Investigating risk assessment and management processes.
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.
To explore risk assessment and management processes, and how clinicians use risk tools in daily practice, across a single health board.
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.
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.
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.
To explore risk assessment and management processes, and how clinicians use risk tools in daily practice, across a single health board.
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.
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.
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.
Authors
Tolland Tolland, Drysdale Drysdale, McCahon McCahon, Mackenzie Mackenzie, Mohammad Mohammad, Rae Rae, Sunderland Sunderland, Swift Swift, Sheridan Sheridan, Walker Walker, Gillatt Gillatt
View on Pubmed