their training as “inadequate.” This was 4 years after the development of the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management 20-item (HCR-20) violence risk assessment scale, 6 years after the publication of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), and nearly 20 years after publication of the forerunner of the Psychopathy Checklist. Currently, there is no American Psychiatric Association practice guideline for violence risk assessment that resembles the established guideline for suicide risk assessment and treatment. Combining elements from the mental status examination and an actuarial instrument is referred to as structured professional judgment. Miller described this as identifying historical risk factors that characterize the context of an individual’s aggressive behavior and risk factors After participating in this activity, the psychiatrist should be better able to:","PeriodicalId":90307,"journal":{"name":"Psychopharm review : timely reports in psychopharmacology and device-based therapies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/01.IDT.0000388862.58629.3d","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Violence Risk Assessment: Part I\",\"authors\":\"J. Howard, J. L. Cavanaugh\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/01.IDT.0000388862.58629.3d\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When performing a violence risk assessment, there are competing viewpoints as to which variables should be considered. Such variables are generally integrated into a theoretical model of the patient’s personality and behavior to either stratify the likelihood of becoming violent or inform treatment decisions. In the past, psychiatrists relied solely on unstructured “clinical” judgment, which was harshly described by Ennis and Litwack as having “absolutely no expertise in predicting dangerous behavior” and further marginalized by Lidz and colleagues in a case-controlled study. The introduction of actuarial methods (statistically oriented structured risk assessment), which identify and weigh various factors to minimize error-prone clinician subjectivity, offers promise but remains underutilized by psychiatrists. This may be defensive posturing in response to state ments such as “Actuarial methods are too good and clinical judgment is too poor to risk contaminating the former with the latter.” 3 In 1999, one-third of US psychiatric residents stated that they had no training in violence risk assessment, whereas another third described their training as “inadequate.” This was 4 years after the development of the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management 20-item (HCR-20) violence risk assessment scale, 6 years after the publication of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), and nearly 20 years after publication of the forerunner of the Psychopathy Checklist. Currently, there is no American Psychiatric Association practice guideline for violence risk assessment that resembles the established guideline for suicide risk assessment and treatment. Combining elements from the mental status examination and an actuarial instrument is referred to as structured professional judgment. Miller described this as identifying historical risk factors that characterize the context of an individual’s aggressive behavior and risk factors After participating in this activity, the psychiatrist should be better able to:\",\"PeriodicalId\":90307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychopharm review : timely reports in psychopharmacology and device-based therapies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/01.IDT.0000388862.58629.3d\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychopharm review : timely reports in psychopharmacology and device-based therapies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.IDT.0000388862.58629.3d\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychopharm review : timely reports in psychopharmacology and device-based therapies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.IDT.0000388862.58629.3d","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在进行暴力风险评估时,对于应该考虑哪些变量存在不同的观点。这些变量通常被整合到一个病人的个性和行为的理论模型中,要么对变得暴力的可能性进行分层,要么为治疗决策提供信息。在过去,精神科医生完全依赖于非结构化的“临床”判断,这被Ennis和Litwack严厉地描述为“在预测危险行为方面绝对没有专业知识”,并且在一项病例对照研究中被Lidz和同事进一步边缘化。精算方法(以统计为导向的结构化风险评估)的引入,可以识别和权衡各种因素,以最大限度地减少临床医生的主观性,提供了希望,但精神科医生仍未充分利用。这可能是为了回应诸如“精算方法太好,临床判断太差,不能冒险让前者受到后者的污染”之类的说法而采取的防御姿态。1999年,三分之一的美国精神科住院医生表示他们没有接受过暴力风险评估方面的培训,而另外三分之一的人认为他们的培训“不足”。这距离历史、临床、风险管理20项(HCR-20)暴力风险评估量表的制定已有4年,距离《暴力风险评估指南》(VRAG)出版已有6年,距离《精神病检查表》的前身出版已有近20年。目前,美国精神病学协会还没有制定类似于自杀风险评估和治疗指南的暴力风险评估实践指南。将精神状态检查和精算工具的元素结合起来称为结构化专业判断。Miller将其描述为识别个体攻击行为背景的历史风险因素和风险因素。在参与这项活动后,精神科医生应该能够更好地:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Violence Risk Assessment: Part I
When performing a violence risk assessment, there are competing viewpoints as to which variables should be considered. Such variables are generally integrated into a theoretical model of the patient’s personality and behavior to either stratify the likelihood of becoming violent or inform treatment decisions. In the past, psychiatrists relied solely on unstructured “clinical” judgment, which was harshly described by Ennis and Litwack as having “absolutely no expertise in predicting dangerous behavior” and further marginalized by Lidz and colleagues in a case-controlled study. The introduction of actuarial methods (statistically oriented structured risk assessment), which identify and weigh various factors to minimize error-prone clinician subjectivity, offers promise but remains underutilized by psychiatrists. This may be defensive posturing in response to state ments such as “Actuarial methods are too good and clinical judgment is too poor to risk contaminating the former with the latter.” 3 In 1999, one-third of US psychiatric residents stated that they had no training in violence risk assessment, whereas another third described their training as “inadequate.” This was 4 years after the development of the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management 20-item (HCR-20) violence risk assessment scale, 6 years after the publication of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), and nearly 20 years after publication of the forerunner of the Psychopathy Checklist. Currently, there is no American Psychiatric Association practice guideline for violence risk assessment that resembles the established guideline for suicide risk assessment and treatment. Combining elements from the mental status examination and an actuarial instrument is referred to as structured professional judgment. Miller described this as identifying historical risk factors that characterize the context of an individual’s aggressive behavior and risk factors After participating in this activity, the psychiatrist should be better able to:
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Treatment of Chronic Pain With Psychotropic Medications Psychopharmacologic Treatments for Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for the Treatment of Major Depression Beta-Blockers: Off-Label Use in Psychiatric Disorders Novel Approaches for Managing Schizophrenia: Part I
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1