Purpose – Continuity of forensic mental health care is important in building protective structures around a patient and has been shown to decrease risks of relapse. Realising continuity can be complicated due to restrictions from finances or legislation and difficulties in collaboration between settings. In the Netherlands, several programs have been developed to improve continuity of forensic care. It is unknown whether professionals and clients are sufficiently aware of these programs. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach – The experienced difficulties and needs of professionals and patients regarding continuity of forensic care were explored by means of an online survey and focus groups. The survey was completed by 318 professionals. Two focus groups with professionals (15 participants), one focus group and one interview with patients (six participants) were conducted. Findings – The overall majority (85.6 percent) reported to experience problems in continuity on a frequent basis. The three main problems are: first, limited capacity for discharge from inpatient to outpatient or sheltered living; second, collaboration between forensic and regular mental health care; and, third, limited capacity for long-term inpatient care. Only a quarter of the participants knew the existing programs. Actual implementation of these programs was even lower (3.9 percent). The top three of professionals’ needs are: better collaboration; higher capacity; more knowledge about rules and regulation. Participants of the focus groups emphasized the importance of transparent communication, timely discharge planning and education. Practical implications – Gathering best practices about regional collaboration networks and developing a blue print based on the best practices could be helpful in improving collaboration between setting in the forensic field. In addition, more use of systematic discharge planning is needed to improve continuity in forensic mental healthcare. It is important to communicate in an honest, transparent way to clients about their forensic mental health trajectories,even if there are Setbacks or delays. More emphasis needs to be placed on communicating and implementing policy programs in daily practice and more education about legislation is needed Structured evaluations of programs aiming to improve continuity of forensic mental health care are highly needed. Originality/value – Policy programs hardly reach professionals. Professionals see improvements in collaboration as top priority. Patients emphasize the human approach and transparent communication.
LINK
Important gender differences, relating to trauma history, offending and mental health needs are not sufficiently considered in most (risk) assessment and treatment procedures in forensic practice. We developed guidelines for gender-responsive work in Dutch forensic mental health care. The experiences of practitioners and forensic psychiatric patients were collected and analyzed by means of an online survey (n = 295), interviews with professionals (n = 22), female (n = 8) and male (n = 3) patients. Guidelines regarding gender-sensitive (risk) assessment and trauma-informed care were rated as most relevant in the survey. In the interviews we focused on experiences and wishes for trauma treatment and gender-mixed treatment. Practical guidelines were written based on the results of the survey, interviews and literature, and presented in expert meetings with patients and practitioners, and further refined based on their comments. Applying these guidelines may contribute to improved treatment for female patients thereby preventing relapse.
LINK
Purpose Incidents of self-injury by forensic psychiatric patients often have a deleterious impact on all those involved. Moreover, self-injurious behaviour is an important predictor for violence towards others during treatment. The aim of this study is to analyse methods and severity of incidents of self-injury of patients admitted to forensic psychiatry, as well as the diagnoses of self-injuring patients. Design/methodology/approach All incidents of self-injury during treatment in a forensic psychiatric centre recorded between 2008 and 2019 were analysed and the severity was coded with the modified observed aggression scale+ (MOAS+). Findings In this period, 299 incidents of self-injury were recorded, displayed by 106 patients. Most of these incidents (87.6%) were classified as non-suicidal. Methods most often used were skin cutting with glass, broken plates, a razor or knife and swallowing dangerous objects or liquids. Ten patients died by suicide, almost all by suffocation with a rope or belt. The majority of the incidents was coded as severe or extreme with the MOAS+. Female patients were overrepresented and they caused on average three times more incidents than male patients. Practical implications More attention is warranted for self-injurious behaviour during forensic treatment considering the distressing consequences for both patients themselves, supervisors and witnesses. Adequate screening for risk of self-injurious behaviour could help to prevent this behaviour. Further research is needed in different forensic settings into predictors of self-injurious behaviour, more specifically, if there are distinct predictors for aggression to others versus to the self. Originality/value Incidents of self-injury occur with some regularity in forensic mental health care and are usually classified as severe. The impact of suicide (attempts) and incidents of self-injurious behaviour on all those involved can be enormous. More research is needed into the impact on all those involved, motivations, precipitants and functions of self-injurious behaviour and effective treatment of it.
DOCUMENT
