A Review of an Approach and Methods of Assessing Risk Arising from Behaviour that Challenges

1. A Review of an Approach and Methods of Assessing Risk Arising from Behaviour that Challenges Rai Turton rai.turton@gmail.com

2. Behaviour that challenges (BtC):Causes harm or presents risk of harm A challenge to services: To support safely in least-restrictive environments with maximal social inclusion

3. Risk assessment:Estimating the probability and severity of future harmA simple example (uncontextualised)

4. The need for accurate and contextualised risk assessment • Under-estimation of risk → harm occurs → increased restriction • Over-estimation of risk → unnecessary restriction • Lack of contextualisation → defensive support → unnecessary restriction

5. Focus of this presentation This presentation focuses on approaches to risk rating. Contextualisation is mentioned when appropriate but not properly addressed because it is too large a topic.

6. Two risk-rating methods developed for people who have LD The BILD method (Powell, 2005) Included harm: physical injury/illness, criminal offending and property damage The Mersey Care method (Greenhill et al., 2008) Includes the same harm and also emotional harm, restriction and social exclusion Both methods actuarial, risk rating based on severity and frequency of previous harm Both assign numerical value to severity of harm and modify ratings according to previous frequency Both embed risk assessment in support and risk management planning

7. Example: Rating risks using the BILD method (non-contextualised) A person who caused small abrasions four times in the past month • Injury weight = 3 • Frequency weight (4-12 per month) = 9 • Risk score = 12, risk rating = high A person who caused a broken leg in the past month • Injury weight = 4 • Frequency weight (< 4 per month) = 8 • Risk score = 12, risk rating = high

8. Sources of information • Carers' records, e.g. care notes, daily diaries • Incident reports • Formalised records of aggression, e.g. Overt Aggression Scale • Structured and unstructured observations “A-B-C” analyses of records will support contextualisation. In simplified form: In situation X, the risk of (harm) is (rating); In situation Y, the risk of (harm) is (rating).

9. Strengths and weaknesses of the BILD and Mersey Care methods of risk rating Strengths: • Objectivity: Focus on previous events and use set methods to assign values and rate risk • Congruent with harm-based definition of behaviour that challenges • Can use a range of information-collecting methods Weaknesses: • Use arbitrary weights • No clear method of contextualising risk

10. Alternative methods Forensic risk assessment: • Some scales adapted for people who have LD • Predict a limited range of outcomes • Risk factors not well matched to those found for BtC per se Challenging behaviour scales: • Limited capture of harm • No established method of deriving risk ratings or contextualising risk

11. Suggestions Use adapted forensic instruments for those cases in which the predicted outcomes and the risk factors are appropriate. Use the BILD or Mersey Care procedures but be aware of the hazards of their weighting systems. Identify situational factors that modify risk and qualify risk predictions accordingly. Contribute to the development of better methods.

12. References Greenhill, B., Whitehead, R., Grannell, M. et al. (2008) Human Rights Joint Risk Assessment and Management Plan (HR-JRAMP), Mersey Care NHS Trust. Powell, S. (2005) Risk in Challenging Behaviour: A good practice guide for professionals. BILD Publications, Kidderminster. (Turton, R.W. (2014) Assessing risks arising from challenging behaviours: A model and a brief review of existing resources. Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities, 8, 32-42)