BJPsych bulletin · 2026
Investigating risk assessment and management processes.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tolland Heather, Drysdale Emma, McCahon Paula, Mackenzie Alan, Mohammad Fiona, Rae Scott, Sunderland Kay, Swift Pamela, Sheridan Tonya, Walker Hollie, Gillatt Brian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Risk assessment and management are key elements of clinical practice in mental health. Existing literature on risk assessment in mental health has focused more on the predictive validity of tools and less on the clinical utility of tools in daily practice.
AIMS: To explore risk assessment and management processes, and how clinicians use risk tools in daily practice, across a single health board.
METHOD: This was a large mixed-methods study in a health authority responsible for the care of 1.3 million people covering a wide range of settings. Data collection involved multiple approaches including staff surveys, focus groups, non-participant observations of team meetings, case-file audits and reviews of incident reports.
RESULTS: Although risk was routinely discussed in team meetings, the risk tool was rarely used to inform decision-making. Barriers to meaningful use of the tool included time constraints, lack of training and perceived lack of relevance. Both staff and carers reported limited involvement of patients and families in risk assessment processes. Case-file audits showed high completion rates of the risk tool but little evidence that it influenced decision-making.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a significant challenge for services, with clinical teams discussing risk but not using the mandated formulation-based risk tool to do so. This is set against the need for health authorities to demonstrate consistent standards in risk management across specialties and settings and to have a format that makes risk management plans easily available to clinicians unfamiliar with the patient. Further research is required to develop a method of recording risk mitigation strategies that is collaborative and can be easily completed in a clinical setting.
AIMS: To explore risk assessment and management processes, and how clinicians use risk tools in daily practice, across a single health board.
METHOD: This was a large mixed-methods study in a health authority responsible for the care of 1.3 million people covering a wide range of settings. Data collection involved multiple approaches including staff surveys, focus groups, non-participant observations of team meetings, case-file audits and reviews of incident reports.
RESULTS: Although risk was routinely discussed in team meetings, the risk tool was rarely used to inform decision-making. Barriers to meaningful use of the tool included time constraints, lack of training and perceived lack of relevance. Both staff and carers reported limited involvement of patients and families in risk assessment processes. Case-file audits showed high completion rates of the risk tool but little evidence that it influenced decision-making.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a significant challenge for services, with clinical teams discussing risk but not using the mandated formulation-based risk tool to do so. This is set against the need for health authorities to demonstrate consistent standards in risk management across specialties and settings and to have a format that makes risk management plans easily available to clinicians unfamiliar with the patient. Further research is required to develop a method of recording risk mitigation strategies that is collaborative and can be easily completed in a clinical setting.