Risk and protective factors in risk assessment: Predicting inpatient aggression in adult males detained in a forensic mental health setting.

Structured clinical risk assessments represent a preferred means of assessing levels of aggression risk at different times and in different individuals. Increasing attention has been given to capturing protective factors, with sound risk assessment critical to high-secure forensic mental health care. The aim was to assess the predictive value of the HCR-20v3 for aggression risk and the long-term care pilot version of the SAPROF (the SAPROF-LC-pilot) in a high-secure forensic mental health inpatient population and to determine the incremental value of protective over risk factors. Participants were adult males detained in a high secure forensic mental health service, with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia and/or personality disorder. The focus was on examining hospital based aggression (self- and other-directed) at two time points; up to 6 months (T1) and between 7 and 12 months (T2). The HCR-20V3 and SAPROF-LC-pilot demonstrated good predictive validity but with variability across subscales and aggression types/periods. Historical factors of the HCR-20V3 and External factors of the SAPROF-LC-pilot failed to predict, aside from a medium effect at T1 for verbal aggression and self-harm, for Historical factors. There was evidence for protective factors adding to prediction over risk factors alone, with the integration of protective and risk factors into a risk judgement particularly helpful in improving prediction accuracy. Protective factors contributed to risk estimates and particularly if integrated with risk factors. Combining risk and protective factors has clear predictive advantages, ensuring that protective factors are not supplementary but important to the aggression assessment process.

Self-reported experience and competence in core procedures among Canadian pediatric emergency medicine fellowship trainees.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the frequency with which fellows in accredited Canadian pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellowships perform specific procedures, the level of confidence fellows have in their abilities and whether there are differences in self-perceived success between first- and second-year fellows. METHODS: A national survey was developed that focused on 24 PEM procedural skills. The survey asked respondents how many times they had performed these procedures within the past 12 months and within the past 3 years. Respondents were then asked to rate their confidence in successfully performing each of the 24 procedures. RESULTS: Of the 46 surveys sent to PEM fellows, 32 (70%) were returned. Most respondents were in their second year of training and the vast majority had previous training in pediatrics. In order of frequency, the most common procedures performed were closed reduction of fractures, peripheral intravenous insertion, complex laceration repair and endotracheal intubation. Of the surveyed skills, oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal airway insertion was deemed the most successful (100% success rate for second-year fellows v. 92.5% success rate for first-year fellows, p=0.01). Similarly, second-year fellows had a higher self-perceived success rate for intraosseous line insertion than did first-year fellows (95.0% v. 80.0% for second- and first-year fellows, respectively, p>0.001). CONCLUSION: In surveying PEM trainees across Canada, we have described the frequency and self-perceived success rate for 24 important procedures. This information may be helpful for program directors in evaluating future directions and opportunities for training of their PEM trainees.