Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Psychiatry
Published in: BMC Psychiatry 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

The risks, needs and stages of recovery of a complete forensic patient cohort in an Australian state

Authors: Jonathon Adams, Stuart D. M. Thomas, Tobias Mackinnon, Damien Eggleton

Published in: BMC Psychiatry | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Routine outcome measures are increasingly being mandated across mental health services in Australia and overseas. This requirement includes forensic mental health services, but their utility in such specialist services and the inter-relationships between the measures remain unclear. This study sought to characterise the risks, needs and stages of recovery of an entire cohort of forensic patients in one jurisdiction in Australia.

Methods

Local expert groups, comprising of members of the forensic patient treating teams, were formed to gather information about the status and needs of all forensic patients in the State of New South Wales, Australia. The expert groups provided demographic information and completed three assessment tools concerning the risks, needs and stages of recovery of each forensic patient.

Results

The cohort of 327 forensic patients in NSW appears to be typical of forensic mental health service populations internationally when considering factors such as gender, diagnosis, and index offence. A number of important differences across the three structured tools for forensic patients in different levels of secure service provision are presented. The DUNDRUM Quartet demonstrated interesting findings, particularly in terms of the therapeutic security needs, the treatment completion, and the stages of recovery for the forensic patients in the community. The CANFOR highlighted the level of needs across the forensic patient population, whilst the HCR-20 data showed there was no significant difference in the mean clinical and risk management scores between male forensic patients across levels of security.

Conclusions

To the authors’ knowledge this is the first study of its kind in New South Wales, Australia. We have demonstrated the utility of using a suite of measures to evaluate the risks, needs, and stages of recovery for an entire cohort of forensic patients. The data set helps inform service planning and development, together with providing various avenues for future research.
Literature
1.
Shaw J. Needs assessment for mentally disordered offenders is different. J Forensic Phys. 2002;13(1):14–7.
2.
Thomas S, Harty MA, Parrott J, McCrone P, Slade M, Thornicroft G. The forensic CAN: a needs assessment for forensic mental health service users. London: Gaskell; 2003.
3.
Phelan M, Slade M, Thornicroft G, Dunn G, Holloway F, Wykes T, Strathdee G, Loftus L, McCrone P, Hayward P. The Camberwell assessment of need- the validity and reliability of an instrument to assess the needs of people with severe mental illness. Br J Psychiatry. 1995;167:589–95.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Brewin C, Wing J, Mangen S. Principles and practice of measuring needs in the long-term mentally ill: the MRC needs for care assessment. Psychol Med. 1987;17:971–81.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Thornicroft G, Tansella M. Growing recognition of the importance of service user involvement in mental health service planning and evaluation. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2005;14(1):1–3.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Slade M, Thornicroft G, Loftus L, Phelan M, Wykes T: CAN: Camberwell assessment of need; 1999.
7.
Shinkfield G, Ogloff J. Use and interpretation of routine outcome measures in forensic mental health. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2015;24(1):11–8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Cohen A, Eastman N. Assessing forensic mental health need - policy, theory and research. London: Gaskell; 2000.
9.
Shinkfield G, Ogloff J. A review and analysis of routine outcome measures for forensic mental health services. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2014;13(3):252–71.CrossRef
10.
Shaw J, Davies J, Morey H. An assessment of the security, dependency and treatment needs of all patients in secure services in a UK health region. J Forensic Psychiatry. 2001;12(3):610–37.CrossRef
11.
Thomas SD, Slade M, McCrone P, Harty MA, Parrott J, Thornicroft G, Leese M. The reliability and validity of the forensic Camberwell assessment of need (CANFOR): a needs assessment for forensic mental health service users. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2008;17(2):111–20.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Thomas S, Leese M, Dolan M, Harty M-A, Shaw J, Middleton H, Carlisle J, Davies L, Thornicroft G, Appleby L. The individual needs of patients in high secure psychiatric hospitals in England. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 2004;15(2):222–43.CrossRef
13.
Castelletti L, Lasalvia A, Molinari E, Thomas SD, Stratico E, Bonetto C. A standardised tool for assessing needs in forensic psychiatric population: clinical validation of the Italian CANFOR, staff version. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2015;24(3):274–81.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Harty M-A, Shaw J, Thomas S, Dolan M, Davies L, Thornicroft G, Carlisle J, Moreno M, Leese M, Appleby L, et al. The security, clinical and social needs of patients in high security psychiatric hospitals in England. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 2004;15(2):208–21.CrossRef
15.
Thomas S, Dolan M, Thornicroft G. Re-visiting the need for high security psychiatric hospitals in England. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 2004;15(2):197–207.CrossRef
16.
O'Neill C, Heffernan P, Goggins R, Corcoran C, Linehan S, Duffy D, O'Neill H, Smith C, Kennedy HG. Long-stay forensic psychiatric inpatients in the Republic of Ireland - aggregated needs assessment. Ir J Psychol Med. 2003;20(4):119–25.CrossRef
17.
Jacques J, Spencer S, Gilluley P. Long-term care needs in male medium security. Br J Forensic Pract. 2010;12(3):37–44.CrossRef
18.
Douglas KS, Hart SD, Webster CD, Belfrage H. HCR-20V3: assessing risk of violence – user guide. Burnaby: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University; 2013.
19.
Douglas KS, Hart SD, Webster CD, Belfrage H, Guy LS, Wilson CM. Historical-clinical-risk Management-20, version 3 (HCR-20V3): development and overview. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2014;13(2):93–108.CrossRef
20.
Segal A, Daffern M, Thomas S, Ferguson M. Needs and risks of patients in a state-wide inpatient forensic mental health population. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2010;19(4):223–30.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Abou-Sinna R, Luebbers S. Validity of assessing people experiencing mental illness who have offended using the Camberwell assessment of need-forensic and health of the nation outcome scales-secure. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2012;21(5):462–70.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Council AHMA. A national framework for recovery-oriented mental health services: guide for practitioners and providers. Canberra: ACT; 2013.
23.
Schrank B, Slade M. Recovery in psychiatry. Psychiatr Bull. 2007;31(9):321–5.CrossRef
24.
Dorkins E, Adshead G. Working with offenders: challenges to the recovery agenda. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2011;17(3):178–87.CrossRef
25.
Mann B, Matias E, Allen J. Recovery in forensic services: facing the challenge. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2014;20(2):125–31.CrossRef
26.
Kennedy HG, O'Neill C, Flynn G, Gill P. The Dundrum toolkit. Dangerousness, understanding, recovery and urgency manual (the Dundrum quartet). Four structured professional Judgement instruments for admission triage, urgency, treatment completion and recovery assessments. Trinity College Dublin: Dublin; 2010.
27.
Davoren M, Abidin Z, Naughton L, Gibbons O, Nulty A, Wright B, Kennedy HG. Prospective study of factors influencing conditional discharge from a forensic hospital: the DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery structured professional judgement instruments and risk. BMC Psychiatry. 2013;13:185.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Davoren M, O'Dwyer S, Abidin Z, Naughton L, Gibbons O, Doyle E, McDonnell K, Monks S, Kennedy HG. Prospective in-patient cohort study of moves between levels of therapeutic security: the DUNDRUM-1 triage security, DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales and the HCR-20. BMC Psychiatry. 2012;12:80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Flynn G, O'Neill C, Kennedy HG. DUNDRUM-2: prospective validation of a structured professional judgment instrument assessing priority for admission from the waiting list for a forensic mental health hospital. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:230.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Flynn G, O'Neill C, McInerney C, Kennedy HG. The DUNDRUM-1 structured professional judgment for triage to appropriate levels of therapeutic security: retrospective-cohort validation study. BMC Psychiatry. 2011;11:43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
O'Dwyer S, Davoren M, Abidin Z, Doyle E, McDonnell K, Kennedy HG. The DUNDRUM quartet: validation of structured professional judgement instruments DUNDRUM-3 assessment of programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 assessment of recovery in forensic mental health services. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:229.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Chambers JC, Yiend J, Barrett B, Burns T, Doll H, Fazel S, Jenkinson C, Kaur A, Knapp M, Plugge E, et al. Outcome measures used in forensic mental health research: a structured review. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2009;19(1):9–27.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Pierzchniak P, Farnham F, de Taranto N, Bull D, Gill H, Bester P, McCallum A, Kennedy H. Assessing the needs of patients in secure settings: a multidisciplinary approach. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 1999;10(2):343–54.CrossRef
34.
Statistics ABo. Australian and New Zealand standard offence classification (ANZSOC), third edition edn. Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Bureau of Statistics: ACT; 2011.
35.
Freestone M, Bull D, Brown R, Boast N, Blazey F, Gilluley P. Triage, decision-making and follow-up of patients referred to a UK forensic service: validation of the DUNDRUM toolkit. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15:239.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Eckert M, Schel SHH, Kennedy HG, Bulten BH. Patient characteristics related to length of stay in Dutch forensic psychiatric care. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 2017;28(6):863–80.CrossRef
37.
Davoren M, Byrne O, O'Connell P, O'Neill H, O'Reilly K, Kennedy HG. Factors affecting length of stay in forensic hospital setting: need for therapeutic security and course of admission. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15:301.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Douglas KS, Belfrage H. Interrater reliability and concurrent validity of the HCR-20 version 3. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2014;13(2):130–9.CrossRef
39.
Douglas KS, Ogloff JR, Nicholls TL, Grant I. Assessing risk for violence among psychiatric patients: the HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme and the Psychopathy checklist: screening version. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999;67(6):917–30.CrossRefPubMed
40.
41.
Brett A, Carroll A, Green B, Mals P, Beswick S, Rodriguez M, Dunlop D, Gagliardi C. Treatment and security outside the wall: diverse approaches to common challenges in community forensic mental health. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2007;6(1):87–99.CrossRef
42.
Humber N, Hayes A, Wright S, Fahy T, Shaw J. A comparative study of forensic and general community psychiatric patients with integrated and parallel models of care in the UK. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2011;22(2):183–202.CrossRef
43.
Long CG, Dickens G, Sugarman P, Craig L, Mochty U, Hollin C. Tracking risk profiles and outcome in a medium secure Service for Women: use of theHoNOS-secure. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2010;9(3):215–25.CrossRef
44.
Bartlett A. Do women need special secure services? Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2001;7(4):302–9.CrossRef
45.
Thomas S, Dolan M, Shaw J, Thomas S, Thornicroft G, Leese M. Redeveloping secure psychiatric Services for Women. Med Sci Law. 2005;45(4):331–9.CrossRefPubMed
46.
O'Shea LE, Dickens GL. The HCR-20 as a measure of reliable and clinically significant change in violence risk among secure psychiatric inpatients. Compr Psychiatry. 2015;62:132–40.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Bartlett A, Somers N, Fiander M, Harty MA. Pathways of care of women in secure hospitals: which women go where and why. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205(4):298–306.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The risks, needs and stages of recovery of a complete forensic patient cohort in an Australian state
Authors
Jonathon Adams
Stuart D. M. Thomas
Tobias Mackinnon
Damien Eggleton
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Psychiatry / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-244X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1584-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Psychiatry 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder, acute stress disorder and depression following violence related injury treated at the emergency department: a systematic review

Study protocol

IssuEs in Palliative care for people in advanced and terminal stages of Young-onset and Late-Onset dementia in GErmany (EPYLOGE): the study protocol

Research article

Requirements for the implementation of open door policies in acute psychiatry from a mental health professionals’ and patients’ view: a qualitative interview study

Research article

Response rates in patients with schizophrenia and positive symptoms receiving cognitive behavioural therapy: a systematic review and single-group meta-analysis

Research article

Sleep better, feel better? Effects of a CBT-I and HT-I sleep training on mental health, quality of life and stress coping in university students: a randomized pilot controlled trial

Research article

Attachment, mentalisation and expressed emotion in carers of people with long-term mental health difficulties