Risk management is aimed at determining possible problems beforehand in order to plan and invoke risk-handling activities, as required, across the project's or product's life, for mitigating negative effects on attaining objectives. The process of risk management constitutes a key part of technical and business management systems; it is constant and forward-thinking. Risk management must deal with problems that threaten the attainment of key aims. A constant risk management strategy is adopted for successfully predicting and reducing risk elements, which critically affect a venture. A sound risk management plan entails timely and forceful risk identification by way of participation and collaboration of concerned stakeholders. Effective leadership is required across all concerned stakeholders for cultivating an environment conducive to honest and uninhibited discovery and analysis of risk. While technical problems constitute a major concern in the early stages as well as all through the course of the project, risk management has to take into account both external and internal sources for technical, cost, and schedule risk. Timely and aggressive risk detection is crucial as it is easier, cheaper, and less troublesome to carry out change and amend work efforts in the initial project stages than in the latter ones. Risk management may be segregated into three divisions: outlining of risk management plan; risk detection and analysis; and addressing discovered risks, including implementing risk alleviation plans whenever required (Guidelines for Risk Management Process Review, n.d).
Risk factors
This refers to variables, which have a statistical link to relevant outcomes and lead up to the outcomes. They may be either dynamic (variable) or static (fixed). As a rule, these factors are causal. In other words, some of the risk factors directly play a part in bringing about the outcome, their absence alleviates risks, whereas others are red flags or indicators that provide warning regarding chances of an outcome, but, on manipulation, have no effect on the outcome. Indicators might be linked to other identified or unidentified determinants. One can classify risk factors in several ways: those obtained empirically from research, and non-empirically obtained factors ascertained via clinical evaluation, otherwise called specific determinants. The former have been determined by means of population studies, which are revealed to have possible connections with risks of aggression in future. A majority of risk factors, which are most strongly linked to mid-to-long-term risks of harm have a static nature (Allnutt, O'Driscoll, Ogloff, Daffern & Adams, 2010).
Static Risk Factors (Past)
These denote factors related to an intensified risk of aggression; they are fairly steady (i.e., don't undergo rapid alterations with time). One static determinant is age, since it changes extremely slowly with time. Such risk factors offer information with regard to an individual's baseline risk as well as chances of aggressive behavior in the long run (that is, the best state that may be anticipated in the absence of all dynamic (changing) risk factors). Static determinants are crucial as they indicate the level of dynamic factors, which may likely be tolerated. E.g., if an individual exhibits high static-factor loading, less dynamic-factor loading must be borne. Following is a list of static risk determinants:
• Early maladjustment
• Prior violence
• Employment issues
• First incident of violence at a tender age
• Personality disorder
• Unstable relationships
• Psychopathy
• Major mental disorder
• Substance use issues
• Failure of prior monitoring (Allnutt et al., 2010)
Dynamic Risk Factors (Present)
Whereas static risk determinants inform experts of aspects pertaining to an individual's long-run or baseline risks, dynamic factors reveal the internal capacity of an individual or that of the environment to tackle that risk. These factors vary and cause change in the risk from baseline. They are flexible, and can be altered and controlled. They may alter in magnitude and strength, with time, and might otherwise be absent. In this context, they are not categorical, but dimensional. Some of the dynamic factors can be enduring, and despite being potentially variable, prove to be more tough to change (for instance, substance addiction). Others, like intoxication, are more severe, fast-changing and easier to control. Dynamic factors uncover the changes in the risk profile of an individual from base line (determined by static variables). The presence of dynamic factors allows a chance to improve risk levels through employing interventions to deal with them. All risk determinants are not causal (as mentioned before), and therefore all dynamic determinants are not causal. Identification of dynamic factors via empirical studies may be more challenging as they vary and, hence, the empirical basis is weaker (Allnutt et al.,, 2010; Andrews, Bonta&Wormith, 2011). Dynamic factors may be grouped into internal, case-specific and situational elements:
Internal Risk Factors
These are typically clinical...
Often, clinicians tend to concentrate on these while neglecting other categories of risk determinants. Though there is a limited pool of evidence, particular psychotic symptoms ought to cause alarm (Allnutt et al., 2010).
External Risk Factors
These are external to a person and, similar to dynamic factors, are open to control and modification. They usually prove easiest to alter. These may also alter in magnitude and strength, with time, and might otherwise be absent. It is imperative to bear in mind that an individual's dynamic psychosocial setting shapes external factors; so do events that change an individual's world view, his/her situation, and those he/she identifies with (Allnutt et al., 2010).
In this context, risk evaluation and management have developed into key elements in the forensic field, as well as in the entire mental health field. Community care's long-range viability, which is a fundamental part of almost all mental healthcare services of modern times, hinges on alleviating politicians' and public anxiety with regard to the threat of mentally ill individuals. Though at times, these public fears are misdirected and overblown, they still have the ability of causing serious damage to, or destroying, the headway made towards decreased custodial and oppressive mental healthcare services. Facilities for mental healthcare are duty-bound to try their best and deliver adequate assistance and care to individuals with mental disorders who are highly prone to acts of violence -- whether self-directed or aimed at others. The goal is identification and management of such risks prior to them manifesting in violence. The possibility of emergence of problematic, socially disrupting, and violent behaviors in Mr. Paul Smith, which may upset other patients, healthcare providers and the overall community, may be ascertained beforehand, with effective management helping prevent such behaviors from occurring. Earlier, it was impossible for mental healthcare providers to avert all aggressive actions such as those manifested in Mr. Smith. Also, an almost definite major challenge was advance identification of the slight behaviors exhibited by Mr. Smith and the mental issues that could wreak acute or lethal harm on others. It is only the knowledge of hindsight and unfailing retrospect scope that can dependably recognize the revealing symptoms of a future murderer. In view of this, advocates who blame mental health investigators and specialists, as in the case of Paul, for their failure to avert infrequent and basically unexpected calamities like homicide can do nothing but cause injustice, and incite increasingly coercive and defensive practices. On the other hand, there is a lot to be achieved from frankly discussing better techniques for identification and handling of patients likely to perpetrate aggressive acts, and from initiatives that intend to examine and learn from the unavoidable occurrences and failures, no matter how inconsequential they may seem. However, these practices in quality assurance will only be effective if they concentrate on improving future clinical training and practice, instead of criticizing and blaming people (Littlechild & Hawley, 2010; Mullen, 2000; Storey, Watt & Hart, 2015).
Risk Assessment
Evaluating the ability for threat to oneself or other patients encompasses various elements of the given patient's situation; this includes illness-related situational factors or those related to the patient's immediate surroundings, intervention success, and the form of prior threat. The most powerful forecaster of future 'threats' is past threat; this statement, however, is, in itself, non-existent in the lack of regard of pertinent situational factors (for instance, a patient turns aggressive with increase in intensity of aural hallucinations). Therefore, statements of ability of danger in future, instead of guesses are more relevant practically. An extensive study of violence-related factors, known as the MacArthur violence risk evaluation study, determined numerous variables linked to intensified risks of violence.
Variable
Comment
Gender
Males were more prone to violence than females; however, there was no appreciable difference in propensity. Family members will most likely be the target of female-perpetrated aggression, with home being the place of occurrence.
Prior aggression
Every measure of previous violent behavior in Paul was linked strongly to future aggression.
Childhood events
A childhood history of neglect or abuse and criminality by parents firmly linked to violent as in Paul's offenses.
Race and locality
A trend of greater risks of violence perpetrated against non-white community members; however, the trend is decreasing notably in disadvantaged areas.
Diagnosis
People diagnosed with major mental illness like Paul, particularly schizophrenia, show lower violence rates compared to those diagnosed with adjustment or personality disorders. Co-occurrence of substance abuse with a mental disorder was a strong indicator of violence.
Psychopathy
This…
