Exploring the use of the HCR-20 by clinical staff in a low secure unit
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Exploring the use of the HCR-20 by clinical staff in a low secure setting.
IRAS ID
265020
Contact name
Richard Barker
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Birmingham
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 4 months, 28 days
Research summary
Elbogen (2002) reviewed descriptive research on how clinicians conduct violence risk assessments and concluded that research is needed to identify what happens in practice. Stating that it is not sufficient just to know that a particular risk factor is linked to violence risk (for example), we also need to understand how forensic practitioners use the information about the risk factors to inform their risk assessment outcomes/assessments, with a view to developing risk decision making models. Dickens and O’Shea (2017) surveyed mental health clinicians in a secure hospital about their use of the HCR-20. They found that clinicians rated the historical and clinical items as most relevant to violence risk prediction, with recent violence being rated as more important to risk formulation than historical and risk management items. It was also found that two thirds of respondents believed that the HCR-20 was a poorer performer for women as compared with men. This data was gathered by a survey of clinicians and whilst this has provided a view on what clinicians think about the HCR-20 and how they use it, it does not explore how the HCR-20 is used in practice.
This research is therefore interested in violence risk assessment of females, and more specifically how a clinical team utilise the HCR-20 in a female inpatient forensic setting. The risk assessment and formulation undertaken by a clinical team will be explored by observing the team risk assessment process and by exploring individual experiences of violence risk assessment and formulation in this setting.REC name
West Midlands - Black Country Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
20/WM/0070
Date of REC Opinion
27 Mar 2020
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion