You Can’t Triage Terror with Tick-Boxes

Make it as simple as possible—but not simpler

On 26 August 2025, the UK’s Safeguarding Minister admitted something many frontline workers already knew: the main tool used to decide which domestic abuse victims get urgent help—the DASH questionnaire—“doesn’t work.”

Since 2009, this 27-question yes/no checklist has been used by police, health services, and social workers to assess safety. But research shows it often fails to spot the most serious cases, wrongly classifying them as low or medium risk. That means victims are left without protection—and in some cases, families are left grieving.

Start with People, Not Paperwork

Real safety doesn’t live in tick-boxes—it lives in relationships.

Every couple has a unique dynamic, shaped by:

• Triggers: break-ups, money worries, alcohol, jealousy

• Beliefs: “I own you,” “No one will believe you,” “I can’t live without you”

• Emotional control: how well someone can empathise, manage emotions, and reflect

• Behaviour patterns: controlling/submissive, demanding/withdrawing, gaslighting/appeasing

  
  

These patterns tell us far more about safety than a checklist ever could. Spotting them early helps us act before the situation escalates.

Why DASH Doesn’t Work

DASH tries to flatten complex human behaviour into simple data. It misses key warning signs, ignores context, and sets services up to fail.

So why is it still used?

• Cheap – quick to fill in, needs little training

• Fast – looks efficient, but delays urgent help

• Defensive – lets systems hide behind process: “The DASH was done. The score was medium. We followed protocol.”

  
  

Tick-box forms may comfort institutions—but they don’t protect survivors.

When Forms Become a Game

Survivors often adapt their answers to protect themselves:

• Trying to guess what will get help—or avoid punishment

• Tweaking answers to avoid escalation, or exaggerating to be believed

• Holding back details out of fear—of eviction, losing children, or retaliation

• Giving “expected” answers because they know what the system wants to hear

  
  

These aren’t lies. They’re survival tactics. But they make the data unreliable—and dangerous if treated as fact.

Suicide Risk Forms Have the Same Problem

This isn’t just about domestic abuse. Suicide risk forms fail in similar ways.

The NICE guideline NG225 is clear:

• Do not use risk scales to predict suicide or repeat self-harm

• Do not label people as “low,” “medium,” or “high” risk

  
  

Instead, professionals should carry out a full biopsychosocial assessment (looking at someone’s physical health, mental wellbeing, and social situation), build a shared understanding of risk, and work with the person—not just assign a number.

Why? Because research shows these scales don’t actually predict outcomes.

Einstein Had It Right

Einstein said: “Make everything as simple as possible—but not simpler.”

The current system oversimplifies. It strips away the very details that signal danger.

We’re not measuring customer satisfaction. We’re trying to understand whether someone might be harmed—or die. Using the same blunt tools for both is not just ineffective—it’s unethical.

A Better Way: Human-Centred, Dynamic, and Context-Rich

Here’s what a better approach could look like:

1. Start with the people

   Map triggers, beliefs, emotional control, and relationship patterns.

2. Use thoughtful, open-ended questioning

   Ask questions that help people explore their own experiences and beliefs. Follow the survivor’s story—not a checklist.

3. Ask the next right question

   Use smart systems to guide interviewers through trusted questions—not random AI guesses.

4. Capture and analyse the full story

   With consent, transcribe and use language tools to spot themes, emotions, behaviours, and escalation.

5. Explain risk—don’t rate it

   Build a clear, shared understanding of risk, just like NG225 recommends.

6. Use AI carefully

   Only for summarising, spotting contradictions, and prompting follow-ups. Never to make decisions or assign scores.

7. Trigger action—not just paperwork

   Risk should lead to real help, not just a ticked box.

   
   

Guardrails That Matter

• Consent and safety first

• Use data ethically and only when needed

• Keep human oversight

• Audit for bias and performance

• Make sure systems can link up and work together

  
  

The Cultural Shift We Need

This isn’t about replacing professionals with machines. It’s about giving them better tools to hear the full story, spot patterns, and act quickly.

• Thoughtful questioning respects survivors

• Mapping common behaviour patterns respects psychology

• Forensic analysis respects truth

• Controlled AI respects uncertainty

• Dynamic systems respect life

  
  

DASH once gave agencies a shared language. But that language is now too basic, too rigid.

If we truly want to save lives, we need a bold shift:

“Ask the right question, at the right time. Get a truthful answer. Analyse it properly. Let human-guided systems trigger the right action. But don’t oversimplify.”

The truth—and the risk—lies in the nuance, the patterns, and the stories. Not in tick-boxes.

If you would like to discuss with our Head of Mental Health about how Akumen can support your organisation please use the contact us page of this website.