Citation

Allnutt SH, Ogloff JR, Adams J, O'driscoll C, Daffern M, Carroll A, Nanayakkara V, Chaplow D. Aust. N. Zeal. J. Psychiatry 2013; 47(8): 728-736.

Affiliation

1University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0004867413484368

PMID

23695380

Abstract

Objective:From time to time misconceptions about violence risk assessment raise debate about the role mental health professionals play in managing aggression, with associated concerns about the utility of violence risk assessment. This paper will address some of the misconceptions about risk assessment in those with serious mental illness.Methods:The authors have expertise as clinicians and researchers in the field and based on their accumulated knowledge and discussion they have reviewed the literature to form their opinions.Results:This paper reflects the authors' views.Conclusion:There is a modest yet statistical and clinically significant association between certain types of mental illness and violence. Debate about the appropriateness of clinician involvement in violence risk assessment is sometimes based on a misunderstanding about the central issues and the degree to which this problem can be effectively managed. The central purpose of risk assessment is the prevention rather than the prediction of violence. Violence risk assessment is a process of identifying patients who are at greater risk of violence in order to facilitate the timing and prioritisation of preventative interventions. Clinicians should base these risk assessments on empirical knowledge and consideration of case-specific factors to inform appropriate management interventions to reduce the identified risk.

Language: en