Risk assessment and the Care Programme Approach: an independent sector initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of public concern about homicides committed by mentally ill people, the assessment and management of risk has become a central feature of national mental health policy and practice. This article reports the increasing profile given to the assessment and management of risk in national guidance on the Care Programme Approach (CPA). It goes on to describe findings from a two‐phase qualitative study to evaluate the integration of risk assessment procedures within the framework of the CPA process and the development of a risk assessment strategy by staff at Redford Lodge Hospital, an independent sector provider of medium secure and forensic rehabilitation psychiatric services.The evaluation demonstrated that Redford Lodge has successfully integrated risk assessment within the CPA process and has developed tools that offer a basis for guiding interventions while the service user is detained in hospital and to inform future strategies for supporting them in the community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.097 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".