Hans Joachim Salize1, Harald Dressing. 1. Zentralinstitut für Seelische Gesundheit Mannheim, Mannheim. hans-joachim.salize@zi-mannheim.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Internationally, there is a variety of approaches and concepts for placing and treating mentally disordered offenders in forensic-psychiatric care. European overviews are missing. Major indicators have not been standardized yet, which is a serious obstacle for cross-boundary comparisons. METHODS: Basic concepts, legal frameworks, service provision and prevalences in forensic care of 15 European Union Member States were assessed by an expert evaluation. Administrative data was compared and conclusions for a possible harmonization of approaches were drawn. RESULTS: The placement and treatment of mentally disordered offenders in the European Union Member States is characterized by a considerable variety of concepts and practice routines. National health reporting standards and the quality of available administrative data is poor. On the basis of available information, models of good practice are hard to choose. CONCLUSIONS: National and cross-boundary research should be intensified. Defining European quality and training standards in forensic psychiatry seems to be an activity to be started on a short term basis.
OBJECTIVE: Internationally, there is a variety of approaches and concepts for placing and treating mentally disordered offenders in forensic-psychiatric care. European overviews are missing. Major indicators have not been standardized yet, which is a serious obstacle for cross-boundary comparisons. METHODS: Basic concepts, legal frameworks, service provision and prevalences in forensic care of 15 European Union Member States were assessed by an expert evaluation. Administrative data was compared and conclusions for a possible harmonization of approaches were drawn. RESULTS: The placement and treatment of mentally disordered offenders in the European Union Member States is characterized by a considerable variety of concepts and practice routines. National health reporting standards and the quality of available administrative data is poor. On the basis of available information, models of good practice are hard to choose. CONCLUSIONS: National and cross-boundary research should be intensified. Defining European quality and training standards in forensic psychiatry seems to be an activity to be started on a short term basis.