Conor Duggan, Lauren Mason, Penny Banerjee, John Milton
{"title":"Value of standard personality assessments in informing clinical decision - making in a medium secure unit.","authors":"Conor Duggan, Lauren Mason, Penny Banerjee, John Milton","doi":"10.1192/bjp.190.5.s15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Assessing those with personality disorder for treatment in secure settings is known to be unsatisfactory.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To examine the utility of a standardised assessment of offenders with personality disorder referred for treatment in secure care in a naturalistic study.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A consecutive series of 89 men were assessed with a battery of four recommended instruments measuring personality and risk. Decisions on whether or not to admit were based on a multidisciplinary discussion informed by these assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 89 comprehensively assessed referrals, 60 (67%) were offered admission. High scores on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (especially on Factor 1) was the only measure that was associated with rejection. Of 44 patients discharged, 29 (66%) failed to complete treatment; none of the pre-admission assessments distinguished ;completers' from ;non-completers'. Although skills were acquired on the unit, follow-up of 24 men in the community showed that this had only a marginal effect on re-offending rate (58%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current recommended assessment methods appear unsatisfactory in identifying those who either (a) complete treatment or (b) benefit from treatment. Our results throw doubt on their value.</p>","PeriodicalId":77411,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of psychiatry. Supplement","volume":"49 ","pages":"s15-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1192/bjp.190.5.s15","citationCount":"27","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British journal of psychiatry. Supplement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.190.5.s15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27
Abstract
Background: Assessing those with personality disorder for treatment in secure settings is known to be unsatisfactory.
Aim: To examine the utility of a standardised assessment of offenders with personality disorder referred for treatment in secure care in a naturalistic study.
Method: A consecutive series of 89 men were assessed with a battery of four recommended instruments measuring personality and risk. Decisions on whether or not to admit were based on a multidisciplinary discussion informed by these assessments.
Results: Of the 89 comprehensively assessed referrals, 60 (67%) were offered admission. High scores on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (especially on Factor 1) was the only measure that was associated with rejection. Of 44 patients discharged, 29 (66%) failed to complete treatment; none of the pre-admission assessments distinguished ;completers' from ;non-completers'. Although skills were acquired on the unit, follow-up of 24 men in the community showed that this had only a marginal effect on re-offending rate (58%).
Conclusions: Current recommended assessment methods appear unsatisfactory in identifying those who either (a) complete treatment or (b) benefit from treatment. Our results throw doubt on their value.