This on-demand professional training program on the HCR-20 V3 Practice Cases is presented by Stephen Hart, PhD, Kelly Watt, PhD, and Brianne Layden, PhD. in partnership with Protect International Risk and Safety Services.
This program will include an overview of the HCR-20 V3, a self-directed case review and completion of the HCR-20 V3 worksheet, and case review/discussion.
This case study gives participants an opportunity to practice administering the HCR-20 V3 with review from internationally recognized experts. Emphasis is placed on how to rate the presence and relevance of each of the HCR-20 V3 items, how to formulate about past violence, how to scenario plan about future violence, how to develop case management strategies and tactics, and how to provide summary judgments about overall risk.
Case #6 focuses on an adult female conducting pharmaceutical research in a private sector organization in Toronto, Canada. She was alleged to have made threatening statements to coworkers regarding firearms and is suspected of suffering from mental health problems. You are tasked to complete a violence risk assessment to assist the workplace in deciding what steps, if any, must be taken to ensure the safety of employees.
The HCR-20 (Version 2; Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997) has become the world’s most widely used and best-validated violence risk assessment and management instrument. It has been translated into 20 languages and adopted or evaluated in more than 35 countries. It helps professionals in diverse settings make decisions about who poses higher versus lower risk for violence, either within institutions or in the community, and to devise and monitor violence risk management plans.
Note: An electronic copy of the HCR-20-V3 Manual is provided for review so having a hard copy of the manual is not required to complete this training.
Describe an overview of the administration of the HCR-20 V3
Describe structured professional judgement (SPJ) guidelines for the assessment and management of risk for general violence
Describe the rating, formulation, and conceptualization of risk for violence for Case #6