Katherine Michaelsen1,2, Jennifer Piel3,4, Sarah Kopelovich3, Susan Reynolds3, Deborah Cowley3. 1. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. michaelk@uw.edu. 2. VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA. michaelk@uw.edu. 3. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As the specialty of forensic psychiatry and the numbers of justice involved individuals with mental illness continue to grow, forensic education is receiving more attention. To add to this discussion, the authors reviewed current training practices in forensic psychiatry fellowship programs. METHODS: As part of a project funded by the state legislature looking at psychiatry and psychology training, with special focus on state hospital partnerships, the authors interviewed and surveyed forensic psychiatry fellowship program directors and conducted site visits to select programs. Given the mandate, special attention was given to programs with state hospital and psychology training affiliations. RESULTS: The literature and fellowship directors identified several key features and challenges for forensic training programs. Forensic fellowships focused primarily on evaluations and consultations but differed in their offerings related to training in treatment, scholarship, and particular types of evaluations. Common concerns included maintaining adequate funding, variety of training experiences, adequate faculty time, and adequate institutional support. Directors described cultivating institutional support by demonstrating mutual benefit as particularly important for securing resources. CONCLUSION: Forensic fellowships operational during the 2016-2017 academic year offered a range of forensic training activities, but experienced common challenges such as inadequate funding and faculty supervision. Empirical studies are needed to evaluate the relationship between programmatic offerings, the noted challenges, and acquired competencies.
OBJECTIVE: As the specialty of forensic psychiatry and the numbers of justice involved individuals with mental illness continue to grow, forensic education is receiving more attention. To add to this discussion, the authors reviewed current training practices in forensic psychiatry fellowship programs. METHODS: As part of a project funded by the state legislature looking at psychiatry and psychology training, with special focus on state hospital partnerships, the authors interviewed and surveyed forensic psychiatry fellowship program directors and conducted site visits to select programs. Given the mandate, special attention was given to programs with state hospital and psychology training affiliations. RESULTS: The literature and fellowship directors identified several key features and challenges for forensic training programs. Forensic fellowships focused primarily on evaluations and consultations but differed in their offerings related to training in treatment, scholarship, and particular types of evaluations. Common concerns included maintaining adequate funding, variety of training experiences, adequate faculty time, and adequate institutional support. Directors described cultivating institutional support by demonstrating mutual benefit as particularly important for securing resources. CONCLUSION: Forensic fellowships operational during the 2016-2017 academic year offered a range of forensic training activities, but experienced common challenges such as inadequate funding and faculty supervision. Empirical studies are needed to evaluate the relationship between programmatic offerings, the noted challenges, and acquired competencies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Forensic education; Forensic psychiatry training; Psychiatry fellowship; State hospital