Implementing a Violence Risk Screening Protocol in a Civil Psychiatric Setting: Preliminary Results and Clinical Policy Implications

Comprehensive violence risk assessment can require substantial time and resources, which may be challenging for an already strapped public mental health system. Herein, we describe a naturalistic study of the Fordham Risk Screening Tool (“FRST”), a violence risk screening instrument designed to quic...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Community mental health journal 2018-04, Vol.54 (3), p.245-251
Main Authors: Rotter, Merrill, Rosenfeld, Barry
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Algorithms
Clinical assessment
Clinical Decision-Making - methods
Community and Environmental Psychology
Community Mental Health Services
Evaluation
Female
Health care policy
Health services
High risk
Hospitalization
Hospitals
Hospitals, Psychiatric
Hospitals, State
Humans
Male
Medical screening
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Mental disorders
Mental Disorders - diagnosis
Mental health
Mental health services
Middle Aged
New York
Original Paper
Patients
Pilot Projects
Psychiatry
Public health
Risk assessment
Risk Assessment - methods
Tests
Violence
Violence - psychology
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Comprehensive violence risk assessment can require substantial time and resources, which may be challenging for an already strapped public mental health system. Herein, we describe a naturalistic study of the Fordham Risk Screening Tool (“FRST”), a violence risk screening instrument designed to quickly identify individuals for whom thorough violence risk assessment would be advisable. All patients admitted to one of three state hospitals during the study period received FRST screening and HCR-20 V3 risk assessment. The FRST reliably and accurately identified individuals deemed high risk by the HCR-20 V3 . The implications of these findings, and the broader clinical policy choices are reviewed.
ISSN:0010-3853
1573-2789
DOI:10.1007/s10597-017-0226-4