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 / SAQsEmergency psychiatry — violence risk

Psych MEQs / SAQs · Emergency psychiatry — violence risk

Violence risk assessment after named threats in first-episode psychosis (MEQ)

FRANZCP-style MEQ on violence risk assessment in untreated first-episode psychosis with substance use, weapons, named victim, SPJ formulation, and documentation.

20 marks20 min
On this page & tools

Target exams

FRANZCPMRCPsychABPNMD-DNB

Target exams

FRANZCPMRCPsychABPNMD-DNB
Prompt
A 24-year-old man is brought to ED by police after threatening to kill his flatmate whom he believes is implanting thoughts via the television. He has used methamphetamine intermittently for 6 months. There is no prior contact with mental health services. He has a kitchen knife in his bag. He denies intent now but remains guarded and restless. Collateral from the flatmate confirms three days of escalating persecutory talk and one prior punch to a wall. (i) Outline your structured violence risk assessment. (ii) Formulate static, dynamic, and protective factors. (iii) Explain the mental illness–violence relationship in non-stigmatising terms relevant to this case. (iv) Detail an immediate safety and risk management plan including least-restrictive principles. (v) Name the role of imminent vs longer-horizon tools and what you will document. (20 marks)

Model answer

Reveal model answer

(i) Structured assessment. Ensure interview safety (staff, exit, search bag/weapon). Map current threats, intent now vs earlier, plan, target (flatmate), access, ability to resist. Detail violence history (wall punch, any other). Explore persecutory/TCO content, command hallucinations, insight. Substance timeline (meth). Mood, impulsivity, sleep, agitation. Collateral from flatmate/police. Capacity and legal options under local law (principles only). Parallel suicide/vulnerability enquiry. MSE with quoted content.[2][4]

(ii) Formulation factors. Static: male, young adult, early violence signal (wall punch), no prior service contact (limits known history). Dynamic: untreated first-episode psychosis with named victim, recent threats, knife access, meth use, agitation/guardedness, minimisation now. Protective: brought to care, some engagement possible, potential supports if engaged. Formulation: elevated near-term risk of harm to flatmate driven by untreated psychosis + substances + means + access; not reassured by denial alone.[1][2][3]

(iii) Illness–violence nuance. Association between psychosis and violence is real but modest at population level; most people with psychosis are never violent. Risk concentrates with substances, prior violence, and untreated first-episode periods (disproportionate share of psychosis-related homicide before treatment). Avoid stigma while acting on dynamic risk.[1][3]

(iv) Immediate plan. Secure knife; separate from flatmate; medical/psych work-up; consider admission (voluntary if capacity and agrees, otherwise least-restrictive compulsory pathway per jurisdiction). Treat psychosis urgently; address meth intoxication/withdrawal; de-escalate agitation. Lawful victim warning/police liaison if indicated. No discharge to shared housing with accessible weapons. Substance treatment as risk management.[1][4]

(v) Tools and documentation. Use imminent tools (e.g. DASA) once inpatient for shift-level aggression risk; longer SPJ-style formulation for ongoing plan — not a score alone. Document scenarios (who/what/when), drivers, actions (weapon, who informed), legal status, observation level, review time.[4][5]

Common errors

Common errors include equating diagnosis with permanent dangerousness; discharging on denial despite named target and weapon; ignoring methamphetamine; inventing Mental Health Act section numbers; documenting only "medium risk" without a plan; and using long-horizon actuarial thinking while missing imminent ward risk.[1][4]

References

  1. [1]Nielssen O, Large M Rates of homicide during the first episode of psychosis and after treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis Schizophr Bull, 2010.PMID 18990713
  2. [2]Witt K, van Dorn R, Fazel S Risk factors for violence in psychosis: systematic review and meta-regression analysis of 110 studies PLoS One, 2013.PMID 23418482
  3. [3]Elbogen EB, Johnson SC The intricate link between violence and mental disorder: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions Arch Gen Psychiatry, 2009.PMID 19188537
  4. [4]Buchanan A Risk of violence by psychiatric patients: beyond the "actuarial versus clinical" assessment debate Psychiatr Serv, 2008.PMID 18245161
  5. [5]Ogloff JR, Daffern M The dynamic appraisal of situational aggression: an instrument to assess risk for imminent aggression in psychiatric inpatients Behav Sci Law, 2006.PMID 17171770