[startgroup] Re: Use of T.H.R.E.A.T.
- From: "Brooke HOWARD" <brooke.howard@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: startgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:42:40 -0700
Good idea!!! Thanks for posting this!
>>> "Alexander M MILLKEY" <alexander.m.millkey@xxxxxxxxxxx> 04/05/10 12:39 PM
>>> >>>
Hello Colleagues,
We are debating the proper use of the THREAT at our hospital, and I am hoping
that we can benefit from the experience of others on the list.
We are attempting to rate a patient who is violent on perhaps a weekly basis.
The violence is not targeted - the people being assaulted are selected due to
convenience, not premeditation. Others have been seriously injured by this
patient. This patient's PRESENT risk for violence is high.
Would this patient be rated a Yes or No on THREAT? The risk of violence is
real, enactable, and perhaps acute. However, it is not targeted. Must the risk
for violence be targeted to be a THREAT on the START, or are the latter three
sufficient?
Thanks in Advance,
Alex
Alexander M. Millkey, Psy.D.
Evaluation Psychologist
Forensic Evaluation Service
Oregon State Hospital
Office: (503) 945-9262
Fax: (503) 945-9747
Confidentiality Notice: This message is intended solely for the entity or
individual to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized disclosure, copying , or
distribution of this message is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this e-mail,
including any attachment, is intended to be a legally binding signature. If you
are not the intended addressee, you should contact the sender immediately and
delete this message. Thank you.
Other related posts:
