scholarly journals Rates of violence in patients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments

2014 ◽  
Vol 204 (3) ◽  
pp. 180-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay P. Singh ◽  
Seena Fazel ◽  
Ralitza Gueorguieva ◽  
Alec Buchanan
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Study Heterogeneity

BackgroundRates of violence in persons identified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments (SRAIs) are uncertain and frequently unreported by validation studies.AimsTo analyse the variation in rates of violence in individuals identified as high risk by SRAIs.MethodA systematic search of databases (1995–2011) was conducted for studies on nine widely used assessment tools. Where violence rates in high-risk groups were not published, these were requested from study authors. Rate information was extracted, and binomial logistic regression was used to study heterogeneity.ResultsInformation was collected on 13 045 participants in 57 samples from 47 independent studies. Annualised rates of violence in individuals classified as high risk varied both across and within instruments. Rates were elevated when population rates of violence were higher, when a structured professional judgement instrument was used and when there was a lower proportion of men in a study.ConclusionsAfter controlling for time at risk, the rate of violence in individuals classified as high risk by SRAIs shows substantial variation. In the absence of information on local base rates, assigning predetermined probabilities to future violence risk on the basis of a structured risk assessment is not supported by the current evidence base. This underscores the need for caution when such risk estimates are used to influence decisions related to individual liberty and public safety.

scholarly journals Pain and delirium: mechanisms, assessment, and management

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth L. Sampson ◽  
Emily West ◽  
Thomas Fischer
Keyword(s):  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Aged Care ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Robust Testing ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Current Guidelines

Abstract Purpose Pain and delirium are common problems for older people. Both conditions are prevalent in acute hospital settings. In people living in the community, delirium often precipitates presentation to the emergency department. Pain and delirium are known to interact in a complex and multidirectional way. This can make it challenging for staff to recognize and treat pain in people with delirium. Methods This paper aims to explore the complex relationship between pain and delirium and on pain assessment in delirium, drawing together evidence from a range of settings including acute medical, cardiac and orthopaedic post-operative cohorts, as well as from aged care. Results A limited number of studies suggest there is an association between pain and delirium; however, this is a complex, particularly where analgesics which may-themselves cause delirium are prescribed. Factors acting on the pathway between pain and delirium may include depression, sleep deprivation and disturbance of the cholinergic system. Delirium affects the ability to self-report pain. The fluctuating nature of delirium as well as reduced awareness and attention may challenge practitioners in recognizing, assessing and treating pain. Evidence concerning the reliability and validity of current observational and self-assessment tools in people with delirium is unclear but some show promise in this population. Conclusion The current evidence base regarding assessing pain in people with delirium is lacking. Tentative recommendations, drawing on current guidelines require robust testing. Guidelines for people with pain and dementia require adaptations regarding the unique characteristics of delirium. The complex interplay between dementia, pain and delirium warrants further investigation across a range of settings.

Suicide risk assessment in a large public mental health service: do suicide risk classifications identify those at risk?

2021 ◽  
pp. 103985622098403
Author(s):  
Marianne Wyder ◽  
Manaan Kar Ray ◽  
Samara Russell ◽  
Kieran Kinsella ◽  
David Crompton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Suicide Risk ◽  
Public Mental Health ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Suicide Risk Assessment ◽  
Public Mental Health Service ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

Introduction: Risk assessment tools are routinely used to identify patients at high risk. There is increasing evidence that these tools may not be sufficiently accurate to determine the risk of suicide of people, particularly those being treated in community mental health settings. Methods: An outcome analysis for case serials of people who died by suicide between January 2014 and December 2016 and had contact with a public mental health service within 31 days prior to their death. Results: Of the 68 people who had contact, 70.5% had a formal risk assessment. Seventy-five per cent were classified as low risk of suicide. None were identified as being at high risk. While individual risk factors were identified, these did not allow to differentiate between patients classified as low or medium. Discussion: Risk categorisation contributes little to patient safety. Given the dynamic nature of suicide risk, a risk assessment should focus on modifiable risk factors and safety planning rather than risk prediction. Conclusion: The prediction value of suicide risk assessment tools is limited. The risk classifications of high, medium or low could become the basis of denying necessary treatment to many and delivering unnecessary treatment to some and should not be used for care allocation.

scholarly journals Polyphenols and Cognition In Humans: An Overview of Current Evidence from Recent Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Daniel Joseph Lamport ◽  
Claire Michelle Williams
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Cognitive Outcome ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Cognitive Benefits ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

There is increasing interest in the impact of dietary influences on the brain throughout the lifespan, ranging from improving cognitive development in children through to attenuating ageing related cognitive decline and reducing risk of neurodegenerative diseases. Polyphenols, phytochemicals naturally present in a host of fruits, vegetables, tea, cocoa and other foods, have received particular attention in this regard, and there is now a substantial body of evidence from experimental and epidemiological studies examining whether their consumption is associated with cognitive benefits. The purpose of this overview is to synthesise and evaluate the best available evidence from two sources, namely meta-analyses and systematic reviews, in order to give an accurate reflection of the current evidence base for an association between polyphenols and cognitive benefits. Four meta-analyses and thirteen systematic reviews published between 2017–2020 were included, and were categorised according to whether they reviewed specific polyphenol-rich foods and classes or all polyphenols. A requirement for inclusion was assessment of a behavioural cognitive outcome in humans. A clear and consistent theme emerged that whilst there is support for an association between polyphenol consumption and cognitive benefits, this conclusion is tentative, and by no means definitive. Considerable methodological heterogeneity was repeatedly highlighted as problematic such that the current evidence base does not support reliable conclusions relating to efficacy of specific doses, duration of treatment, or sensitivity in specific populations or certain cognitive domains. The complexity of multiple interactions between a range of direct and indirect mechanisms of action is discussed. Further research is required to strengthen the reliability of the evidence base.

scholarly journals Australia's National Suicide Prevention Strategy: the next chapter

2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Robinson ◽  
Patrick McGorry ◽  
Meredith G Harris ◽  
Jane Pirkis ◽  
Philip Burgess ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Suicide Prevention ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Prevention Strategy ◽  
People With Mental Illness ◽  
Prevention Activities ◽  
The Impact

Australia?s National Suicide Prevention Strategy (NSPS) is about to move into a new funding phase. In this context this paper considers the emphasis of the NSPS since its inception in 1999. Certain high-risk groups (particularly people with mental illness and people who have selfharmed) have been relatively neglected, and some promising approaches (particularly selective and indicated interventions) have been under-emphasised. This balance should be redressed and the opportunity should be taken to build the evidence-base regarding suicide prevention. Such steps have the potential to maximise the impact of suicide prevention activities in Australia.

scholarly journals P-26 Challenging the pressure on nhs resources: could 48-hour continuous subcutaneous infusions (CSCIS) help? a systematically-structured review of the current evidence base

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A9.3-A10
Author(s):  
James Baker ◽  
Andrew Dickman ◽  
Stephen Mason ◽  
John Ellershaw ◽  
Paul Skipper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Current Evidence Base

scholarly journals Toward the diagnosis of rare childhood genetic diseases: what do parents value most?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Pollard ◽  
Deirdre Weymann ◽  
Jessica Dunne ◽  
Fatemeh Mayanloo ◽  
John Buckell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Focus Groups ◽  
Genetic Disease ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Sampling Technique ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Genomic Testing ◽  
Current Evidence Base

AbstractGenomic testing is becoming routine for diagnosing rare childhood genetic disease. Evidence underlying sustainable implementation is limited, focusing on short-term endpoints such as diagnostic yield, unable to fully characterize patient and family valued outcomes. Although genomic testing is becoming widely available, evidentiary and outcomes uncertainty persist as key challenges for implementation. We examine whether the current evidence base reflects public tolerance for uncertainty for genomics to diagnose rare childhood genetic disease. We conducted focus groups with general population parents in Vancouver, Canada, and Oxford, United Kingdom, to discuss expectations and concerns related to genomic testing to diagnose rare childhood genetic disease. Applying a purposive sampling technique, recruitment continued until thematic saturation was reached. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Thirty-three parents participated across four focus groups. Participants valued causal diagnoses alongside management strategies to improve patient health and wellbeing. Further, participants valued expanding the evidence base to reduce evidentiary uncertainty while ensuring security of information. Willingness to pay out of pocket for testing reflected perceived familial health benefit. Diagnostic yield fails to fully capture valued outcomes, and efforts to resolve uncertainty better reflect public priorities. Evaluations of genomic testing that fully integrate valued endpoints are necessary to ensure consistency with best practices and public willingness to accept the uncertain familial benefit.

scholarly journals SSRI use in pregnancy: Evaluating the risks and benefits

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
Elsa Du Toit ◽  
Eileen Thomas ◽  
Liezl Koen ◽  
Bavi Vythilingum ◽  
Stoffel Grobler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antidepressant Treatment ◽  
Severe Depression ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Medication Effects ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Pregnancy And Lactation ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Risk Benefit Analysis

<p>Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants are considered the primary pharmacological treatment for moderate to severe depression during pregnancy.<span><em> </em></span>Data regarding the safety of their use during pregnancy remain controversial and conflicting. Decisions regarding the prescription of antidepressant treatment are often fraught with concern around potential harmful medication effects on the pregnancy, fetus and infant. Information on potential risks remains extremely varied and inconsistent across sources. This lack of clarity regarding drug safety brings significant uncertainty not only for treating physicians, but also for women seeking information about depression during pregnancy. This review aims to summarise and evaluate the current evidence base and to aid clinicians in performing a risk/benefit analysis for SSRI use during pregnancy and lactation.</p><div> </div>

scholarly journals Drug information update. Lithium and chronic kidney disease: Debates and dilemmas

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 216-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumeet Gupta ◽  
Udayan Khastgir
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
The Past ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Information Update ◽  
Resistant Depression

SummaryLithium is an established treatment for bipolar disorder and an augmenting agent for treatment-resistant depression. Despite awareness of renal adverse effects, including chronic kidney disease, for the past five decades, there has been a lack of research evidence. This has led to debates around the existence and magnitude of the risk. This article discusses the current evidence base regarding the link between lithium and chronic kidney disease, monitoring of renal functions and its clinical implications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document