Assessing Inpatient Victimization Risk Among Insanity Acquittees Using the HCR-20V3.

Victimization of individuals with mental illness may involve serious emotional or physical injury to already vulnerable persons. Further, victimization may contribute to subsequent victimization experiences, exacerbate psychiatric symptoms, and prolong hospitalization, among other undesirable secondary outcomes. Nonetheless, limited prior research has focused on predicting victimization in forensic psychiatric settings, and no research has attempted to do so with the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20 Version 3 (HCR-20V3) tool. This study involved retrospective ratings of the HCR-20V3 for 169 hospitalized insanity acquittees and examined the utility of HCR-20V3 ratings in predicting victimization. Although the HCR-20V3 was not explicitly developed to aid in evaluations of victimization risk, other structured professional judgment tools intended to predict violence risk have demonstrated potential for predicting victimization, due to the existence of common risk factors and overlap between patients who engage in violence and those who are victimized. Results from this study suggest that evaluators may consider the Clinical scale score of the HCR-20V3 and elevations on its items assessing violent ideation or intent, instability, and treatment or supervision response in identifying those at increased risk for future victimization. The Historical and Risk Management scales were less relevant in predicting victimization.

Assessing Risk for Victimization in a Forensic Psychiatric Setting Using the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability.

Although a growing literature on community-based victimization of people with mental illness exists, victimization within institutional settings is comparatively understudied. The current study seeks to fill this gap by exploring factors related to risk of victimization in a male forensic psychiatric sample using a relatively new risk assessment measure. The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) is a short-term risk assessment measure that compiles information about several clinically relevant risk factors to evaluate risk of victimization, among other adverse outcomes. Nearly one-third (31.3%) of the sample experienced some type of victimization during their hospitalization. The summary risk judgment and subsets of select START items effectively predicted risk of victimization in this sample with a fair degree of accuracy over a 2-month period.

Using the HCR-20V3 to Differentiate Insanity Acquittees Based on Opinions of Readiness for Transfer.

After adjudication by the courts that an individual is not criminally responsible for the offense committed, forensic psychiatrists/psychologists are tasked with evaluating an acquittees' ongoing risk of violence. These findings determine whether an acquittee is retained in a forensic hospital or transferred to a civil psychiatric setting or into the community. Better understanding of risk factors that affect decisions to retain or release acquittees from secure forensic facilities would increase clarity in decision-making, assist evaluators in identifying who may be successful outside of secure settings, and potentially assist in the development and implementation of targeted treatments to address risk factors before and after transfer. The current study evaluated which risk factors of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management 20, Version 3 differentiated acquittees whom clinicians opined to have a dangerous mental disorder and required retention from those whom clinicians opined to be ready for transfer to a less secure setting. Results indicated that the Clinical and Risk Management scales predicted opinions regarding readiness for transfer, even after accounting for acts of violence in the hospital. These findings suggest clinicians are attuned to relevant and current risk factors in evaluations, rather than disproportionately focused on historical factors. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Factors associated with recommitment of NGRI acquittees to a forensic hospital.

The current archival study assesses risk factors associated with recommitment of 142 individuals adjudicated Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) from civil settings to a forensic hospital in New York State. Within 10 years of transfer from a forensic hospital, 40 (28.2%) were recommitted. Using survival analyses to account for the wide range in opportunity for recommitment, period of transfer (i.e., pre versus post the 1995 case of George L, which clarified factors related to assessments of dangerousness) and the Historical scale and specific items of the HCR-20 emerged as important risk factors for recommitment. Specifically, hazard of recommitment was 2.9 times higher for those with high Historical scores as compared to those with low scores. However, few individual risk factors were associated with recommitment. Prior supervision failure, negative attitude, problems with substance use, and absent or less serious major mental illness and relationship problems were informative in predicting recommitment over 10 and 3 year follow-up periods.

Metacognitive knowledge and online awareness in persons with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Recent models of self-awareness draw a distinction between intellectual awareness (metacognitive knowledge of disabilities) and online awareness of errors (emergent and anticipatory awareness). OBJECTIVE: The present study compared these two types of self-awareness (metacognitive knowledge of disabilities and online awareness) in individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) and healthy participants. The relationship between self-awareness and functional performance was also examined. METHODS: Participants included 18 individuals with MS and 16 healthy controls (HC) between the ages of 27 and 60. Intellectual awareness was assessed via discrepancy scores on the Functional Behavior Profile (FBP) between participants and their informants. Online Awareness was examined using self-prediction and self-assessment of performance on a functional task. RESULTS: Participants with MS had significantly lower levels of intellectual awareness relative to HCs. The MS group demonstrated worse prediction online awareness than HCs. However, assessment online awareness did not differ between groups, indicating that experience with a task can improve online awareness in persons with MS. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the necessity of adopting a multidimensional approach to assessing the multifaceted phenomenon of self-awareness in MS. In addition, it provides initial evidence to support a self-awareness treatment model for persons with MS.