Tools for the job: why relying on risk assessment tools is still a risky business

Abstract

This theoretical review paper examines the applicability of assessment tools, guidelines and protocols in mental health and substance use care on the basis of the construction of such tools and their reliance on aggregate and actuarial methodologies. Evidence-based practice leads clinicians to increasing reliance on tools for assessment of health status, risk and prediction for a range of clinical needs for individual clients. In the longer-term management of people with enduring and chronic mental health and substance misuse problems, clinicians are often dealing with complex and unstable health needs. The tools available, however, are developed on the basis of majority population evidence and on presumptions of similarity and stability over time. This paper provides explanation of the basis for the development of such tools and argues that clinicians need to be able to evaluate the applicability of tools used for their clients and not just evaluate the internal validity of the tools used to make individual and contextual decisions about individual clients.