| pubmed-article:17464716 | pubmed:abstractText | Despite increasing concerns regarding the prevalence of violent behaviour in mainstream mental health settings, the impressive body of forensic research on violence risk assessment has thus far had only limited impact on front-line general mental health practice. The common objection raised by clinicians that risk assessment tools lack utility for clinical practice may contribute to this. The present paper argues that this objection, although understandable, is misplaced. Usage of appropriate, validated risk assessment tools can augment standard clinical approaches in a number of ways. Some of their advantages derive simply from having a well-structured approach, others from consideration of specific kinds of risk factors: 'static' and 'dynamic'. The inappropriate use of tools without a firm evidence base, however, is unlikely to enhance clinical practice significantly. | lld:pubmed |
