@article{ref1,
title="Risk assessment as collective clinical judgement",
journal="Criminal behaviour and mental health",
year="2002",
author="Murphy, Denis",
volume="12",
number="2",
pages="169-178",
abstract="INTRODUCTION: Risk assessment occupies an increasingly important position in psychiatry. This paper contends that collective judgement is the optimal method of assessing risk. THE MEANING OF RISK: Risk has a dual meaning: emotional and judgemental. RISKS FACED BY STAFF: Assaults, threats and survival anxiety. THE EFFECTS OF DANGER ON THE GROUP: Staff wariness and resistance, attribution of blame. THE AMBIGUOUS TASK: For a group to function well it must have a clear task. Custodial roles can lead to ambiguity. THE EMOTIONS OF LARGER GROUPS: Externally directed hostility, internal homogenization of views. SOCIAL DEFENCES: Rituals can develop in forensic institutions, as well as militarism. ANTI-THERAPEUTIC CULTURE: Sadism may develop where a marked power differential develops. THE ROLE OF THE LEADER: Danger intensifies the feelings about leaders, perhaps idealization, perhaps disaffection. Leaders and others need to agree on risk assessment or fragmentation will occur. THE MODIFICATION OF RISK: The assessment of risk may modify it. Mutual hostility must be reduced. Dialogue and understanding are needed. A CLIMATE FOR RISK ASSESSMENT: The environment should be less authoritarian and more democratic, so that patients can join a group and internalize its values. Reflective space is also required. CONCLUSIONS: Risk assessment is best described in terms of human endeavour, not in the language of scientific measurement.<p /><p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0957-9664",
doi="",
url="http://dx.doi.org/"
}