Reasons for recall following conditional discharge: explanations given by male patients suffering from dual diagnosis in a London Forensic Unit

Evidence-Based Practice in Forensic Mental Health Nursing: A Critical Review

METHOD

Literature searches of databases, particularly CINAHL, using key phrases were undertaken.

RESULTS

Some authors argue that there is a lack of evidence in forensic mental health (FMH) nursing, with few randomized controlled trials and other methods providing definitive, generalizable evidence. However, literature searches revealed randomized controlled trials of relevance to FMH nursing, many qualitative studies by FMH nurses, and arguments for clinical experience and knowledge of service users, and the latter's views, as sources of evidence.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Research findings can be applied to practice, both directly and indirectly. Examples are given of ways that evidence can be used to inform FMH nursing interventions related to therapeutic ward environments, including communication, therapeutic relationships, preventing retraumatization, and enabling physical health. The complex nature of "evidence" is considered in relation to risk assessment and management.

CONCLUSIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

FMH nursing can be based on a wide range of sources of evidence. The types of evidence used in practice depend on individual service users' needs and views. In evaluating evidence, it is necessary to be aware of its complex, diverse nature. A distinction can be made between definitive, widely generalizable research findings and evidence with limited generalizability, requiring FMH nurses' judgments about whether it is applicable to their own area of practice. Recommendations for related education and research are made.

Treatment, deterrence or labelling: mentally disordered offenders' perspectives on social control

Mentally disordered offenders are a group of service users who experience substantial amounts of control and supervision. This article uses theories of social control to analyse the way in which mechanisms of control are understood by this group. Semi-structured interviews with mentally disordered offenders in England who were subject to a restriction order under the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended by the Mental Health Act 2007) provided the empirical basis for this study. The offenders had a number of perspectives on the restriction order. Firstly, it was seen as a mechanism for identifying those suffering from a mental disorder and for providing appropriate treatment. Secondly, the restriction order was viewed as a form of disciplinary control through which societal norms might be internalised. Thirdly, it was seen as labelling offenders in a manner that was experienced as limiting and oppressive. A number of research participants were aware that the order acted to limit staff actions. These participants saw the order as a means by which they might shape the support that they received in order to further their own aims.A video abstract of this article can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwIwDI2sOTY&feature=youtu.be.

Dynamic and static factors associated with discharge dispositions: the national trajectory project of individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) in Canada

The majority of individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) in Canada spend some time in hospital before they are conditionally or absolutely (no conditions) discharged to the community by a legally mandated review board. By law, the decision to conditionally discharge an individual found NCRMD should be guided by the need to protect the public, the mental condition of the accused, and the other needs of the accused, especially regarding his/her community reintegration. At the time of this study, Canadian legislation and case law required that the review board disposition should be the "least onerous and least restrictive" possible for the accused. This means that, if there is no evidence that the person poses a significant risk to public safety, he/she must be released. However, the Canadian Criminal Code does not specify the criteria that must be considered when making this risk assessment. This leads to two questions. (1) What predicts review board dispositions? (2) To what extent do disposition determinations reflect evidence-based practices? The present study examined dynamic and static predictors of detention in custody, conditional discharge (CD), and absolute discharge (AD) dispositions among persons found NCRMD across the three largest provinces in Canada. The National Trajectory Project (NTP) examined men and women found NCRMD in British Columbia (BC), Québec (QC), and Ontario (ON) between May 2000 and April 2005, followed until December 2008. For the purposes of this study, individuals who had at least one hearing with a review board were extracted from the NTP dataset (N = 1794: QC = 1089, ON = 483, BC = 222). Over the course of the study, 6743 review board hearings were examined (QC = 3505, ON = 2185, BC = 1053). Despite advances in the risk assessment field, presentation of a comprehensive structured risk assessment to the review board was not the norm. Yet our findings suggest that review boards were taking into account a combination of empirically validated static and dynamic risk factors, as represented by the items of the HCR-20 risk assessment scheme. Particular attention was being paid to the behavior of the patient between hearings (e.g., violent acts, compliance with conditions). Severity of index offense was associated with review board decisions; though index severity is not related to recidivism, it is an important consideration in terms of public perceptions of the justice system and can be related to better established risk factors (i.e., criminal history and prior violence). Historical factors had more influence on the decision to detain someone, while clinical factors were more influential on an AD decision. Disposition stability was the most common trajectory, meaning that a patient with a prior CD disposition was most likely to receive another CD disposition at the next hearing. Static and dynamic risk factors found in the HCR-20 influenced review board determinations, although presentation of a complete structured risk assessment is the exception, not the norm. Results suggest that clinicians recommending less restrictive dispositions are more likely to include a comprehensive risk assessment with their recommendation. An alternative explanation is that, when there is no comprehensive assessment of risk, the review board tends to be more cautious and apply more restrictive dispositions. The practice seems to be contrary to the legislation at the time of the study, given that there should be a presumption that the patient is not a significant threat.