![]() ![]() Violence has been explicitly identified as a significant public health problem and currently, a number of widely used definitions and concepts of violence are used within the public health field. Focusing on PD diagnoses alone in risk assessment is precarious as it fails to take into account the complexity of a clinical diagnosis, and risks the oversight of relevant information such as severity of personality difficulties, protective personality traits and treatment responsiveness. ![]() Identifying relevant personality traits that are empirically linked to violence, would be a more comprehensive method of formulating individualised risk assessment and management plans, than purely relying on a diagnostic entity which can often be heterogeneous. It also regards Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) and/or psychopathy as the leading PD diagnosis to consider in risk management. Although the HCR-20 V3 includes the concept of PD in its assessment proforma, there is the need for a more expansive approach, as it fails to attend to individual traits which are considered to be linked to violence and are thus relevant when developing a formulation for the management in the long and short term. This is never truer than in the domain of Personality Disorder (PD), with current approaches to risk assessment “failing to provide a systematic framework for assessors to use to make sense of the heterogeneous presentations typically found in individuals with Personality Disorder and violence” (, pp.610).ĭavison and Janca emphasise the need to employ an integrated risk framework that considers the diagnostic traits of PDs and their co-morbidity with other known risk factors. ![]() The process of assessing and managing risk continues to evolve, with the hope of ever increasing accuracy. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |