Evaluating the use of thecollaborative dynamic risk
assessment process and 'circles' toolfrom a ward staff perspective
Jessica Neil
Commissioned by Dr. Alex Brooks and Dr. Kerry Hinsby
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 2
Table of Contents1.Background .................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Risk assessment of violence...................................................................................... 3
1.2 Risk formulation and dynamic risk factors ............................................................... 4
1.3 Newsam Centre ......................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Research question and aims ...................................................................................... 5
2. Methodology .................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Design ....................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Recruitment............................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Ethics......................................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Analysis..................................................................................................................... 7
2.6 Quality checks........................................................................................................... 7
2.7 Reflexivity................................................................................................................. 8
3. Results ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.1 Previous experience: ................................................................................................. 8
3.2 Initial thoughts ........................................................................................................ 10
3.4 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 12
3.5 Improvements: ........................................................................................................ 13
3.6 Improving confidence and competence .................................................................. 13
3.7 Impact on staff ........................................................................................................ 14
3.9 Challenges for service users.................................................................................... 17
4. Discussion..................................................................................................................... 17
4.1 Previous experience of risk assessment vs. the dynamic collaborative process and
the circles tool ............................................................................................................... 17
4.2 Ward staffs’ perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment process and
the circles tool ............................................................................................................... 18
4.3 Recommendations for improvements ..................................................................... 20
4.4 Perceived Impact..................................................................................................... 21
4.5 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 21
5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 22
5.1 Summary ................................................................................................................. 22
5.2 Recommendations................................................................................................... 22
5.3 Dissemination ......................................................................................................... 23
References ........................................................................................................................ 24
Appendices....................................................................................................................... 26
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 3
1. Background
1.1 Assessment of risk of violence
Violence risk assessment has always been a central focus and a key responsibility for
forensic mental health services (Cooke & Michie, 2013). However, the way this has been
done has shifted over time (Singh & Fazel, 2010). Risk assessment has moved through
different phases; from unstructured professional judgement to actuarial measurement of
risk and then to structured professional judgement. Forensic services moved away from
using unstructured professional judgement because of the lack of evidence base, as well
as the lack of transparency, utility and replicability (Quinsey et al, 1998). There was a
shift to using actuarial measures of risk, so to bring structure and reliability to clinical
decisions. These measures or instruments make a prediction based on the statistics of
others; they categorise people into groups and use an algorithm to provide a risk rating.
These measures give the illusion of certainty, yet they do not take into consideration other
influences or individual difference. Actuarial measures are able to tell us what factors
make someone risky but cannot tell us why. Consequently, there was a shift towards
another phase of risk assessment, called structured professional judgement.
Structured professional judgement (SPJ) incorporates both clinical judgement and a
structured measurement of risk factors. SPJ instruments look at specific risk factors for
violence and then allows the clinician to judge how these risk factors relate specifically to
the individual being assessed (Cooke & Michie, 2013). Instruments such as the Historical
Clinical Risk Management 20 (HCR-20), are now widely used across forensic mental
health services as a common form of risk assessment (Douglas, 2014). Structure is
applied through a fixed number (20-30) of operationally defined risk factors, which the
clinician must judge and rate based on an explicit coding system for each risk factor
(Douglas, Blanchard & Hendry, 2013). They include historical, clinical and risk
management factors, which are usually rated using a three level system (not present,
possibly or partially present, definitely present). From this, the clinician assigns whether
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 4
someone is high, medium or low risk based on the number of risk factors present and the
anticipated level of intervention required to mitigate risk (Douglas, 2014). SPJ
instruments can provide some information about risk processes, yet there is still a focus
on the risk rating which is primarily based on historical factors.
1.2 Risk formulation and dynamic risk factors
To move from assessment to intervention we need to be able to understand the
complexity of how an individual relates to particular risk factors and to do this we need to
think psychologically rather than statistically (Douglas, Blanchard & Hendry, 2013) Risk
formulation looks beyond whether someone is ‘risky’ or not and focuses on the risk
process and how the risk factors are relevant to the individual and their risk of future
violence (Douglas, Blanchard & Hendry, 2013). It seeks to explain why a risk factor is
pertinent for that individual, to provide a richer understanding than a categorical risk
rating. Douglas & Skeem (2005) have proposed that what is missing from current risk
assessment processes and tools is the inclusion of dynamic risk factors. They describe
that dynamic risk factors are changeable over time and it is these factors that we need to
understand and formulate to obtain an understanding of risk that can be used to inform
intervention. To explain this further, they differentiate between risk status and risk state.
Risk status is based on static risk factors, assigning the individual a fixed categorical risk
status (e.g. high, medium or low risk) that doesn’t allow for risk to change over time
(Douglas & Skeem, 2005). Two individuals may both have a high risk status but this
doesn’t account for the fact that for each individuals risk will fluctuate over time and this
changeability is not captured by risk status. On the other hand, risk state compromises of
dynamic (changeable) risk factors and focuses on individual variability in violence
potential (Skeem & Mulvey, 2002). Risk assessment is now the process of making day to
day decisions to prevent risk of violence. To do this we need to understand what
aggravates or mitigates risk for the individual, rather than relying on a context-free
prediction of dangerousness (Skeem, Mulvey & Lidz, 2000). Thus, the next phase in risk
assessment needs to incorporate dynamic risk factors and we need to develop ways to
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 5
assess changeable aspects of risk and interventions which target these dynamic aspects so
to reduce violence.
1.3 Newsam Centre
The adult low secure forensic service in Leeds is based at the Newsam Centre and
provides inpatient, outpatient and community outreach to the local area. The low secure
inpatient service consists of 3 wards; one female unit, one male assessment and treatment
unit and one male treatment and recovery unit. The psychology team at the Newsam
Centre have created a collaborative risk assessment process and ‘circles’ tool (see
appendix 1) based on the dynamic risk factors proposed by Douglas & Skeem (2005).
Service requirements are that every individual must have a risk assessment and the Leeds
service currently use the HCR-20. However, several of the inpatient staff have been using
the collaborative dynamic risk assessment process (CD-RAP) and the circles tool that has
been created, in addition to the HCR-20.
1.4 Research question and aims
This service evaluation project was commissioned by Dr. Alex Brooks and Dr. Kerry
Hinsby, who both work at the forensic service at the Newsam Centre and have developed
the CD-RAP and the circles tool. The overall aim of the project was to gather staff’s
opinions and experiences of participating in the CD-RAP and using the circles tool.
Furthermore to develop recommendations for how both the process and tool could be
improved to benefit both the staff and the service users.
The aims of the project were:
To understand the inpatient staff’s previous experience of risk assessment and
how this compares to the dynamic collaborative process and the circles tool.
To understand the strengths and limits of the current use of the collaborative risk
assessment process and circles tool, from the ward staff’s perspective.
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 6
To gather ideas from the inpatient staff about how the collaborative risk
assessment process and circles tool could be improved.
To gain an understanding of how the inpatient staff perceive the impact of the
collaborative risk assessment process and circles tool on both themselves and the
service users.
2. Methodology
2.1 Design
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians working within the low secure
forensic inpatient service in Leeds (see appendix 2 for interview schedule). A qualitative
method was chosen because of the explorative nature of the aims of the project.
Qualitative methods are used to investigate meaning and inquire about how people
experience events and make sense of the world (Willig, 2008). Quantitative methods
would restrict the participants’ experience into predetermined and fixed categories,
whereas using a qualitative method allows for a richer, deeper understanding to be
captured (Willig, 2008). As the research question looks to explore the experiences and
perspectives of the staff team, it comes from a phenomenological position, which is
suited to a qualitative approach. Semi-structured interviews allow for a detailed
exploration of the experiences of the staff team. An alternative method would have been
to use focus groups, however, there were only a limited number of potential participants
and this may have limited the richness of the data as people may have been quieter in a
group than in interviews.
2.2 Recruitment
All inpatient staff members (across 3 wards) that had used the CD-RAP and circles tool at
least once were invited to take part in the study (n=15). To recruit, the commissioner sent
out an email to explain the study, with my details attached. The clinicians that wanted to
take part, then emailed me to arrange a meeting. 8 clinicians agreed to take part in the
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 7
project and of these 6 were from the psychology team and 2 were nurses. An information
sheet was provided before the interview began and informed consent was gained (see
appendix 3).
2.3 Ethics
University of Leeds School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee provided ethical
approval for the project on 13/03/2017 (see appendix 4). The Leeds and Yorkshire
Foundation Partnership Trust Research and Development department also granted
approval for this project (see appendix 5).
2.5 Analysis
The interviews were recorded using a Dictaphone and on average lasted 20-30 minutes.
The researcher then transcribed the interviews and then data was then analysed using
thematic analysis (see Braun & Clark, 2006). A description of the thematic analysos
process can be found in Appendix Thematic analysis is a qualitative method used to
“recognise and organise patterns in content and meaning in qualitative data” (Willig,
2008, p.57). It is a useful method to provide rich descriptive summaries of data that is
accessible to the reader (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Therefore, it is suitable to an evaluation
project of this nature and size.
2.6 Quality checks
Themes from the analysis were discussed with the SEP commissioner, alongside the
illustrative quotes. In addition, the themes and quotes were discussed with two other
trainee psychologists to ensure coherence. Finally, some data from the transcriptions are
given in the results section (see figures 2 & 3) to evidence how themes were developed.
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 8
2.7 Reflexivity
As a qualitative researcher, I acknowledge my own position and the potential bias I may
bring to this project. I am a psychologist in clinical training, which means that I will have
an investment in psychological formulation and working collaboratively. Furthermore,
this way of working is in line with my professional values. Therefore, during the analysis
of the data I needed to maintain my stance as a researcher and use quality checks to
ensure credibility of the themes.
3. Results
For the thematic analysis, I will be looking at themes for each question as these relate to
the different strands of the project. I will then bring these together within the discussion.
3.1 Previous experience:
Theme: The checklist approach
All clinicians reported that their previous experience of risk assessment was
predominately from using a structured assessment tool, such as the HCR-20. Clinicians
described the process as going through a ‘checklist’, particularly focusing on historical
factors and giving someone a fixed risk rating.
Theme: Service user as a passive recipient
The second theme within previous experience was that of the service user being the
passive recipient of the risk assessment. For some clinicians they had tried to involve
service users in the process of completing the checklist but found that often people did
not want to participate and that it felt like a paper exercise that the person didn’t have any
say in. Most of the time the assessment was done without the service user present, based
on historical notes and documentation and then the individual was told what the results
were and what restrictions this meant would be placed on them.
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 9
Figure 1: Thematic Map developed from the data (a more detailed version is in
appendix 7)
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 10
3.2 Initial thoughts
Theme: Optimistic Trepidation
For all of the clinicians there was a real sense of holding both enthusiasm and anxiety
about introducing the collaborative process and using the circles tool. This was a very
different process than the ‘traditional’ risk assessments that they had been used to,
therefore there was fear of the unknown and the uncertainty of how it would look and feel
to do. However, this was coupled with positive feelings about doing something
collaborative and broader than the structured assessments. There was an undercurrent of
the idea ‘making sense’ to them and this fuelling their enthusiasm to use the collaborative
process and tool.
Theme: Value Synonymy
One of the strongest reasons for positivity towards the collaborative process and tool was
that it matched the clinician’s values. Not only did it make theoretical sense to the
clinicians, but it also was aligned with their values which reinforced their enthusiasm for
using it.
3.3 Strengths
Main Theme: Being on the same page
Sub-theme: Shared resource
For all of the clinicians, there was a strength in the shared focus and task of looking at the
circles sheet and trying to fill it in. Having something concrete to focus was reported to
ease the pressure and allowed the service user to direct the conversation in the way that
they felt most comfortable with. The resource being shared rather than being held by the
professional was also seen as a physical act of working collaboratively, where the service
user could actively be more involved in the process.
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 11
Figure 2: Map showing themes and quotations for experience and strengths and
limits
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 12
Sub-theme: Knowledge sharing
One of the most common strengths of using the circles tool reported by clinicians was
that it helped to increase the service user’s insight and self-awareness. The circles tool
allows the clinician to make links between the different factors and provides a rationale
for how this impacts their mental health and offending. These links are then explained
and physically drawn out for the service user to take in. Clinicians reported that this
allowed for individuals to understand themselves more and to see the bigger picture of
what will be taken into account when decisions are being made.
Sub-theme: Normalising
There was a recurrent comment that the circles tool is grounded in empirical evidence,
which contributed to a theme around normalising risk. Several clinicians commented that
they would explain to the service user the evidence and rationale behind the circles tool
and that this would help to normalise risk, as a set of changeable factors that can affect
everyone. This was seen as moving away from blaming the individual.
3.4 Limitations
Main Theme: Individual Differences
Sub-theme: Service user ability
One of the over-arching difficulties named by 7 out of 8 clinicians was regarding a
service user’s ability to engage in the process and assessment. This included the service
user lacking insight, the service user cognitively struggling with the process as well as the
service user being in the right place (for example; being actively paranoid).
Sub-theme: Language
Over half of the clinicians reported that the language used to label the circles on the
assessment sheet had proven a difficulty in assessments they had been part of. Some of
the language such as ‘psychotic thinking’ was seen to be offensive or did not have a
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 13
shared meaning with the individual’s experience and this created a rupture during the
assessment process.
3.5 Improvements:
Main Theme: Expanding its reach
Sub-theme: Making it adaptable
Clinicians reported that being able to adapt the circles tool would be beneficial and there
were different suggestions about how this could be done. One way was to have different
versions of the circles for different factors e.g. a female specific one or one that was
adapted for people with learning disabilities. Another suggestion was to have a blank
circle to be able to have some flexibility with the factors and make it more individualised.
A common suggestion was being able to change the language or to have prompts on the
circles to help broaden out meanings and understandings.
Theme: Embedding it in the culture
The importance of having the process and theoretical understandings embedded in the
culture of the service was emphasised. Clinicians suggested that they would like the
process to be taken on board all across of the service, so that it would feel more integral
to people’s care and not just a standalone assessment that may be lost in translation to
other parts of the service or was over-ridden by more longstanding ways of thinking or
assessing someone.
3.6 Improving confidence and competence
Main Theme: Knowledge and learning
Sub-theme: Theoretical understanding
The clinicians stated that what helped both their confidence and competence was
understanding the theory, evidence and rationale behind the dynamic risk assessment
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 14
process and the circles tool. This was then strongly emphasised as a possible factor in
why disciplines outside of psychology, may not be as confident using it as they are may
not have this theoretical understanding. It was suggested that increasing knowledge about
the psychological theory and evidence would help to improve confidence and competence
throughout the multi-disciplinary team.
Sub-theme: Training
For all of the clinicians interviewed, more training regarding the collaborative process
and using the circles tool was strongly emphasised as a way to increase both confidence
and competence. This was often suggested as being conducted through watching other
(more experienced) clinicians doing it so to get experiential training rather than just
didactic teaching on it. There was another suggestion about using role play to practice the
skills and one clinician suggested that a peer supervision space may be beneficial to bring
together ideas and experiences and to learn from one another.
3.7 Impact on staff
Theme: Holistic thinking
Several clinicians reported that using the collaborative risk assessment process had
positively changed the way they thought about risk. They reported that it had broadened
how they understood risk, by seeing it as a changeable concept that is moderated by
various factors. It was suggested that by seeing it as ‘dynamic’ it allowed different
viewpoints to be acknowledged and therefore reinforced not to take reported facts as the
‘gospel truth’.
Theme: Increased confidence
A strong theme was increased confidence in talking about risk. It was suggested that
using the collaborative process and understanding the dynamic factors in the circles tool,
gave the clinicians an amenable way to talk about risk with an individual. It helped to
break down the concept, to normalise it and to provide a way to talk about risk not being
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 15
Figure 3: Map showing themes and quotations for improvements and impact
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 16
stuck. This increased clinicians’ confidence in discussing risk and made it feel less
daunting as a process.
3.8 Impact on service users
Main Theme: Empowerment
Sub-theme: Treating people as equals
The clinicians all reported that they believed the CD-RAP positively impacted the care of
service users. The over-arching theme that emerged from this was that it was seen to be
an empowering process for the service user by sharing knowledge and understanding,
giving back control and responsibility and valuing and acknowledging the service user’s
perspective.
Sub-theme: Therapeutic Intervention
It was suggested that the CD-RAP was a therapeutic intervention in itself. By doing the
assessment, clinician’s reported that it increased both the professional’s and the service
user’s understanding of the difficulties and that this then positively impacted and
informed their care. It was considered to help improve communication between the
service user and the MDT and thus improves the care by providing a shared language.
Sub-theme: Feeling understood and a fair representation of themselves
From the clinicians’ perspectives, the most significant benefit of the CD-RAP for the
service users was that they would feel heard, valued and listened to. It was suggested that
the service user would gain insight and awareness and that this would then move away
from blame and they would feel that there was shared meaning and understandings. It
could also be seen as a way to illustrate what is going well or what strengths the service
user has, so that the service user feels that it is more representative of them and their life.
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 17
3.9 Challenges for service users
Theme: Difficult emotions
It was suggested that what may be most difficult about the CD-RAP for the service users
was the difficult emotions that it may bring up. It was reported that it can be an exposing
and difficult conversation to have which may bring up feelings of shame, anger and
sadness for the service user. There was a worry that it may cause an emotional fallout
after the assessment and that this might have repercussions on the ward. However,
although this was a worry this was not reinforced by actuarial experiences of this
happening.
4. Discussion
The results will now be discussed in terms of the aims of the project.
4.1 Previous experience of risk assessment vs. the dynamiccollaborative process and the circles tool
Clinicians’ previous experience of risk assessment was in keeping with the phase of
actuarial measurement and structured clinical judgement. All of the participants reported
using structured tools such as the HCR-20 or the FACE risk assessment, however this
was seen as led by service needs rather than the needs of the service users. Several of
them expressed their dissatisfaction at this way or working, describing it as a ‘paper
exercise’ and ‘just ticking boxes’. This seemed to go against their values of working with
someone, being transparent and taking the service user’s view into account, yet they felt
restricted by the requirements of the service. They described that this kept a power
differential between the professional and the service user, with the person not being
present during the assessment and just being told what their risk and what this meant for
them. Again this went against the clinicians’ values of reducing power imbalances and
valuing the service user’s perspective Therefore, when the CD-RAP was introduced,
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 18
clinicians were enthusiastic about a way of working that was in keeping with their values.
Participants reported that the theoretical understanding of risk being an interaction of
dynamic factors rather than one static rating made sense to them and was in line with
their knowledge of formulation. However, several individuals expressed their hesitancy
when they were first introduced to the collaborative process and circles tool. Although it
matched their values and made theoretical sense to them, there were concerns about how
it would actually look and work in reality and there was also a general fear of the
unknown and doing something different. Nonetheless, these worries and concerns were
overshadowed by the positivity towards introducing a way of working that was
collaborative, innovative and was led by the needs of the service user.
4.2 Ward staff’s perceptions of the collaborative dynamic riskassessment process and the circles tool
When looking at then perceived strengths and limitations of the CD-RAP and the circles
tool, it was evident that there was a wealth of strengths compared to a smaller number of
challenges raised by the ward staff. Clinicians commented on strengths regarding the
content, process and structure of the assessment and this all positively reflected their
professional values. For the clinicians, ‘being on the same page’ as the service user was
the over-arching strength. This was being enacted through the physical structure of the
assessment (the circles sheet), the collaborative process and the shared knowledge and
psychological theory. Strengths across all of these areas, were described by clinicians and
were embedded within the clinicians’ value system of working collaboratively. There was
a significant strength discussed regarding the structure of the assessment and the resource
sheet (circles tool). Clinicians described how having the circles sheet out on the table
rather than being held by the professional, created a shared task and focus for the
assessment. Not only did this help to alleviate the pressure from the service user but it
also re-configured the power balance in the room by being transparent about what was on
the sheet as well as giving control to the service user, where they could direct the
conversation and choose which circle to discuss first. Further to this, was the theme of
knowledge sharing. Clinicians expressed their belief that using the CD-RAP and the
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 19
circles tool helped to develop a service user’s insight and awareness of their difficulties.
This was achieved by explaining the psychological theory of how these factors may
interact and moderate risk, providing the service user with the same knowledge as the
professional. So instead of professionals holding all of the knowledge and keeping the
individual in the dark, this sharing of knowledge through the assessment was perceived to
again keep both parties on the same page, addressing the inherent power imbalance.
Clinicians also reported that the theory underpinning the assessment process and tool,
helped to normalise the concept of risk, by illustrating how it is an interaction of factors
that we can all be susceptible to. This normalisation helps to move away from blaming
the individual and was believed to facilitate engagement in the assessment.
The limitations of the CD-RAP and the circles tool were more focused than the strengths.
Nearly all of the participants spoke about service user suitability for engaging in the
assessment as being a potential barrier. Clinicians described that timing may be important
as some service users may not be in the right place or able to engage in the process.
Individuals may not be emotionally prepared to engage in the assessment e.g. being
actively paranoid or not willing to accept responsibility for risk. It was also suggested that
some people may not be cognitively able to engage in the process e.g. individuals with a
learning disability. However, this was also seen to be a generic difficulty with all
psychological interventions. Clinicians suggested that instead of this being a barrier to the
assessment being possible, it just means that the timing of the assessment may need to be
thought about or the structure adapted for different abilities. Another limitation that was
raised by the clinicians was regarding the language used on the circles sheet. Some of the
terminology was reported as offensive or did not convey a shared meaning. Clinicians
described that when the language did not reflect the service users’ experiences or beliefs,
it created a rupture or barrier in the assessment process and needed to be adapted. It was
suggested that terms such as ‘psychotic thinking’ or specific labels such as ‘anxiety’ had
caused difficulty and clinicians described that if these terms did not match the service
user’s experience then this would be a barrier to them engaging fully in the process as
they could not relate to the ideas.
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 20
4.3 Recommendations for improvements
The recommendations for improving the CD-RAP and the circles tool were based on the
idea of ‘expanding its reach’. Clinicians described different ways of adapting the circles
tool so to fit different experiences and to be suitable for different needs. In addition, there
were suggestions of being able to adapt the language which again was proposed as a way
to broaden it out to more people, who may hold different meanings or experiences which
can then be reflected in the adaptations of the language used. This idea of expanding the
reach of both the process and the tool was similarly reflected in the theme of embedding
it in the culture. Again clinicians wanted the collaborative dynamic process to be
supported more broadly by the service and for the intervention itself to be taken on board
by other parts of the service so that it has more recognition and strength as a useful and
beneficial resource. It was proposed that if it was embedded in the culture of the service,
the information and process would not be lost in translation and the rich understanding
that was formulated from it would be able to follow the service user through different
parts of the service to increase continuity and improve care.
Improvements to both confidence and competence, came from learning and knowledge.
Clinicians believed that having a thorough understanding of the theoretical and empirical
background of the process and the dynamic risk factors would improve both confidence
and competence at facilitating the risk assessment. For some clinicians, they reported that
disciplines outside of psychology are not trained in formulation or the rationale behind
working collaboratively. They suggested that this may be a reason for other disciplines
not having confidence in facilitating the assessment and therefore not doing it. It was
proposed that increased training in collaborative formulation would be beneficial, so that
the process can hopefully be taken on by other professions to widen its reach and embed
it more within different parts of the service. One suggestion was to have a peer
supervision space where clinicians could discuss their experience and learn from each
other. Several of the clinicians made reference to learning from others (role-play,
watching those more experienced) and this seemed pivotal in helping to improve their
confidence and competence in conducting the risk assessments.
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 21
4.4 Perceived Impact
Overall, the clinicians proposed that the collaborative dynamic process and tool helped to
increase their understanding and confidence in talking about risk. They found that it
broadened their thinking to see risk as a set of changeable factors, rather than a fixed
negative category. This then also impacted their confidence as it broke it down to
something more manageable to discuss and also gave control and responsibility back to
the service user, allowing it to be a more positive conversation.
From the clinicians’ perspectives, there was a strong sense of a positive impact on the
service users, from being part of the process. There was a belief that the process
empowered the individual and this was done through being treated as an equal, feeling
understood and it being of benefit to the service user as an intervention itself. It was put
forward that the collaborative process allowed the power differential to be reduced and
for the service user to be an active participant in the process, contributing and shaping the
assessment and formulation. The staff perceived the challenges to be the difficult
emotions that the assessment may raise such as shame or anger. However, this was
generally seen to be part and parcel of all therapeutic work in this field.
4.5 Limitations
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this project. Firstly, six out of the eight
participants were from the psychology discipline. Although there are other disciplines
that facilitate the risk assessments, it was predominantly psychology who were keen to
engage in the evaluation. 15 clinicians had done the collaborative risk assessment across
the 3 wards but only 2 people who agreed to take part were not from the psychology
department. This may have been because psychologists are trained to think about
formulation and therefore may be more positive to this way of working. Also,
psychologists usually only see service users for sessions and therefore unlike other
professions may not have to deal with any emotional fallout on the ward that may occur
after the assessment. Secondly, this evaluation was limited to one service. There may be
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 22
differences with the way other services are set up and run which may encounter different
experiences and opinions. Finally, this research project only looks at one half of the
participants in the risk assessment; the staff. There is another evaluation project which is
separately looking at the experiences and opinions of the service users. Therefore, it
would be most beneficial to look at these two sets of data together to get a more
representative picture of the overall impact of the process and tool.
5. Conclusion5.1 Summary
Overall, clinicians recounted positive experiences and opinions of the CD-RAP and
circles tool. Their experiences reflected those in the current literature, where there is a
draw to move towards risk formulation. The use of structured professional judgement
tools such as HCR-20, creates a focus on the risk status and doesn’t inform intervention
(Douglas & Skeem, 2010). Risk of violence is not certain or fixed, which ultimately
means that managing risk is about managing uncertainty (Cooke & Mitchie, 2013). We
need to understand the impact of risk factors, moving from a static risk status to looking
at why certain factors increase violence for that individual; we need to move to process
rather than structure. The CD-RAP provides a space and intervention to do this, so to
understand the changeability of risk and to work with the uncertainty rather than against
it.
5.2 Recommendations
From the analysis, the following recommendations can be put forward:
Making the circles tool applicable to different presentations (i.e. LD, female).
Reviewing the language and potentially making it flexible to the needs of the
individual.
Increased training for staff, including increased opportunities to observe more
experienced clinicians and opportunities for role-play.
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 23
Implementation of a peer supervision space, to learn from each other’s
experiences.
Training to include the theoretical underpinnings, particularly for those not trained
in formulation.
Working with other parts of the service to embed it more into the culture and to
increase transferability of the assessment.
5.3 Dissemination
Results have been reported in a poster presentation to staff and students from the
D.Clin.Psychology programme. A copy of this report will be provided to the
commissioners.
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 24
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Cooke, D. J. & Michie, C. (2013). Violence risk assessment: From prediction to
understanding - or from what? To why? In Logan, C. & Johnstone, L. Managing Clinical
Risk: A guide for effective practice. Routledge; Oxford, UK
Douglas, K. S. (2013). Version 3 of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-
20 V3): Relevance to violence risk assessment and management in forensic conditional
release contexts. Behavioural Sciences and the Law. 32(5); 557-576.
Douglas, K. S., Blanchard, A. J. E. & Hendry, M. C. (2013). Violence risk assessment
and management. In Logan, C. & Johnstone, L. Managing Clinical Risk: A guide for
effective practice. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Douglas, K. S. & Skeem, J. L. (2005). Violence Risk Assessment: Getting specific about
being dynamic. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 11(3); 347-383.
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E. & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent Offenders:
Appraising and managing risk. American Psychological Association; Washington DC.
Skeem, J. & Mulvey, E. (2002). Monitoring the violence potential of mentally disordered
offenders being treated in the community. In Buchanan, A. (Ed.). Care of the mentally
disordered offender in the community. New York; Oxford Press.
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 25
Skeem, J., Mulvey, E. & Lidz, C. (2000). Building clinicians’ decisional models into tests
of predictive validity: The accuracy of contextualised predictions of violence. Law and
Human Behaviour; 24(6); 607628.
Singh, J. P. & Fazel, S. (2010). Forensic Risk Assessment: A Metareview. Criminal
Justice and Behaviour. 37(9); 965-988.
Willing, C. (2008). Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology, Second Edition.
McGraw Hill, Open University Press; New York.
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 26
Appendices
1. Circles Tool
2. Interview Schedule
3. Information sheet and consent form
4. University Ethics approval letter
5. LYPFT Ethics confirmation
6. Stages of Thematic Analysis
7. Detailed thematic map
8. Commissioner’s appraisal form
9. Self-appraisal form
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 27
Appendix 1: Circles Tool
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 28
Appendix 2: Interview Schedule
Service Evaluation Project: Inpatient staff experiences of a collaborative dynamic risk assessment
process
Interview Questions for Inpatient Staff Team
1. Can you tell me about your previous experiences of risk assessment and
conversations with service users about risk?
2. What were your initial thoughts on the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
process and the ‘circles’ tool?
3. What do you think are the strengths or benefits of the collaborative dynamic risk
assessment process and the ‘circles’ tool?
4. What do you think are the difficulties or limits of the collaborative dynamic risk
assessment process and the ‘circles’ tool?
5. Is there anything that you can think of that would improve the collaborative
dynamic risk assessment process and the ‘circles’ tool?
6. What would help to improve either your confidence or competence in conducting
a collaborative dynamic risk assessment independently?
7. Has being part of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment process affected
how you think about risk? If yes, in what way?
8. From your point of view, how do you think it has affected the care given to
service users?
9. From your point of view, what do you think are the benefits and challenges of this
type of conversation for service users?
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 29
Appendix 3: Information Sheet and Consent Form
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 30
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 31
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 32
Appendix 4: Ethics Approval
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 33
Appendix 5: LYPFT Ethics Confirmation
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 34
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 35
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 36
Appendix 6: Stages of analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p.87)
Stage Process
1 Responses collected and transcribed. Read and re-read and initial
thoughts noted.
2 Codes are generated through initial reading of the data, collating data
relevant to each code.
3 Codes are organised into potential themes and relevant coded data
extracts gathered within themes and subthemes.
4 Coded extracts for each theme are reviewed and an initial thematic map is
generated. Themes are reviewed ensuring internal homogeneity and
external heterogeneity.
5 Ongoing analysis to refine themes. Themes defined and named.
Validation of themes and subthemes by independent verifier.
6 Themes refined and thematic map created. Themes supported with a
selection of supporting data extracts.
Service Evaluation Project Staff perceptions of the collaborative dynamic risk assessment
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2017 37
Appendix 7: Detailed Thematic Map
Top Related