["Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in forensic psychiatry: A review"]

Development of the Korean Practice Parameter for Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

OBJECTIVES

Adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is an important mental health problem that needs resolution, especially considering the high rates of ADHD continuation from childhood to adolescence/adulthood and the high prevalence of ADHD in adults. Adults with ADHD have lifelong negative impacts and require close monitoring with long-term follow-up. Hence, the establishment of a Korean practice parameter for adult ADHD is necessary to minimize discontinuation of treatment and enable information sharing among Korean mental health professionals.

METHODS

The Korean practice parameter was developed using an evidence-based approach consisting of expert consensus survey coupled with literature review.

RESULTS

According to the expert consensus survey, the most commonly used diagnostic methods were clinical psychiatric interview (20.66%) and self-report scales (19.25%) followed by attention (14.71%) and psychological tests (14.24%). Key evaluation instruments currently available in Korea are the World Health Organization Adult ADHD Self-Report Rating Scale, Korean Adult ADHD Rating Scale, Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults, Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale for adults, Comprehensive Attention Test, Conners' Continuous Performance Test, and the subtests of Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Digit Span and Letter-Number Sequencing. Although pharmacotherapy is recommended as the first-line of treatment for adult ADHD, we recommend that it be followed by a multimodal and multidisciplinary approach including psychoeducation, pharmacotherapy, cognitive behavior therapy and coaching.

CONCLUSION

The Korean practice parameter introduces not only general information for the diagnosis and treatment of adult ADHD on a global scale, but also the process of diagnosis and treatment options tailored to the Korean population.

Characteristics and Pathways of Long-Stay Patients in High and Medium Secure Settings in England; A Secondary Publication From a Large Mixed-Methods Study

Background: Many patients experience extended stays within forensic care, but the characteristics of long-stay patients are poorly understood. Aims: To describe the characteristics of long-stay patients in high and medium secure settings in England. Method: Detailed file reviews provided clinical, offending and risk data for a large representative sample of 401 forensic patients from 2 of the 3 high secure settings and from 23 of the 57 medium secure settings in England on 1 April 2013. The threshold for long-stay status was defined as 5 years in medium secure care or 10 years in high secure care, or 15 years in a combination of high and medium secure settings. Results: 22% of patients in high security and 18% in medium security met the definition for "long-stay," with 20% staying longer than 20 years. Of the long-stay sample, 58% were violent offenders (22% both sexual and violent), 27% had been convicted for violent or sexual offences whilst in an institutional setting, and 26% had committed a serious assault on staff in the last 5 years. The most prevalent diagnosis was schizophrenia (60%) followed by personality disorder (47%, predominantly antisocial and borderline types); 16% were categorised as having an intellectual disability. Overall, 7% of the long-stay sample had never been convicted of any offence, and 16.5% had no index offence prompting admission. Although some significant differences were found between the high and medium secure samples, there were more similarities than contrasts between these two levels of security. The treatment pathways of these long-stay patients involved multiple moves between settings. An unsuccessful referral to a setting of lower security was recorded over the last 5 years for 33% of the sample. Conclusions: Long-stay patients accounted for one fifth of the forensic inpatient population in England in this representative sample. A significant proportion of this group remain unsettled. High levels of personality pathology and the risk of assaults on staff and others within the care setting are likely to impact on treatment and management. Further research into the treatment pathways of longer stay patients is warranted to understand the complex trajectories of this group.