Hodges' Health Career Model and its role and potential application in forensic mental health nursing

Excellence in forensic psychiatry services: international survey of qualities and correlates

BACKGROUND

Excellence is that quality that drives continuously improving outcomes for patients. Excellence must be measurable. We set out to measure excellence in forensic mental health services according to four levels of organisation and complexity (basic, standard, progressive and excellent) across seven domains: values and rights; clinical organisation; consistency; timescale; specialisation; routine outcome measures; research and development.

AIMS

To validate the psychometric properties of a measurement scale to test which objective features of forensic services might relate to excellence: for example, university linkages, service size and integrated patient pathways across levels of therapeutic security.

METHOD

A survey instrument was devised by a modified Delphi process. Forensic leads, either clinical or academic, in 48 forensic services across 5 jurisdictions completed the questionnaire.

RESULTS

Regression analysis found that the number of security levels, linked patient pathways, number of in-patient teams and joint university appointments predicted total excellence score.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger services organised according to stratified therapeutic security and with strong university and research links scored higher on this measure of excellence. A weakness is that these were self-ratings. Reliability could be improved with peer review and with objective measures such as quality and quantity of research output. For the future, studies are needed of the determinants of other objective measures of better outcomes for patients, including shorter lengths of stay, reduced recidivism and readmission, and improved physical and mental health and quality of life.

Mental health nursing in bushfire-affected communities: An autoethnographic insight

There is no literature to guide mental health nursing in bushfire-affected communities. Using autoethnographic methods, the author reflects on his experience of mental health nursing during the Australian bushfires of 2019-20 and the challenges of identifying existing practice guidance. Applying an existing nursing model and insights from gestalt, he analyses his field notes to identify and describe practices which he found important and useful for working with bushfire-affected persons and communities. Eight suggestions are provided to assist mental health nurses to practise in an informed way and promote recovery. This paper makes a contribution to a small body of existing mental health nursing research using autoethnographic methods, and it is the first contribution to the mental health nursing literature about working with bushfire-affected persons and communities.

Clinicians' perspectives of forensic rehabilitation

Having sought 22 clinicians' views of how rehabilitation was practised in a forensic mental health service, this study explores whether or not these views are consistent with claims that forensic rehabilitation can be hampered by the lack of a coherent rehabilitation framework. Two major, mutually influencing themes emerged from the participants' narratives, the first of which delineates the culture and functioning of individuals and systems in a forensic service and the underlying philosophies and beliefs guiding professional behaviour. The second theme outlines the participants' views of the ways in which client needs are assessed and how clients are subsequently provided with the skills and opportunities required for their rehabilitation. The results indicate that while the participants perceived that there were positive aspects to the forensic mental health care that was provided; they also stated that systematicity in the formulation and provision of forensic mental health clients' needs was lacking. These findings reinforce previous claims that there needs to be a theoretically sound means of embedding and systematising effective rehabilitation practice in forensic services.

How short should short-term risk assessment be? Determining the optimum interval for START reassessment in a secure mental health service

ACCESSIBLE SUMMARY

The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) is a tool used in some mental health services to assess patients to see if they are at risk of violence, self-harm, self-neglect or victimization. The recommended time between assessments is 3 months but there is currently no evidence to show that this is best practice. We have investigated whether assessing at 1- or 2-month intervals would be more accurate and therefore facilitate more individualized risk management interventions. We found that many patients who were rated as low risk had been involved in risk behaviours before 3 months had passed; some patients who were rated at increased risk did not get involved in risk behaviours at all. Results are mixed for different outcomes but on balance, we think that the recommendation to conduct START assessment every 3 months is supported by the evidence. However, reassessment should be considered if risk behaviours are not prevented and teams should always consider whether risk management practices are too restrictive.

ABSTRACT

The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) guides assessment of potential adverse outcomes. Assessment is recommended every 3 months but there is no evidence for this interval. We aimed to inform whether earlier reassessment was warranted. We collated START assessments for N = 217 adults in a secure mental health hospital, and subsequent aggressive, self-harm, self-neglect and victimization incidents. We used receiver operating characteristic analysis to assess predictive validity; survival function analysis to examine differences between low-, medium-, and high-risk groups; and hazard function analysis to determine the optimum interval for reassessment. The START predicted aggression and self-harm at 1, 2 and 3 months. At-risk individuals engaged in adverse outcomes earlier than low-risk patients. About half warranted reassessment before 3 months due to engagement in risk behaviour before that point despite a low-risk rating, or because of non-engagement by that point despite an elevated risk rating. Risk assessment should occur at appropriate intervals so that management strategies can be individually tailored. Assessment at 3-month intervals is supported by the evidence. START assessments should be revisited earlier if risk behaviours are not prevented; teams should constantly re-evaluate the need for restrictive practices.