We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Scalable assessment tools for precision psychiatry are of increasing clinical interest. One clinical risk assessment that might be improved by such approaches is assessment of violence perpetration risk. This is an important adverse outcome to reduce for some people presenting to services for first-episode psychosis. A prediction tool (Oxford Mental Illness and Violence (OxMIV)) has been externally validated in these services, but clinical acceptability and role need to be examined and developed.
Aims
This study aimed to understand clinical use of the OxMIV tool to support violence risk management in early intervention in psychosis services in terms of acceptability to clinicians, patients and carers, practical feasibility, perceived utility, impact and role.
Method
A mixed methods approach integrated quantitative data on utility and patterns of use of the OxMIV tool over 12 months in two services with qualitative data from interviews of 20 clinicians and 12 patients and carers.
Results
The OxMIV tool was used 141 times, mostly in new assessments. Required information was available, with only family history items scored unknown to any notable degree. The OxMIV tool was deemed helpful by clinicians in most cases, especially if there were previous risk concerns. It was acceptable practically, and broadly for the service, for which its concordance with clinical judgement was important. Patients and carers thought it could improve openness. There was some limited impact on plans for clinical support.
Conclusions
The OxMIV tool met an identified clinical need to support clinical assessment for violence risk. Linkage to intervention pathways is a research priority.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.