Value of standard personality assessments in informing clinical decision - making in a medium secure unit.

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,&nbsp;Lauren Mason,&nbsp;Penny Banerjee,&nbsp;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.

标准人格评估在中等安全病房中为临床决策提供信息的价值。
背景:在安全的环境中评估人格障碍患者的治疗是不令人满意的。目的:在一项自然主义研究中,检验对人格障碍罪犯进行安全护理治疗的标准化评估的效用。方法:对89名连续的男性进行了四套推荐的人格和风险测量工具的评估。是否录取的决定是基于这些评估所提供的多学科讨论。结果:89例综合评估转诊患者中,60例(67%)获得住院治疗。在精神病检查表-修订(尤其是因子1)上的高分是唯一与拒绝相关的指标。44例出院患者中,29例(66%)未能完成治疗;入学前的评估都没有区分“完成者”和“非完成者”。虽然这些技能是在监狱里获得的,但对社区24名男性的随访表明,这对再犯罪率(58%)只有边际效应。结论:目前推荐的评估方法在确定(a)完成治疗或(b)从治疗中获益的患者方面似乎不令人满意。我们的结果让人怀疑它们的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书