Dynamic risk and protective factors in mentally disordered offenders: forensic psychiatry treatment monitoring, prison release and length of stay

Abstract

Background

The reduction of violence risk and crime recidivism is the core marker of progress in forensic psychiatry treatment for mentally disordered offenders, and commonly used to decide upon discharge from prison-based security clinics. While dynamic risk is expected to relate to treatment progress, static risk is expected to predict discharge from prison-based treatments. Integrated risk-protection assessment is thought to facilitate prediction of treatment outcome.

Methods

In a two-year prospective observational cohort study using a repeated measures design, we monitored treatment as usual induced changes in violence and protective factors, in 117 offenders of a medium-security forensic clinic in Switzerland. Mixed-effects and multinomial logistic regression models were used to predict longitudinal risk and protection evolution, length of stay, and discharge locations.

Results

Forensic psychiatry treatment was indeed associated with decrease in dynamic risk and enhanced protection, contrary to static risk. After 18–24 months of treatment, protective factors counterbalanced risk factors. For risk, both a numeric scale and a structured professional judgement approach equally showed significant improvement over time. For protection and integrated risk-protection, structured professional judgement ratings failed to show significant treatment-related change. Discharge to low-security psychiatry wards was predicted only by favorable baseline risk, protection, and integrated risk-protection, but not by their treatment-related evolution. Longer length of stay was predicted by higher baseline total risk only.

Conclusions

Study results confirm the need to distinguish dynamic from static risk in forensic psychiatric treatment monitoring, and to include integrated risk-protection measures. Treatment length and discharge are predicted by the offenders’ baseline risk profile, but not by the evolution of risk and protection factors. A structured professional judgment approach in risk and protection assessment leads to different longitudinal results than the use of numeric scale scores.