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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Psychiatry
Published in: BMC Psychiatry 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

“Who needs secure services for personality disorder?” Results of an expert Delphi study with professional staff

Authors: Zoe Foyston, Celia Taylor, Mark Freestone

Published in: BMC Psychiatry | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Personality Disorder (PD) is an enduring, multi-faceted mental disorder, associated with adverse health effects, difficulties with interpersonal relationships and in some cases increased risk to others. A limited number of dedicated forensic mental health services are available for serious offenders with severe personality disorder. The recent Offender Personality Disorder (OPD) strategy aims to ensure that most such offenders are treated in prison rather than secure psychiatric services, except in highly complex cases where this is not possible. While the strategy sets out very broad criteria relating to this, greater clarity is needed to support decisions about appropriate transfer and hence enhance public protection. This study explored which characteristics professional experts associate with appropriate transfer from prison to forensic mental health services for high-risk offenders with PD.

Method

A modified Delphi survey distributed through an online survey system was conducted in two-rounds with a group of professional experts recruited from forensic mental healthcare; criminal justice and specialist commissioning.

Results

Fifty-one (56%) respondents completed stage one of the Delphi and 34 (61%) of these completed stage two. Consensus was reached for a total of 22 items indicating complexity, including co-morbid mental illness, high level of risk, lack of progress in prison and high motivation for treatment. A preliminary checklist for these factors was developed. Panel members consistently emphasised the importance of the individual’s presenting need, the overall clinical picture and formulation in their free text responses.

Conclusions

Professionals face a complex picture when making decisions regarding suitability for hospital admission for high-risk male offenders with PD, with varied opinions amongst professional experts as to priorities for intervention and a focus on individual needs through formulation. It was, nevertheless, possible to condense these views into a set of consistent variables that can be used to highlight the need for transfer into hospital-based treatment services.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Arlington: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.CrossRef
2.
Kaplan HI, Sadock BJ. Sudy guide and self-examination review for Kaplan and Sadock’s synposis of psychiatry. Philadelphia: Williams & Wilkins; 1998.
3.
4.
Grant BF, Stinson FS, Dawson DA, Chou SP, Ruan WJ, Pickering RP. Co-occurrence of 12-month alcohol and drug use disorders and personality disorders in the United States: results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2004;61(4):361–8.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zimmerman M, Rothschild L, Chelminski I. The prevalence of DSM-IV personality disorders in psychiatric outpatients. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162(10):1911–8.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Coid J, Yang M, Tyrer P, Roberts A, Ullrich S. Prevalence and correlates of personality disorder in Great Britain. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;188:423–31.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Samuels J. Personality disorders: epidemiology and public health issues. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2011;23(3):223–33.PubMedCrossRef
8.
9.
Bennett A, Johnson D. Co-morbidity of personality disorder and clinical syndrome in high-risk incarcerated offenders. J Forensic Pract. 2017;19(3):207–16.CrossRef
10.
Haw C, Hawton K, Houston K, Townsend E. Psychiatric and personality disorders in deliberate self-harm patients. Br J Psychiatry. 2001;178(1):48–54.PubMedCrossRef
11.
IsHak WW, Elbau I, Ismail A, Delaloye S, Ha K, Bolotaulo NI, Nashawati R, Cassmassi B, Wang C. Quality of life in borderline personality disorder. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2013;21(3):138–50.PubMed
12.
Fazel S, Danesh J. Serious mental disorder in 23000 prisoners: a systematic review of 62 surveys. Lancet. 2002;359(9306):545–50.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Ministry of Justice and Department of Health U. Working with personality disordered offenders: a practitioners guide. London: National Offender Management Service and Department of Health; 2011.
14.
15.
National Institute for Mental Health in England. Personality disorder: no longer a diagnosis of exclusion. London: NIMH(E); 2003.
16.
Melzer D, Tom B, Brugha T, Fryers T, Gatward R, Grounds A, Johnson T, Melzer T. Access to medium secure psychiatry care in England and Wales. 1: a national survey of admission assessments. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 2004;15:7–31.CrossRef
17.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence UK. Antisocial personality disorder: prevention and management. London: NICE; 2009.
18.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence UK. Borderline personality disorder: recognition and management. London: NICE; 2009.
19.
Fortune Z, Barrett B, Armstrong D, Coid J, Crawford M, Mudd D, Rose D, Slade M, Spence R, Tyrer P, et al. Clinical and economic outcomes from the UK pilot psychiatric services for personality-disordered offenders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2011;23(1):61–9.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Greeven PG, De Ruiter C. Personality disorders in a Dutch forensic psychiatric sample: changes with treatment. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2004;14(4):280–90.PubMedCrossRef
21.
McMurran M, Theodosi E. Is treatment non-completion associated with increased reconviction over no treatment? Psychol Crime Law. 2007;13(4):333–43.CrossRef
22.
DSPD Programme. Dangerous and severe personality disorder (DSPD) high secure services for men: planning and delivery guide. London: Department of Health UK, Ministry of Justice UK and HM Prison Service; 2008.
23.
Benefield N, Joseph N, Skett S, Bridgland S, D'Cruz L, Goode I, Turner K. The offender personality disorder strategy jointly delivered by NOMS and NHS England. Prison Serv J. 2015;218:4–9.
24.
National Health Service England. The offender personality disorder pathway strategy. Edited by England N. London: NHS England; 2015.
25.
Barrett B, Byford S, Seivewright H, Cooper S, Duggan C, Tyrer P. The assessment of dangerous and severe personality disorder: service use, cost, and consequences. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 2009;20:120–31.CrossRef
26.
Walker J, Amos T, Knowles P, Batson S, Craissati J. Finance. Putting a price on psychiatric care. Health Serv J. 2012;122(6296):22–4.PubMed
27.
Ministry of Justice UK. Costs per place and costs per prisoner by individual prison: national offender management service annual report and accounts 2015–16 management information addendum. Edited by UK NOMS. London: National Offender Management Service; 2016.
28.
Barrett B, Tyrer P. The cost-effectiveness of the dangerous and severe personality disorder programme. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2012;22(3):202–9.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Joseph N, Benefield N. A joint offender personality disorder pathway strategy: an outline summary. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2012;22(3):210–7.PubMedCrossRef
30.
McRae L. Admitting offenders with antisocial personality disorder to a medium secure unit: a qualitative examination of multidisciplinary team decision-making. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2013;24(2):215–32.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Ramsay M. The early years of the DSPD (dangerous and severe personality disorder) programme: Results of two process studies. In: Ministry of Justice research reports. London: Ministry of Justice; 2011. p. 9.
32.
Logan C, Ramsden J. Working in partnership: making it happen for high risk personality disordered offenders. J Forensic Pract. 2015;17(3):171–9.CrossRef
33.
Freestone M, Munholland E, Foyston Z, Taylor C. Identifying characteristics associated with appropriate transfer to forensic mental health services for male offenders on the offender personality disorder pathway (OPDP). London: Queen Mary University of London; 2018.
34.
Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Reading: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers; 2002.
35.
Dalkey NC. Studies in the quality of life; Delphi and decision making. Lexington: Lexington Books; 1972.
36.
Akins RB, Tolson H, Cole BR. Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel; application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC Med Res. 2005;5(1):37.CrossRef
37.
Jairath N, Weinstein J. The Delphi methodology (part one): a useful administrative approach. Can J Nurs Adm. 1994;7(3):29–42.PubMed
38.
McRae L. Severe personality disorder, treatment engagement and the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders act 2012: what you need to know. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2016;27(4):476–88.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
HM Prison and Probation Service and NHS England. Brochure of offender personality disorder services for men. March 2019 edn. London: HM Prison and Probation Service; 2019.
40.
McMurran M, Jinks M. Making your emotions work for you: a pilot brief intervention for alexithymia with personality-disordered offenders. Personal Ment Health. 2012;6(1):45–9.CrossRef
41.
Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32(4):1008–15.PubMed
42.
Black N, Murphy M, Lamping D, McKee M, Sanderson C, Askham J, Marteau T. Consensus development methods: a review of best practice in creating clinical guidelines. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1999;4:236.PubMedCrossRef
43.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. Manchester: NICE; 2014.
44.
Surowiecki J. The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few. London: Abacus; 2004.
45.
Sackman H. Delphi critique: expert opinion, forecasting and group process. New York: Lexington Books; 1974.
46.
The Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation Working Party. Supporting document for the Joanna Briggs Institute levels of evidence and grades ofrecommendation. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2014.
47.
Hart LM, Jorm AF, Kanowski LG, Kelly CM, Langlands RL. Mental health first aid for indigenous Australians: using Delphi consensus studies to develop guidelines for culturally appropriate responses to mental health problems. BMC Psychiatry. 2009;9(1):47.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Cohn DE, Havrilesky LJ, Osann K, Lipscomb J, Hsieh S, Walker JL, Wright AA, Alvarez RD, Karlan BY, Bristow RE, et al. Consensus in controversy: the modified Delphi method applied to gynecologic oncology practice. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138(3):712–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
“Who needs secure services for personality disorder?” Results of an expert Delphi study with professional staff
Authors
Zoe Foyston
Celia Taylor
Mark Freestone
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Psychiatry / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-244X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2268-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Psychiatry 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Does the education system serve as a persuasion agent for recommending ADHD diagnosis and medication uptake? A qualitative case study to identify and characterize the persuasion strategies of Israeli teachers and school counselors

Research article

The Herts and Minds study: feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of Mentalization-Based Treatment versus usual care to support the wellbeing of children in foster care

Research article

Education level and risk of postpartum depression: results from the Japan Environment and Children’s Study (JECS)

Research article

Trends in the use of coercive measures in Finnish psychiatric hospitals: a register analysis of the past two decades

Debate

Research on the pathophysiology, treatment, and prevention of suicide: practical and ethical issues

Research article

A review of changes to the attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder age of onset criterion using the checklist for modifying disease definitions