Purpose

A co-produced clinical practice that aims to improve outcomes through a partnership with service users is becoming increasingly important in intellectual disability (ID) services, yet these approaches are under-evaluated in forensic settings. This study aims to explore and compare the feasibility of two approaches to co-production in the completion of dynamic risk assessments and management plans in a secure setting.

Design/methodology/approach

A convenience sample of adults admitted to a secure specialist forensic ID service (N = 54) completed the short dynamic risk scale (SDRS) and drafted risk management plans under one of two conditions. In the first condition, participants rated the SDRS and risk management plan first, separately from the multidisciplinary team (MDT). In the second condition, participants and MDTs rated the SDRS and risk management plan together.

Findings

In total, 35 (65%) participants rated their risk assessments and 25 (47%) completed their risk management plans. Participants who rated their risk assessments separately from the MDT were significantly more likely to complete the SDRS (p = 0.025) and draft their risk management plans (p = 0.003). When rated separately, MDT scorers recorded significantly higher total SDRS scores compared to participants (p = 0.009). A series of Mann-Whitney U tests revealed significant differences between MDT and participant ratings on questions that required greater skills in abstraction and social reasoning, as well as sexual behaviour and self-harm.

Originality/value

Detained participants with an ID will engage in their dynamic risk assessment and management plan processes. The study demonstrates the impact of different co-production methodologies on engagement and highlights areas for future research pertaining to co-production.

中文翻译：

---

比较法医智障人群动态风险评估的联合制作方法：临床试验的结果

目的

旨在通过与服务使用者建立伙伴关系来改善结果的共同制作的临床实践在智障（ID）服务中变得越来越重要，但是在法医环境中这些方法的评估不足。这项研究旨在探讨和比较两种共同生产方法在安全环境下完成动态风险评估和管理计划的可行性。

设计/方法/方法

接受安全专家取证ID服务的成年人（N = 54）的便利样本完成了短期动态风险量表（SDRS），并在以下两种情况之一下起草了风险管理计划。在第一种情况下，与多学科团队（MDT）分开，与会人员首先对SDRS和风险管理计划进行了评级。在第二种情况下，参与者和MDT共同对SDRS和风险管理计划进行了评估。

发现

共有35位（65％）参与者对他们的风险评估进行了评分，而25位（47％）的参与者完成了他们的风险管理计划。与MDT分开对风险评估进行评级的参与者更有可能完成SDRS（p = 0.025）和起草其风险管理计划（p = 0.003）。如果分别进行评分，则MDT评分员记录的总SDRS评分要比参与者高得多（p = 0.009）。一系列的Mann-Whitney U测试显示，MDT和参与者的评分之间存在显着差异，这些问题涉及需要更高的抽象和社会推理能力以及性行为和自我伤害能力的问题。

创意/价值

被拘留的具有身份证明的参与者将参与他们的动态风险评估和管理计划流程。该研究表明了不同的联合制作方法对参与的影响，并突出了与联合制作有关的未来研究领域。