Short‐term risk assessment in the long term: A scoping review and meta‐analysis of the Brøset Violence Checklist

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: The Brøset Violence Checklist (BVC) has been widely translated and implemented in diverse mental healthcare settings to improve prevention of violence. It is valued as a brief but effective tool in clinical practice. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This review is the largest and most comprehensive international review of the BVC conducted in the 25+ years since the inception of the instrument in 1995. It integrates findings from existing studies and establishes that the tool has many impressive strengths considering the brief time investment required for completion. The review reveals that the tool has been used in more than 20 different countries around the world in a variety of mental health and other settings as both a risk assessment tool to guide clinical practice and as a formally structured intervention to minimize violence. There is much variation in how the tool is implemented and scored in different services. This variation questions its applicability as a resource and consistency and its use needs attention. This variation in use also limits the conclusions regarding best practices. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: The review supports the use of the BVC as one part of the package for mental health services committed to preventive action aimed at reducing violence and coercion. The review identified that the patient perspective was often absent when completing the BVC, and so this should be considered as an option by services as part of a collaborative philosophy of care. ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Existing literature on the Brøset Violence Checklist (BVC) is examined in the context of usability, implementation and validity to provide evidence-based recommendations on its application and identify opportunities for future development. AIM/QUESTION: To identify current knowledge on the BVC and guide clinicians and researchers toward the next steps in using this tool in clinical practice to prevent violence in healthcare settings. METHOD: A scoping review approach with a meta-analysis supplement was adopted to broadly identify and map available evidence on the BVC and provide specific estimates of predictive validity in different contexts. RESULTS: Sixty-two studies conducted in 23 countries addressed the implementation of the BVC across various settings. Many studies adapted the original BVC, and the clinical utility was noted as an important feature. A meta-analysis of the original BVC format estimated a pooled area under the curve at 0.83 (95% CI 0.78-0.87) in a subset of 15 studies. DISCUSSION: The BVC combines high predictive validity and good clinical utility across a wide range of settings and cultures. It should continue to be incorporated into routine practice in mental health services focused on preventing violence and coercion. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Development of collaborative approaches with service users involved in assessing their own risk of future violence.