Medicolegal Issues

Violence risk: Is clinical judgment enough?

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

Dear Dr. Mossman:

Multiple studies support the reliability and validity of actuarial measures—such as the Historical, Clinical, and Risk Management (HCR-20) risk assessment scheme—to assess violence risk, whereas physicians’ clinical judgment is highly variable. Should clinicians use actuarial measures to assess a patient’s risk of violence? Could it be considered negligent not to use actuarial measures?—Submitted by “Dr. S”

In the 30 years since the Tarasoff decision—which held that psychiatrists have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient1—assessing patients’ risk of future violence has become an accepted part of mental health practice.2 Dr. S has asked 2 sophisticated questions about risk assessment. The short answer is that although so-called “actuarial” techniques for assessing risk are valuable, psychiatrists who do not use them are not practicing negligently. To explain why, this article discusses:

  • the difference between “clinical” and “actuarial” judgment
  • the HCR-20’s strengths and weaknesses
  • actuarial measures and negligence.
Do you have a question about possible liability?
  • Submit your malpractice-related questions to Dr. Mossman at douglas.mossman@dowdenhealth.com.
  • Include your name, address, and practice location. If your question is chosen for publication, your name can be withheld by request.
  • All readers who submit questions will be included in quarterly drawings for a $50 gift certificate for Professional Risk Management Services, Inc’s online marketplace of risk management publications and resources (www.prms.com).

Clinical vs actuarial judgment

In the 1970s and 1980s, mental health professionals believed they could not accurately predict violence.3 We now know this is not correct. Since the 1990s, when researchers adopted better methods for gauging the accuracy of risk assessments,4-6 research has shown that mental health clinicians can assess dangerousness with clearly-better-than-chance accuracy, whether the assessment covers just the next few days, several months, or years.4

Over the same period, psychologists recognized that when it comes to making predictions, clinical judgment—making predictions by putting together information in one’s head—often is inferior to using simple formulae derived from empirically demonstrated relationships between data and outcome.7 This approach—“actuarial” judgment—is how insurance companies use data to calculate risk.

By the late 1990s, psychologists had developed actuarial risk assessment instruments (ARAIs)8 that could accurately rank the likelihood of various forms of violence. Table 1 lists some well-known ARAIs and the populations for which they were designed. In clinical practice, psychiatrists usually focus on risk posed by psychiatric patients. The HCR-209 was designed to help evaluate this type of risk.

Table 1

Examples of actuarial risk assessment instruments (ARAIs)

ARAIRisk assessed
HCR-209Violence in psychiatric populations, such as formerly hospitalized patients
Classification Of Violence Risk (COVR)Violence by civil psychiatric patients following discharge into the community
Violence Risk Assessment Guide (VRAG)Violent recidivism by formerly incarcerated offenders
Static-99Recidivism by sex offenders

HCR-20’s pros and cons

The HCR-20 has 20 items:

  • 10 concerning the patient’s history
  • 5 related to clinical factors
  • 5 that deal with risk management (Table 2).
To evaluate a patient’s risk of violence, you score each item 0, 1, or 2, depending on how closely the patient matches the described characteristic. For example, when scoring item C3 (active symptoms of major mental illness), a patient gets 0 for “no active symptoms,” 1 for “possible/less serious active symptoms,” or 2 for “definite/serious active symptoms.” An individual can receive a total HCR-20 score of 0 to 40. The higher the score, the higher the likelihood of violence in the coming months.

To use the HCR-20 as an exercise of true actuarial judgment, you would base your opinion of a patient’s risk of violence solely on the HCR-20 score, without regard for other patient factors. However, the HCR-20’s developers think this approach “may be unreasonable, unethical, and illegal.”9 One reason is that the HCR-20 omits obvious signs of potential violence, such as a clearly stated threat with unambiguous intent to act.

The HCR-20’s designers hope clinicians will use this instrument to “structure” clinical judgments about dangerousness. The HCR-20 reminds clinicians to identify and evaluate known risk factors for violence. Clinicians can then address those factors to better manage their patients.

For example, if a patient is doing well in the hospital (and has a low score on HCR-20 clinical items), a psychiatrist might assume the patient will cause few problems after discharge. But if the risk management items generate a high score, the psychiatrist should realize that these factors raise the patient’s violence risk and may require additional intervention—perhaps a different type of community placement or special effort to help the patient follow up with out-patient treatment.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Screen ADHD Patients First, Heart Group Says
MDedge Psychiatry
Atomoxetine Not Effective for ADHD/ODD
MDedge Psychiatry
'Maladaptive' Behaviors Tied to Sleep Problems
MDedge Psychiatry
Parenting Is Crux of the Cure in Defiant Disorder
MDedge Psychiatry
Establish Clear Goals for Trauma-Focused CBT
MDedge Psychiatry
Stress Affects Athletic Injuries, Recovery : Physicians not immune to 'culture of risk,' which encourages athletes to keep playing despite pain.
MDedge Psychiatry
One of First Prevalence Studies Finds More MCI in Men
MDedge Psychiatry
Sleep, Cognitive Problems Might Be Linked
MDedge Psychiatry
Guidelines on Way for Treating Sleep Disorders
MDedge Psychiatry
The Value of Group Visits
MDedge Psychiatry