Selena M Pillay1, Brid Oliver2, Louise Butler2, Harry G Kennedy3. 1. University of Dublin,Trinity College,Central Mental Hospital,Dundrum,Dublin 14,Ireland. 2. Central Mental Hospital,Dundrum,Dublin 14,Ireland. 3. University of Dublin,Trinity College.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: It was hypothesised that patients admitted to forensic mental health facilities are stratified along the pathway through care according to levels of need. Level of risk and psychopathology should vary with different levels of security. METHOD: Seventy-five men in a forensic hospital were interviewed by three trained clinicians using the HCR-20 (Historical Clinical Risk Assessment) - clinical and risk items, The Health of the Nation Scales - Secure (HoNOS-SECURE), PANSS (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale), GAF (Global Assessment of Functioning) and the CANFOR (Camberwell Assessment of need Forensic Version). RESULTS: The mean scores on a variety of clinical measures were higher in admission/high security areas and progressively lower in rehabilitation and pre-discharge areas. As patients moved through the pathways of care, they improved in a number of areas including psychiatric morbidity, risk, function, unmet needs. The following results stratified significantly; the HCR-20 summated clinical and risk (F = 9.2, df = 5, p < 0.001), the HoNOS secure (F = 18.2, df = 5, p < 0.001), PANSS (positive, general and total), GAF, staff and user unmet needs on the CANFOR. CONCLUSIONS: The data indicate that the theoretical organisation of the units of the hospital into high, medium and low security units to form a coherent pathway through care is reflected in practice. This is a transparent route out of secure care in which restrictions are proportionate to risk and supports proportionate to need. It is unclear whether alternative models, consisting of a series of generic unstratified units for admission and discharge, all at the same level of therapeutic security, allow for the provision of treatment programmes and relational interventions appropriate to the patient's stage of recovery and rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVES: It was hypothesised that patients admitted to forensic mental health facilities are stratified along the pathway through care according to levels of need. Level of risk and psychopathology should vary with different levels of security. METHOD: Seventy-five men in a forensic hospital were interviewed by three trained clinicians using the HCR-20 (Historical Clinical Risk Assessment) - clinical and risk items, The Health of the Nation Scales - Secure (HoNOS-SECURE), PANSS (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale), GAF (Global Assessment of Functioning) and the CANFOR (Camberwell Assessment of need Forensic Version). RESULTS: The mean scores on a variety of clinical measures were higher in admission/high security areas and progressively lower in rehabilitation and pre-discharge areas. As patients moved through the pathways of care, they improved in a number of areas including psychiatric morbidity, risk, function, unmet needs. The following results stratified significantly; the HCR-20 summated clinical and risk (F = 9.2, df = 5, p < 0.001), the HoNOS secure (F = 18.2, df = 5, p < 0.001), PANSS (positive, general and total), GAF, staff and user unmet needs on the CANFOR. CONCLUSIONS: The data indicate that the theoretical organisation of the units of the hospital into high, medium and low security units to form a coherent pathway through care is reflected in practice. This is a transparent route out of secure care in which restrictions are proportionate to risk and supports proportionate to need. It is unclear whether alternative models, consisting of a series of generic unstratified units for admission and discharge, all at the same level of therapeutic security, allow for the provision of treatment programmes and relational interventions appropriate to the patient's stage of recovery and rehabilitation.
Authors: R Oberndorfer; R W Alexandrowicz; A Unger; M Koch; I Markiewicz; P Gosek; J Heitzman; L Iozzino; C Ferrari; H-J Salize; M Picchioni; H Fangerau; T Stompe; J Wancata; G de Girolamo Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 4.519
Authors: Chiara Buizza; Cosmo Strozza; Giulio Sbravati; Giovanni de Girolamo; Clarissa Ferrari; Laura Iozzino; Ambra Macis; Harry G Kennedy; Valentina Candini Journal: Ann Gen Psychiatry Date: 2022-09-10 Impact factor: 3.301
Authors: Mary Davoren; Sarah O'Dwyer; Zareena Abidin; Leena Naughton; Olivia Gibbons; Elaine Doyle; Kim McDonnell; Stephen Monks; Harry G Kennedy Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2012-07-13 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Mary Davoren; Orla Byrne; Paul O'Connell; Helen O'Neill; Ken O'Reilly; Harry G Kennedy Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Ken O'Reilly; Gary Donohoe; Danny O'Sullivan; Ciaran Coyle; Aiden Corvin; Padraic O'Flynn; Muireann O'Donnell; Toni Galligan; Paul O'Connell; Harry G Kennedy Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Julie Wharewera-Mika; Erana Cooper; Nick Wiki; Kiri Prentice; Trudie Field; James Cavney; David Kaire; Brian McKenna Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Harry G Kennedy; Ronan Mullaney; Paul McKenna; John Thompson; David Timmons; Pauline Gill; Owen P O'Sullivan; Paul Braham; Dearbhla Duffy; Anthony Kearns; Sally Linehan; Damian Mohan; Stephen Monks; Lisa McLoughlin; Paul O'Connell; Conor O'Neill; Brenda Wright; Ken O'Reilly; Mary Davoren Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 3.630