Skip to main content
MMedVellum
MCQsExamsAtlas
DashboardPricing
MMedVellum

The exam atlas that feels like a flagship product — evidence-graded topics and exam tools for MBBS and fellowship preparation. Built to scale to fifty specialties. Educational content only — not medical advice.

llms.txt·psychiatry LLM catalog · sitemap

Atlas

  • Specialty atlas
  • MBBS / Core medicine
  • Dermatology
  • ICU Fellowship (CICM)
  • Anaesthesia
  • Emergency Medicine
  • Psychiatry Fellowship

Study & account

  • MCQ practice
  • Practice alias
  • Exam tools
  • Dashboard
  • Pricing
  • Sign in

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

Clinical Atlas Prestige · Evidence-first

Psych MEQs / SAQsForensic psychiatry — risk assessment

Psych MEQs / SAQs · Forensic psychiatry — risk assessment

Forensic risk assessment for leave and step-down (MEQ)

FRANZCP-style MEQ on forensic SPJ risk assessment for leave/step-down, static vs dynamic vs protective factors, actuarial limits, scenarios, and report structure.

20 marks20 min
On this page & tools

Target exams

FRANZCPMRCPsychABPNMD-DNB

Target exams

FRANZCPMRCPsychABPNMD-DNB
Prompt
A 34-year-old man with schizophrenia and two prior convictions for assault is detained in a medium secure unit after an index offence of wounding a neighbour he believed was poisoning him. After 10 months he has good antipsychotic response, negative drug screens for 4 months, and improved insight. The team is considering graduated leave. Static actuarial ranking remains elevated because of his violence history. (i) Outline how you would structure a forensic risk assessment using SPJ principles. (ii) Distinguish static, dynamic, and protective factors in this case. (iii) Explain the role and limits of actuarial tools. (iv) Write two risk scenarios and a risk management plan for leave. (v) List essential elements of your report to the tribunal or multi-disciplinary review. (20 marks)

Model answer

Reveal model answer

(i) SPJ structure. Multi-source review: index offence brief, prior convictions, hospital notes, collateral, MSE. Apply HCR-style domains — Historical (violence history, mental illness, substances, supervision failure), Clinical (insight, residual symptoms, violent ideation, stability, treatment response), Risk management (leave plan feasibility, destabilisers, supports, compliance, stress). Integrate into formulation and scenarios rather than a single number. Parallel suicide/vulnerability assessment. Jurisdiction-specific legal status noted as principles only.[1][2][5]

(ii) Factors. Static: male, two prior assaults, index wounding, long-standing schizophrenia. Dynamic (improved): treated psychosis, better insight, negative UDS 4 months, engagement. Residual dynamic risks: neighbour as possible target, substances if leave unsupervised, stress of community exposure. Protective: treatment response, motivation, professional care, structured leave supports if arranged, abstinence so far. Gains in dynamic and protective factors support cautious step-down testing despite high static load.[3]

(iii) Actuarial role/limits. Actuarial tools may rank group risk using fixed historical items; elevated static ranking is expected given prior violence. Meta-analyses show only moderate group accuracy and limited individual certainty. Actuarial scores do not write a leave plan and should not veto all progress when dynamic and protective factors improve — nor should low scores override clear current threat. Use as adjunct within SPJ formulation.[1][4][6]

(iv) Scenarios and plan. Scenario A: assault on neighbour if unescorted leave + persecutory relapse + unsupervised contact. Scenario B: public aggression if methamphetamine relapse on leave. Plan: graduated escorted leave first; no contact with neighbour; UDS before leave; confirm medication adherence; crisis contact; suspend leave if substances or symptoms return; multi-agency communication if community risk escalates; review date set. Document who/what/when/prevention — not only "medium risk".[2][5][6]

(v) Report elements. Instructions/questions; sources (and gaps); background and index offence; history and treatment response; MSE; method (SPJ ± actuarial adjunct); formulation and scenarios; opinion on leave with reasoning; recommendations (conditions); limitations and reassessment triggers.[2][5][6]

Common errors

Common errors include treating static actuarial elevation as an absolute bar to leave; documenting only low/medium/high; ignoring protective factors; omitting the index offence file; inventing statute section numbers; and confusing ward imminence tools with long-horizon leave planning.[4][6]

References

  1. [1]Buchanan A Risk of violence by psychiatric patients: beyond the "actuarial versus clinical" assessment debate Psychiatr Serv, 2008.PMID 18245161
  2. [2]de Vogel V, De Beuf T, Shepherd S, et al. Violence Risk Assessment with the HCR-20(V3) in Legal Contexts: A Critical Reflection J Pers Assess, 2022.PMID 35061555
  3. [3]De Vries Robbé M, de Vogel V, Douglas KS, et al. Changes in dynamic risk and protective factors for violence during inpatient forensic psychiatric treatment: predicting reductions in postdischarge community recidivism Law Hum Behav, 2015.PMID 24933171
  4. [4]Fazel S, Singh JP, Doll H, et al. Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24 827 people: systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ, 2012.PMID 22833604
  5. [5]Storey JE, Watt KA, Hart SD An examination of violence risk communication in practice using a structured professional judgment framework Behav Sci Law, 2015.PMID 25615811
  6. [6]Large MM, Ryan CJ, Nielssen OB Helpful and unhelpful risk assessment practices Psychiatr Serv, 2010.PMID 20439381