Outcome Measures in Forensic Mental Health Services: A Systematic Review of Instruments and Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

Clinicians' use of the structured professional judgement approach for adult secure psychiatric service admission assessments: A systematic review

The structured professional judgement (SPJ) approach was initially developed to support risk assessment and management decisions. The approach is now being adapted and applied to admission assessments for adult secure services. This systematic review aims to summarise the evidence for the effectiveness and acceptability of the SPJ approach in admission assessments of this kind. A comprehensive electronic search strategy was used to identify studies indexed in PubMed, PsycInfo, Medline and Cochrane Library (January 2007 -January 2024). Two search strategies included terms (and synonyms) for psychiatric patients (quantitative) or clinicians and clinicians' experiences (qualitative), structured professional judgement, admission, and secure services. Twelve quantitative articles (published 2007-2020) were identified. SPJ-informed guidance included were the DUNDRUM-1, DUNDRUM-2, DUNDRUM-3, DUNDRUM-4, and the HCR-20. While findings were variable, the overall pattern indicated that ratings suggestive of more problems were associated with increased likelihood of admission or movement to higher security levels. There is emerging evidence for the use of SPJ guidance to support admission decision-making. Specifically, it should be used as an adjunct to existing decision-making processes rather than as a replacement for those processes. Further research, both quantitative and qualitative, across a wider range of settings and populations is recommended.

Testing a recovery-oriented nursing communication framework to encourage collaboration and discussion about aggression prevention: A mixed methods study

Recovery-oriented practice is essential in healthcare, yet research exploring methods for integrating recovery-oriented principles in forensic mental health settings is limited. This study involved the co-development, with mental health care nurses and a lived experience expert, and testing of a recovery-oriented script for forensic mental health nurses to use when communicating with consumers at high-risk of imminent aggression. The aim was to examine whether nurses perceived the script as more empathic when the script included specific references to empathy, compared to an equivalent script that did not include empathic statements, and to explore nurses' perspectives on whether the script could help prevent aggression. Nurses (n = 54) working in a secure forensic mental health hospital were randomly allocated to read a script containing statements representing nine recovery-oriented principles that also included empathic statements, or an equivalent script that did not include empathic statements. After reading the script, the participants completed a questionnaire involving a recovery-oriented practice scale developed by the authors, measuring the extent to which the scripts reflected recovery-oriented principles, and open-ended questions about the script's potential to prevent aggression. Results revealed no significant difference in nurse perceptions of empathy between the two scripts. Content analysis indicated that nurses perceived the scripts could help prevent aggression.

Identifying mental illness and monitoring mental health in probation service settings

There is a need to improve a) identification and monitoring of people with mental illness on probation and b) understanding of the impact of interventions on mental health outcomes for the probation population. If data were routinely collected using validated screening tools and shared between agencies, this could inform practice and commissioning decisions, and ultimately it could improve health outcomes for people under supervision. The literature was reviewed to identify brief screening tools and outcome measures that have been used in prevalence and outcome studies conducted with adults on probation in Europe. This paper shares findings from the UK-based studies in which 20 brief screening tools and measures were identified. Recommendations are made based on this literature regarding suitable tools for use in probation to routinely identify a need for contact with mental health and/or substance misuse services and to measure change in mental health outcomes.

Conducting Randomized Controlled Trials of Complex Interventions in Prisons: A Sisyphean Task?

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) are the "gold standard" for measuring the effectiveness of an intervention. However, they have their limitations and are especially complex in prison settings. Several systematic reviews have highlighted some of the issues, including, institutional constraints e.g., "lock-downs," follow-ups, contamination of allocation conditions and a reliance on self-report measures. In this article, we reflect on our experiences and will describe two RCTs. People in prison are a significantly disadvantaged and vulnerable group, ensuring equitable and effective interventions is key to reducing inequality and promoting positive outcomes. We ask are RCTs of complex interventions in prisons a sisyphean task? We certainly don't think so, but we propose that current accepted practice and research designs may be limiting our understanding and ability to test complex interventions in the real-world context of prisons. RCTs will always have their place, but designs need to be flexible and adaptive, with the development of other rigorous methods for evaluating impact of interventions e.g., non-randomized studies, including pre-post implementation studies. With robust research we can deliver quality evidence-based healthcare in prisons - after all the degree of civilization in a society is revealed by entering its prisons.

Ten outcome measures in forensic mental health: A survey of clinician views on comprehensiveness, ease of use and relevance

BACKGROUND

Measurement of outcomes in forensic mental health services is essential to ensure that these services are delivering good quality care and treatment. Instruments for outcome measurement should cover all important domains, be easy to implement in a routine clinical context and facilitate transfer of relevant information between clinicians as the patient progresses along a recovery and rehabilitation pathway.

AIMS

We sought the views of clinicians on 10 common instruments used as outcome measures in forensic mental health services, especially on their perceived comprehensiveness and ease of use.

METHODS

An online survey was used to gather the views of clinicians from a range of professional backgrounds working in forensic mental health services in the United Kingdom. The selected instruments were identified from a previous systematic review of instruments for measuring outcomes in this context. Questions covered comprehensiveness, ease of use, patient involvement, relevance and use for progressing tracking and care planning.

RESULTS

Complete responses were received from 229 individuals. The range of respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing that individual instruments were comprehensive was 6-39%; easy to use 19%-69%; relevant 31%-78%; useful to measure progress 7-70%; and useful for care planning 33-81%. Respondents reported that, for each of the 10 instruments, full involvement of patients varied between 3% and 22%; partial involvement 12-45%, patients informed, but not involved 11%-28%; and patients not involved or informed 21%-64%.

CONCLUSIONS

The Health of the Nation Outcome Scale Secure, the only instrument designed as an outcome measure, is not regarded by clinicians as useful in that respect and the majority of clinicians do not inform patients they are using it. Clinicians appear most familiar with the Historical Clinical Risk 20 (HCR-20), which some respondents considered potentially useful as a progress measure but with limited patient involvement. Most respondents did not think that the HCR-20 is comprehensive. There is a need for outcome measures that are comprehensive, easy to use and have adequate patient involvement in their development and rating.