Violence Risk Assessment Essay

.docx

School

Grand Canyon University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

623

Subject

Arts Humanities

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

6

Uploaded by Desi_89

Violence Risk Assessment Essay Desiree Ortiz Grand Canyon University: College of Humanities and Social Science PSY 623: Offender Rehabilitation and Reintegration Instructor Mr. Tallerico December 13, 2023
Tarasoff is a case that has had a profound impact on mental health clinicians across the United States. In 1976, the California Supreme Court ruled in this case that mental health professionals are required to warn potential victims of a threat of harm when a patient poses a credible risk of harm ( Tarasoff V. Regents of Univ. Of Cal. , n.d.). Tarasoff was a landmark case that established a duty of care for mental health professionals. In this essay, we explore why Tarasoff is so important to mental health clinicians, the violence risk assessment tools clinicians use to comply with Tarasoff’s requirements, and the complex question of whether or not a clinician is civilly liable for a violent behavior exhibited by a patient they evaluated. Tarasoff is of the utmost importance to mental health professionals for a number of reasons: Before the Tarasoff case, the primary ethical duty of mental health professionals was to protect patient confidentiality. The Tarasoff case broadened that duty, creating a duty to protect victims. Now, clinicians must evaluate the risk of harm to other people and, where necessary, take steps to prevent harm. Tarasoff’s Confidentiality vs. Public Safety: How to Balance Patient Confidentiality with the Necessary Need to Protect the Public from Violence introduced the intricate ethical dilemma that mental health clinicians now face when assessing and managing the threat of violence. Legal consequences of non-compliance: The Tarasoff case highlights the legal consequences that clinicians face when they fail to warn or protect a patient. Non- compliance can lead to lawsuits, damage to a clinician’s reputation, and even lose licensure.
The case highlights the deep ethical obligation that clinicians have to put the safety of victims first, even if it means breaking patient confidentiality, a major ethical shift in the medical field. In order to fulfill the requirements, set out in the Tarasoff guidelines, many mental health clinicians rely on a variety of violence risk assessment tools ( Tarasoff V. Regents - GoodTherapy.org Therapy Blog , 2015). These tools play an important role in helping clinicians assess the likelihood of violent behavior among their patients. According to Borum & Reddy 2001, the following are some of the most commonly used tools for violence risk assessment: HCR-20: Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 is a clinical tool that evaluates historical, clinical and risk management factors to help clinicians evaluate a patient’s history of violent behavior, clinical presentation and future risk factors (Arbisi & Cooper, 2003). VRAG stands for “Violence Risk Assessment Guide.” It’s a structured, professional judgment tool that evaluates a person’s history of violence, including past offenses and substance use, to predict their future risk of violence. Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth ( SAVRY) stands for structured assessment of violence risk in youth. SAVRY focuses on assessing the risk of violence in teens. SAVRY looks at risk factors across different areas, such as individuals, families, schools, and peer groups. The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is not only designed to evaluate psychopathy, but it also provides useful information about the risk of violent behavior, since psychopathy is linked to an increased risk of violence.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help