Using the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG)

Introduction

The Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 2006) is a tool that can be used to estimate statistically the risk of recidivism. It is comprised of 12 items that are associated with a risk of re-offending and is completed with all available information. You can download the full VRAG in PDF format. The Sexual Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) is reviewed in another article.

The VRAG is an actuarial risk assessment, involving a mathematical technique applied to determines what factors were present in offenders who later went on to commit violent crimes. (Brown & Singh, 2014) This approach eliminates the bias found in unstructured judgement.

The VRAG has been examined in over 40 studies, and has been found effective even with individuals who have a lower IQ. (Camilleri & Quinsey, 2011)

Completing the VRAG

The first step to completing the VRAG is to complete the Childhood & Adolescent Taxon Scale. Below, where a request for information relates to an “index offense” that is the one that led to the individual entering the Criminal Justice system

Childhood & Adolescent Taxon Scale (CATS) Worksheet

This scale includes 8 items that are scored from 0 to 1, based on the coding guidelines provided. These items are:

  1. Elementary School Maladjustment
  2. Teenage Alcohol Problem
  3. Childhood Aggression Rating
  4. More Than 3 DSM Conduct Disorder Symptoms
  5. Ever suspended or expelled from school
  6. Arrested under the age of 16
  7. Lived with both biological parents to age 16 (except for death of parents)

Conduct Disorder Symptoms

Next, the assessor will complete the list of Conduct Disorder symptoms, circling those that occurred before age 16 except for items 13 and 15 which are before aged 16:

  • 1. Often bullied, threatened or intimidated others
  • 2. Often initiated physical fights
  • 3. Used a weapon that could cause serious physical harm to others (e.g., a bat, brick, broken bottle, knife, gun)
  • 4. Was physically cruel to people
  • 5. Was physically cruel to animals
  • 6. Stolen while confronting a victim (e.g., mugging, purse snatching, extortion, robbery)
  • 7. Forced someone into sexual activity
  • 8. Deliberately engaged in fire setting with the intention of causing serious damage
  • 9. Deliberately destroyed others’ property (other than by fire setting)
  • 10. Broken into someone else’s house, car, or building
  • 11. Often lied to obtain goods or favors or to avoid obligations (i.e., “cons” others)
  • 12. Stolen items of nontrivial value without confronting a victim (like shoplifting, theft, or forgery)
  • 13. Before [age] 13, stayed out late at night, despite parental prohibitions
  • 14. Ran away from home overnight (or longer) at least twice while living in parental or parental surrogate home (or once without returning for a lengthy period)
  • 15. Before [age] 13, was often truant from school

Cormier-Lang Criminal History Scores for Non-Violent Offenses

This scoring form allows you to answer item number 5 below, the Criminal History Score for Non-Violent Offenses Prior to the Index Offense. This score is developed by counting the number of non-violent offenses and applying a weight to them. For instance, bank robbery is counted x7 while Indecent Exposure is counted x2. So an individual who has two instances of Indecent Exposure and 1 instance of Bank Robbery would have (2×2 = 4) + (1×7 = 7) = 4+7 = 11.

Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) Items

Next are the 12 VRAG items. The tool provides detailed coding instructions for each of these:

  1. Lived with both biological parents to age 16 (except for death of parent):
  2. Elementary School Maladjustment:
  3. History of alcohol problems
  4. Marital status (at the time of or prior to index offense):
  5. Criminal history score for nonviolent offenses prior to the index offense
  6. Failure on prior conditional release (includes parole or probation violation or revocation, failure to comply, bail violation, and any new arrest while on conditional release):
  7. Age at index offense
  8. Victim Injury (for index offense; the most serious is scored):
  9. Any female victim (for index offense)
  10. Meets DSM criteria for any personality disorder (must be made by appropriately licensed or certified professional)
  11. Meets DSM criteria for schizophrenia (must be made by appropriately licensed or certified professional)
  12. a. Psychopathy Checklist score (if available, otherwise use item 12.b. CATS score)
  13. (Technically 12b) bCATS score (from the CATS worksheet)

Scoring the VRAG

Determining Risk

Risk categories are provided in the VRAG manual. They are approximated here although more detail is available in the complete manual. For each score, if an individual is close to the next score you should list them as a combination of the two. For instance an individual whose score is -10, -9 or -8 would be listed as Low-Medium rather than just Low.

  • -24 to -8 is Low Risk
  • -7 to +13 is Medium Risk
  • +14 to +32 is High Risk

Determining Rate of Recidivism

The risk of recidivism is presented below, from the same manual (pages 283-286):

Probability of Recidivism
VRAG score 7 years 10 years
< −22 0.00 0.08
−21 to −15 0.08 0.10
−14 to −8 0.12 0.24
−7 to −1 0.17 0.31
0 to +6 0.35 0.48
+7 to +13 0.44 0.58
+14 to +20 0.55 0.64
+21 to +27 0.76 0.82
> +28 1.00 1.00

This is to be interpreted as a percentage. For instance a score of -10 is in the -14 to -8 category; therefore an individual would have a 7 year recidivism rate of 12% and a 10 year recidivism rate of 24%.

References

American Psychological Association. (2006) Quinsey, V.L., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E. & Cormier, C.A. (2006) 2nd Ed. Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk. Washington D.C: American Psychological Association.

Brown, J. & Singh, J.P. (2014) Forensic Risk Assessment: A Beginner’s Guide. Archives of Forensic Psychology. 1(1). 49-59. Retrieved on January 20, 2017 from http://www.archivesofforensicpsychology.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Brown-and-Singh1.pdf

Camilleri, J.A. & Quinsey, V.L. (2011) Appraising the risk of sexual and violent recidivism among intellectually disabled offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law. 17(1) 59-74

Cite this article as: MacDonald, D.K., (2017), "Using the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG)," retrieved on April 24, 2018 from http://dustinkmacdonald.com/using-violence-risk-appraisal-guide-vrag/.
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditmailby feather

Level of Care Utilization System (LOCUS)

Introduction

The Level of Care Utilization System or LOCUS tool has been designed by the American Association of Community Psychiatrists (2009) to allow staff who work on inpatient hospital environments with patients with psychiatric problems (such as emergency departments, psychiatric sections of general hospitals or in psychiatric hospitals) to determine the level of care that an individual should receive.

The LOCUS provides for six levels, ranging from the least intense (recovery maintenance, such as seeing a case manager once a month and having access to a 24-hour crisis line if needed) to the most intense (medically managed residential services such as being a hospital inpatient.)

Parameters

The LOCUS is based on a set of parameters that an individual is scored along. The level of care is determined based on the mix of parameters that each client has. These parameters are:

  1. Risk of Harm
  2. Functional Status
  3. Medical, Addictive and Psychiatric Co-morbidity
  4. Recovery Environment
  5. Treatment and Recovery History
  6. Engagement and Recovery Status

In most of these domains there are a number of states that are used to code the domain. For instance, “Risk of Harm” has five potential states from Minimal Risk of Harm to Extreme Risk of Harm. The exception is 4. Recovery Environment which has two subcomponents, Level of Stress and Level of Support.

The LOCUS manual provides detailed coding instructions to allow an individual to be assessed in a reliable, repeatable way.

Levels of Care

For each Level of Care, the manual provides for four categories, Care Environment, Clinical Services, Supportive Systems, and Crisis Stabilization and Prevention Services.

Care Environment describes where services are delivered and what facilities might need to be available. Clinical Services describes the type and number of clinical employees (nurses, etc.) and the types of therapies or treatments available. Supportive Services includes client access to things like case management, outreach and financial support, while Prevention Services include mobile crisis, crisis lines, and other access to services.

Scoring

Each of the levels includes specific individual scores required for a level, and also a composite score. The Composite Score overrides the individual scores to determine which level an individual is placed at if the Composite Score results in a more intense level of care.

Composite Scores

  • Level 1 – 10-13
  • Level 2 – 14-16
  • Level 3 – 17-19
  • Level 4 – 20-22
  • Level 5 – 23 – 27
  • Level 6 – 28+

Level 1 – Recovery Maintenance and Health Management

  • Risk of Harm: 2 or less
  • Functional Status: 2 or less
  • Co-morbidity: 2 or less
  • Level of Stress: Sum of Stress and Support less than 4
  • Level of Support: Sum of Stress and Support less than 4
  • Treatment & Recovery History: 2 or less
  • Engagement & Recovery Status: 2 or less

Level 2 – Low Intensity Community Based Services

  • Risk of Harm: 2 or less
  • Functional Status: 2 or less
  • Co-morbidity: 2 or less
  • Level of Stress: Sum of Stress and Support less than 5
  • Level of Support: Sum of Stress and Support less than 5
  • Treatment & Recovery History: 2 or less
  • Engagement & Recovery Status: 2 or less

Level 3 – High Intensity Community Based Services

  • Risk of Harm: 3 or less
  • Functional Status: 3 or less
  • Co-morbidity: 3 or less
  • Level of Stress: Sum of Stress and Support less than 5
  • Level of Support: Sum of Stress and Support less than 5
  • Treatment & Recovery History: 3 or less
  • Engagement & Recovery Status: 3 or less

Level 4 – Medically Monitored Non-Residential Services

  • Risk of Harm: 3 or less
  • Functional Status: 3 or less
  • Co-morbidity: 3 or less
  • Level of Stress: 3 or 4
  • Level of Support: 3 or less
  • Treatment & Recovery History: 3 or 4
  • Engagement & Recovery Status: 3 or 4

Level 5 – Medically Monitored Residential Services

  • Risk of Harm: If the score is 4 or higher – the client is automatically Level 5
  • Functional Status: If the score is 4 or higher – most clients are automatically Level 5
  • Co-morbidity: If the score is 4 or higher – most clients are automatically Level 5
  • Level of Stress: 4 or more in combination with a rating of 3 or higher on Risk of Harm, Functional Status or Co-morbidity
  • Level of Support: 4 or more in combination with a rating of 3 or higher on Risk of Harm, Functional Status or Co-morbidity
  • Treatment & Recovery History: 3 or more in combination with a rating of 3 or higher on Risk of Harm, Functional Status or Co-morbidity
  • Engagement & Recovery Status: 3 or more in combination with a rating of 3 or higher on Risk of Harm, Functional Status or Co-morbidity

Level 6 – Medically Managed Residential Services

  • Risk of Harm: If the score is 5 or higher – the client is automatically Level 6
  • Functional Status: If the score is 5 or higher – the client is automatically Level 6
  • Co-morbidity: If the score is 5 or higher the client is automatically Level 6
  • Level of Stress: 4 or more
  • Level of Support: 4 or more
  • Treatment & Recovery History: 4 or more
  • Engagement & Recovery Status: 4 or more

Given that there are a number of nuances in the exact scoring it’s recommended that an individual read or receive structured training in administration of the LOCUS. The LOCUS manual also provides a decision tree (not shown) to assist in making your determinations and a determination grid (shown below.)

Level of Care Determination Grid

LOCUS Level of Care Determination Grid

Research

Although the LOCUS is widely used, research is surprisingly limited.

The initial study validating the LOCUS was Sowers, George & Thomson (1999). Their study examined scores on the LOCUS and correlated them to expert decisions to see if the LOCUS matched that decision-making; their results indicated that it performed well in this function.

Kimura, Yagi & Toshizumi (2013) reviewed the LOCUS by comparing scores on it to the Global Assessment Scale (GAS) scores, a similar tool and examining the change of scores from admission to discharge. They found it a sensitive and effective tool for clinical use in Japan.

Ontario Shores, a large mental hospital in Whitby, ON implements the LOCUS along with the RAI tools as well.

References

American Association of Community Psychiatrists. (2009) LOCUS Level of Care Utilization System for Psychiatric and Addictions Services, Adult Version 2010. Retrieved on January 18, 2017 from http://cchealth.org/mentalhealth/pdf/LOCUS.pdf

Kimura, T., Yagi, F., & Yoshizumi, A. (2013). Application of Level of Care Utilization System for Psychiatric and Addiction Services (LOCUS) to Psychiatric Practice in Japan: A Preliminary Assessment of Validity and Sensitivity to Change. Community Mental Health Journal, 49(4), 477-491. doi:10.1007/s10597-012-9562-6

Sowers, W., George, C., & Thomson, K. R. (1999). Level of care utilization system for psychiatric and addiction services (LOCUS): a preliminary assessment of reliability and validity. Community Mental Health Journal, (6), 545.

Cite this article as: MacDonald, D.K., (2017), "Level of Care Utilization System (LOCUS)," retrieved on April 24, 2018 from http://dustinkmacdonald.com/level-care-utilization-system-locus/.
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditmailby feather

Preventing Burnout on Crisis Lines

Introduction

Burnout is defined as a state of ineffectiveness comprising “emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment.” (Maslach, 1982) It is a pervasive and frustrating state, accounting for a large portion of the turnover experienced in mental health services, including volunteer and paraprofessional organizations like crisis lines.

There are a number of models of burnout, but one stage model is presented below from Cherniss (1980) and reproduced in Kinzel & Nanson (2000):

Stage 1: Stress

Stress is the first stage of burnout, when an individual is functioning at a level that exceeds their optimal operating conditions. This could be because of internal factors (like wanting a promotion or being intensely devoted to work), external factors (like being given a larger caseload due to budget cuts) or interpersonal factors (like a negative relationship with a colleague or supervisor.)

Stage 2: Strain

When a person experiences strain, they have now operated in a state of stress long enough that they are reaching a point of emotional exhaustion. Their coping begins to be maldaptive and they often experience negative somatic or physical complaints like headaches.

Stage 3: Defensive Coping

In the final stage of burnout, an individual’s burnout begins negatively impacting their ability to take calls or otherwise perform their helpline work. There is a lack of empathy or concern for the callers and this may be accompanied by blaming the callers or detachment from the situation. At this stage

Causes of Burnout

There are a variety of causes of burnout. Some listed by Kinzel & Nanson (2000) include:

  • Nature of crisis calls
  • Negative emotions experienced during the calls like anger or guilt
  • Countertransferrence (being triggered by one’s own experiences while supporting another)
  • Repeat or regular callers creating a feeling of powerlessness or ineffectiveness
  • A lack of effective coping skills

Additionally Kinzel & Nanson note studies that revealed the presence of magical thinking (assuming the situation would get better on its own) and escape-avoidance coping skills were associated with an increase in burnout, along with detachment and personality responsibility.

Paradoxically, workers who were too involved (taking personal responsibility for callers) were more likely to experience burnout as were volunteers who were detached. The least likely to experience burnout is the crisis line worker who stays emotionally connected to a caller but also recognizes that their life is their life and it is not the worker’s responsibility to change it. (Mishara & Giroux, 1993)

Assessing Burnout

The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E., & Leiter, 1996) is the most common measure for assessing burnout. It is a 21-item scale that produces scores on three subscales: Emotional Exhaustion, Personal Accomplishment and Depersonalization.

Morse et. al. (2012) notes example cut-off scores for the three scales as follows “emotional exhaustion scores of at least 21, depersonalization scores of at least 8, and personal accomplishment scores of 28 or below” but with the caveat that those scores may be lower than necessary, artificially inflating the presence of burnout in mental health professionals.

Helpline managers will need to take the lead in determining whether their workers are experiencing symptoms of burnout. This may be witnessed in the quality of listened calls, in the comments made on call reports, or contacts that occur off the lines. For instance, volunteers who:

  • Started giving more advice to callers
  • Talked to staff about frustration with non-suicidal callers “wasting” distress line time
  • Missed shifts because of not being emotionally capable

These may be situations where you would recommend burnout prevention activities. Potential treatments for burnout are discussed more in-depth below, but in the helpline environment a leave of absence (LOA) from the lines for a while, increased self-care or decreased activity (e.g. limiting hours weekly or monthly) can help avoid burnout.

Treatments for Burnout

Smullens (2013), writing for Social Worker magazine notes a number of strategies including:

  • Stimulus control and counterconditioning. Stimulus control involves active decisions like not choosing to eat lunch at your desk or bringing a plant into the office while counterconditioning involves physical exercise, hobbies, or other diversions
  • Mental health treatment. Therapists should seek their own therapy when their personal issues interfere, and someone who is experiencing or worried about experiencing burnout is certainly under that category
  • Diversify. This refers to the idea of changing your responsibilities to give you non-clinical activities that help to refresh and restore you. For many social workers, this involves teaching, conferences, or other activities, but for heplline workers it can also involve becoming a leadership volunteer, serving on a non-profit Board or another form of volunteerism

Oser et. al. 2013) added to this with burnout prevention strategies including:

  • Coworker support. Being able to vent to colleagues who have a sense of what you’re going through and understand your organizational culture can be very helpful. Feeling like (or being) isolated without anyone to discuss concerns with can exacerbate feelings of ineffectiveness. This applies to helpline workers as well, who can make frequent use of debriefing
  • Clinical supervision. Supervision can also help reduce feelings of isolation and ineffectiveness by giving individuals an opportunity to identify maladaptive coping strategies or other issues that may lead to burnout

Research is continuing so hopefully in the future we have specific therapies designed for burnout and options; a number of individuals leave the helping professions each year because of burnout, which is obviously not ideal.

References

Bowden, G. E., Elizabeth Smith, J. C., Parker, P. A., & Christian Boxall, M. J. (2015). Working on the Edge: Stresses and Rewards of Work in a Front-line Mental Health Service. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 22(6), 488-501. doi:10.1002/cpp.1912

Cherniss (1980). Staff Burn-Out. Job Stress in the Human Services. Sage Publications.

Kinzel, A., & Nanson, J. (2000). Education and debriefing: Strategies for preventing crises in crisis-line volunteers. Crisis: The Journal Of Crisis Intervention And Suicide Prevention, 21(3), 126-134. doi:10.1027//0227-5910.21.3.126

Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The Cost of Caring. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Mishara, B.L., Giroux, G. (1993). The relationship between coping strategies and perceived stress in telephone intervention volunteers at a suicide prevention center. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, 23(3).

Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E., & Leiter, M.P. (1996) Maslach Burnout Inventory (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Morse, G., Salyers, M. P., Rollins, A. L., Monroe-DeVita, M., & Pfahler, C. (2012). Burnout in Mental Health Services: A Review of the Problem and Its Remediation. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 39(5), 341–352. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-011-0352-1

Smullens, S. (2013) What I Wish I Had Known: Burnout and Self-Care in Our Social Work Profession. Social Worker. Retrieved on December 28, 2016 from http://www.socialworker.com/feature-articles/field-placement/What_I_Wish_I_Had_Known_Burnout_and_Self-Care_in_Our_Social_Work_Profession/

Cite this article as: MacDonald, D.K., (2017), "Preventing Burnout on Crisis Lines," retrieved on April 24, 2018 from http://dustinkmacdonald.com/preventing-burnout-on-crisis-lines/.
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditmailby feather

Building a Suicide Prevention Group

Introduction

I’ve had the pleasure of serving on the Durham Region Youth Suicide Prevention (YSP) Action Group since February 2016. The goal of the YSP is to address the rising youth suicide rates in Durham Region in Ontario. This group was financially supported by a 3-year grant from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services.

For other regions interested in implementing similar suicide prevention groups (whether to address youth, elderly, military, or other targeted group suicide rates or others) the following may be helpful. Because my group was focused on youth suicide prevention, more of the resources below apply to that but the concepts are equally applicable to others.

Building Capacity

The first step is for your suicide prevention group to learn about suicide in your targeted population. Academic journals can be helpful in this way, as can other resources depending on the group you are looking for. I’ve linked some examples below, including a number of blog articles.

Learning About Adult Suicide

Learning About Elder Suicide

Learning About Law Enforcement Suicide

Learning About Male Suicide

Learning About Military Suicide

Learning About Youth Suicide

Choosing Your Suicide Prevention Group Members

In order to develop a suicide prevention group, you must identify individuals in the community who can participate. In order to be most effective, a suicide group should be cross-sectorial – that is, it should include individuals from a variety of stakeholders that are affected by that demographic. Examples of sectors and include:

  • Criminal Justice
  • Education
  • Faith / Religion
  • Hospital / Medical
  • Mental Health
  • Substance Abuse

It is important to recognize that regardless of the group you target, many of these stakeholders will be relevant. For instance, in an elderly suicide prevention group, organizations that work with seniors directly (such as seniors centres, long-term care facilities and hospices) will be important, but faith-based organizations, substance abuse workers and criminal justice may provide valuable insight based on their work with elderly clients.

Conducting A Needs Assessment

Once you’ve identified the group of individuals who will make a part of your suicide prevention group, the next step is to conduct a needs assessment. Needs assessments are formal explorations of what exists in your community, and what does not. This allows you to identify the gaps and make a formal plan for eliminating those gaps.

Examples of completed needs assessment for suicide prevention include Shasta County, California and Juneau, Alaska.

This strategic planning tool from TogetherToLive can help you start your needs assessment process. This process should also include community consultation via surveys, focus groups or other methods to collect information from individuals who have lived experience with suicide in your community, especially in your target demographic.

Choosing Interventions

Now that you’ve conducted a needs assessment, you have an idea what elements are lacking in your community. Interventions fall into one of three categories:

  1. Universal Interventions apply to everyone in a particular area. For instance, all individuals who present to an emergency room are administered a suicide screening measure; this is a universal intervention
  2. Indicated Interventions apply to individuals who are identified as high-risk for suicide. For instance, students who appear to be experiencing emotional health issues are referred to school mental health counselling
  3. Selected Interventions apply to individuals who present with suicide risk factors or warning signs. These can include referrals to therapists, crisis lines or transportation to the hospital for emergency mental health treatment.

There are a variety of interventions that your suicide prevention group can choose, targeting four different categories. These categories are Life Promotion (or Primary Prevention), Suicide Prevention, and Postvention.

Life Promotion Interventions

Life promotion interventions are those that focus on “build[ing] their resilience through their personal strengths, available resources and relationships with those around them.” These interventions focus on individuals who haven’t yet experienced suicidality. For youth, this will involve programs about self-esteem, healthy relationships and problem-solving, while for soldiers this might include PTSD awareness, managing combat stress and accessing physical and mental health resources as needed.

Suicide Prevention Interventions

Suicide prevention interventions are those that focus on individuals who have expressed suicidal ideation or at risk for suicide. This is the most common category for intervention because these individuals have begun to slide down the river towards suicide.

  • Restricting Access to Means – Restricting access to lethal means involves training individuals to assess and remove lethal means like firearms or lethal quantities from suicidal individuals so that they are able to stay safer. (Johnson, et. al., 2011)
  • Web-Based Suicide Prevention/Support Services – These include online discussion boards and other resources that provide platforms for suicidal people to discuss their issues, crisis chat services and other web-based programs. The Best Practices for Online Technologies (Reidenberg, Wolens, & James, 2013) can help with this.
  • Suicide Prevention Training for Primary Care Physicians – Primary care physicians represent an important point of contact for suicidal individuals. Primary care physicians often report feeling undertrained to adequately respond to suicide (McDowell, Lineberry & Bostwick, 2011).
  • Suicide Screening – Suicide screening involves administering a tool to individuals without necessarily having identified suicide risk yet. This can be a universal or indicated method. The ED-SAFE study (discussed more under “Emergency Department and Follow-Up Care” explains the advantages of universal screening. Troister et. al. (2015) discusses three screening tools: the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II), the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) and the Psychache Scale.
  • Gatekeeper Training – Gatekeeeper Training equips laypersons with the tools to recognize suicide risk and to connect with medium and long-term resources like crisis lines and therapy. Popular (and validated) crisis lines include ASIST (Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training; Rogers, 2010) and QPR (Question, Persuade, Refer; Quinnett, 2012).
  • Suicide Hotlines and Crisis Lines – Suicide hotlines and crisis lines provide immediate emotional support, suicide risk assessment, crisis intervention and safety planning. They are an important element in the suicide prevention framework by catching individuals who may be very close to suicide. Crisis line outcomes have been studied (Kalafat, 2007; Gould, et. al., 2007) and found to have a range of benefits to callers.
  • Psychological Treatment / Psychiatric Treatment – Psychological and psychiatric treatment includes therapy, counselling, medication and a range of other treatments that are available and provided by mental health clinicians. The availability of mental health treatment can have an impact on the suicide rate. (Jagodic, 2013; Kapusta, et. al., 2010)
  • Emergency Department and Follow-Up Care – Emergency departments represent an important access point for mental health care. Universal screening with the ED-SAFE Tool has been shown to double the rate of detected suicide versus a control population. (Boudreaux, et. al., 2015) Additionally follow up has been shown to reduce the rate of re-admission. (Harrison, et. al., 2011)
  • Reducing the Harmful Use of Alcohol – Substance abuse is significantly related to suicidal behaviour. (Wilcox, Conner, & Caine, 2004) By assessing the risk of substance abuse and putting in place treatment options for the targeted population, the impact of addiction or harmful use of substances, including alcohol can be reduced.

Postvention Interventions

Postvention interventions refer to those items that are implemented in the aftermath of a suicide death. A number of interventions are listed on the TogetherToLive Postvention section. Some of these resources are explored below:

  • Provide immediate debriefing and information to survivors helps reduce the impact of the loss (Cox et. al., 2012; Parsons, 1996; Celotta, 1995; King, 1999) This debriefing should provide psychoeducation on grieving, depression and potential post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) while also emphasizing the importance of grieving.
  • Identify individuals at high risk and reach out to them (Celotta, 1995; Carter & Brooks, 1990). How this occurs will differ depending on the targeted population but it is important that a system is in place to refer individuals for support (an indicated risk strategy) and ensure that all those affected know how to reach out.
  • Ensure the media provides a respectful response to the suicide that acknowledges its impact without glorifying it (Bohanna & Wang, 2012; MediaWise, 2003) Safe messaging strategies can be implemented to reduce the risk of suicide contagion

Implementing Your Interventions

Once you’ve determined the interventions you would like to choose, you must begin to implement them. This can be accomplished by breaking your suicide group into sub-teams that focus on specific interventions. This allows you to begin to tweak your approach by seeing your chosen interventions applied in actual practice. Examples of implementations for some of the above interventions could include:

  • Providing ASIST gatekeeper training to local community members
  • Arranging for training of primary care physicians in suicide risk assessment
  • Distributing posters with information on local crisis lines in schools
  • Working with the hospital to deliver follow-up calls to patients seen in the Emergency Department for mental health issues

This effort usually requires support from the agencies involved (such as the hospital, the school, etc.) and therefore it is helpful if these individuals are present on your suicide prevention group.

Evaluating Your Suicide Prevention Group

Once you’ve implemented your interventions, evaluation will help you see the impact of your suicide prevention group activities. The exact method in which you measure your impact will differ depending on the interventions you choose, but could include things like:

  • Tracking the number of calls to local crisis lines or admissions to hospital for suicide-related behaviours
  • Counting the number of people you delivered gateekeeper training to
  • Providing pre and post-assessment surveys to gauge learning by people attending trainings
  • Measuring the suicide rate in your community or in your demographic

Ensuring that you have an evaluation plan designed before you implement your interventions will prevent you from forgetting to collect data or collecting the wrong data. Your suicide prevention group can then review this information and tweak your strategy as time goes on, altering the strategy or focusing on new interventions and goals.

References

Bohanna, I., & Wang, X. (2012). Media guidelines for the responsible reporting of suicide: A review of effectiveness. Crisis: The Journal Of Crisis Intervention And Suicide Prevention, 33(4), 190-198. doi:10.1027/0227-5910/a000137

Boudreaux, E., Allen, M., Goldstein, A.B., Manton, A., Espinola, J., Miller, I. (2015) Improving Screening and Detection of Suicide Risk: Results from the Emergency Department Safety Assessment and Follow-up Evaluation (ED-SAFE) Effectiveness Trial. Society for Prevention Research 23rd Annual Meeting. Accessed Jun 28 2015 from https://spr.confex.com/spr/spr2015/webprogram/Paper23206.html

Carter, B.F., Brooks, A. (1990) Suicide postvention: Crisis or opportunity?. School Counselor. 37(5)

Celotta, B. (1995) The aftermath of suicide: Postvention in a school setting. Journal of Mental Health Counseling. 17(4)

Cox, G.R., Robinson, J., Williamson, M., Lockley, A., Cheung, Y.T.D., Pirkis, J.  (2012) Suicide Clusters in Young People Evidence for the Effectiveness of Postvention. Crisis. 33(4) 208-214 doi: : 10.1027/0227-5910/a000144

Gould, M. S., Kalafat, J., HarrisMunfakh, J. L., & Kleinman, M. (2007). An evaluation of crisis hotline outcomes part 2: suicidal callers. Suicide And Life-Threatening Behavior, (3), 338.

Harrison, P. L., Hara, P. A., Pope, J. E., Young, M. C., & Rula, E. Y. (2011). The impact of postdischarge telephonic follow-up on hospital readmissions. Population Health Management, 14(1), 27-32. doi:10.1089/pop.2009.0076

Jagodic, H. K., Rokavec, T., Agius, M., & Pregelj, P. (2013). Availability of mental health service providers and suicide rates in Slovenia: a nationwide ecological study. Croatian Medical Journal, (5), 444. doi:10.3325/cmj.2013.54.444

Johnson, R. M., Frank, E. M., Ciocca, M., & Barber, C. W. (2011). Training Mental Healthcare Providers to Reduce At-Risk Patients’ Access to Lethal Means of Suicide: Evaluation of the CALM Project. Archives Of Suicide Research, 15(3), 259-264. doi:10.1080/13811118.2011.589727

Kalafat, J., Gould, M. S., Harris Munfakh, J. L., & Kleinman, M. (2007). An evaluation of crisis hotline outcomes part 1: nonsuicidal crisis callers. Suicide And Life-Threatening Behavior, (3), 322.

Kapusta, N. D., Posch, M., Niederkrotenthaler, T., Fischer-Kern, M., Etzersdorfer, E., & Sonneck, G. (2010). Availability of mental health service providers and suicide rates in Austria: a nationwide study. Psychiatric Services, 61(12), 1198-1203. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.61.12.1198

King, K. (1999) High School Suicide Suicide Postvention: Recommendations For an Effective Program. American Journal of Health Studies. 15(4).

Lapierre, S., Erlangsen, A., Waern, M., De Leo, D., Oyama, H., Scocco, P., & … Quinnett, P. (2011). A systematic review of elderly suicide prevention programs. Crisis: The Journal Of Crisis Intervention And Suicide Prevention, 32(2), 88-98. doi:10.1027/0227-5910/a000076

McDowell, A. K., Lineberry, T. W., & Bostwick, J. M. (2011). Practical suicide-risk management for the busy primary care physician. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, (8), 792.

MediaWise. (2003) The Media and Suicide. Accessed electronically from http://www.mediawise.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/The-Media-and-Suicide-.pdf on November 26, 2016.

Parsons, R.D. (1996) Student suicide: The counselor’s postvention role. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 31(1)

Reidenberg, D., Wolens, F. & James, C. (2013). Responding to a cry for help: Best practices for online technologies. Retrieved on November 26, 2016 from http://www.sprc.org/resources-programs/responding-cry-help-best-practices-online-technologies

Rogers, P. (2010) Review of the Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training Program (ASIST). LivingWorks. Retrieved on November 26, 2016 from https://www.livingworks.net/dmsdocument/274.

Troister, T., D’Agata, M. T., & Holden, R. R. (2015). Suicide risk screening: Comparing the Beck Depression Inventory-II, Beck Hopelessness Scale, and Psychache Scale in undergraduates. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1500-1506. doi:10.1037/pas0000126

Quinnett, P. (2012) QPR Gatekeeper Training for Suicide Prevention The Model, Theory and Research. QPR Institute. Retrieved on November 26, 2016 from https://www.qprinstitute.com/uploads/QPR%20Theory%20Paper.pdf.

Wilcox, H. C., Conner, K. R., & Caine, E. D. (2004). Association of alcohol and drug use disorders and completed suicide: an empirical review of cohort studies. Drug And Alcohol Dependence, 76(Supplement), S11-S19. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.08.003

Cite this article as: MacDonald, D.K., (2016), "Building a Suicide Prevention Group," retrieved on April 24, 2018 from http://dustinkmacdonald.com/building-suicide-prevention-group/.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditmailby feather

Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA)

Introduction

The Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA) is a tool developed by Ogloff & Daffern (2006) to assess the likelihood that a patient or client will become aggressive within a psychiatric inpatient environment. The DASA is based on the Norwegian Brøset-Violence-Checklist (BVC).

DASA Items

  1. Irritability
  2. Impulsivity
  3. Unwillingness to follow instructions
  4. Sensitive to perceived provocation
  5. Easily angered when requests are denied
  6. Negative attitudes
  7. Verbal threats.

Scoring the DASA

Each of the items are scored 0 if absent or 1 if is present now or has been present in the last 24 hours. This means that if someone is not currently displaying easy anger upon denied requests, but was earlier, that item should be scored 1.

There is no typical cut-off score for the DASA, although Barry-Walsh et. al. (2009) note in their research that “for each increase in DASA total score, there was a 1.77 times increased likelihood that the patient would behave aggressively in the following 24 hours.”

In Ogloff & Daffern’s original 2006 study

  • 18% of aggressive patients scored 1 to 3
  • 15% of aggressive patients scored 4 or 5
  • 55% of aggressive patients scored 6 or 7

Kaunomäki (2013) used a cut-off score of 4 to identify high-risk individuals.

DASA Research

A study of the DASA by Griffith, Daffern & Godber (2013) the DASA allowed nurses to predict aggressive behaviour significantly better than unaided judgements. Lantta et. al. (2016) confirmed the same on mental health inpatient units.

Taylor & Large (2013) question the predictive validity of the DASA, noting that of 200+ patients identified as potentially becoming aggressive, only one actually will. (This “low base rate” problem is the same issue affecting violence risk assessment and suicide risk assessment.)

Daffern & Howells (2007) compared the DASA with the HCR-20 and noted moderate predictive validity.

Current Use

The DASA is currently used by a variety of mental hospitals around the world. Some DASA write-ups include:

Reference

Barry-Walsh, J., Daffern, M., Duncan, S., & Ogloff, J. (2009). The prediction of imminent aggression in patients with mental illness and/or intellectual disability using the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression instrument. Australasian Psychiatry, 17(6), 493-496. doi:10.1080/10398560903289975

Chan, O. (2014) The Assessment of Imminent Aggression in Forensic Setting A Validation Study of the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA) in Hong Kong. Non-Peer Reviewed. Retrieved on November 13, 2016 from http://www.hkcpsych.org.hk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=1338&Itemid=354&lang=en

Daffern, M., & Howells, K. (2007). The Prediction of Imminent Aggression and Self-Harm in Personality Disordered Patients of a High Security Hospital Using the HCR-20 Clinical Scale and the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression. International Journal Of Forensic Mental Health, 6(2), 137.

Griffith, J. J., Daffern, M., & Godber, T. (2013). Examination of the predictive validity of the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression in two mental health units. International Journal Of Mental Health Nursing, 22(6), 485-492. doi:10.1111/inm.12011

Kaunomäki, J. (2015) Patient interventions after the assessment of violence risk: Observational study in a Finnish psychiatric admission ward. Institute of Behavioral Sciences. Thesis. Retrieved on November 13, 2016 from https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/156453/Pro%20Gradu%20Kaunomäki%202015.pdf?sequence=3

Lantta, T., Kontio, R., Daffern, M., Adams, C. E., & Välimäki, M. (2016). Using the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression with mental health inpatients: a feasibility study. Patient Preference & Adherence, 10691-701. doi:10.2147/PPA.S103840

Ogloff, J. P., & Daffern, M. (2006). The dynamic appraisal of situational aggression: an instrument to assess risk for imminent aggression in psychiatric inpatients. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 24(6), 799-813. doi:10.1002/bsl.741

Taylor, L., & Large, M. (2013). Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression lacks utility. International Journal Of Mental Health Nursing, 22(6), 579. doi:10.1111/inm.12019

Cite this article as: MacDonald, D.K., (2016), "Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA)," retrieved on April 24, 2018 from http://dustinkmacdonald.com/dynamic-appraisal-situational-aggression-dasa/.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditmailby feather