A suitable waiting room? Hospital transfer outcomes and delays from two London prisons

Men placed on waiting lists for psychiatric admission from Irish Prisons over five years: Clinical outcomes during a forensic "bed crisis"

BACKGROUND

Ireland has low provision rates of general and forensic beds compared with other western countries. In recent years there have been difficulties and delays in accessing forensic beds for prisoners with severe mental illness.

AIMS

We aimed to determine clinical outcomes for male prisoners assessed as requiring psychiatric admission over an extended period, with time frames for admission and other outcomes. We aimed to determine whether admissions to forensic and non-forensic locations were risk-appropriate.

METHODS

Participants included all male prisoners placed on psychiatric admission waiting lists in Ireland over five years 2015-2019. We described demographic, clinical and offending variables. We measured clinical outcomes including forensic admission, other admission and recovery with voluntary treatment in prison. We also measured times to clinical outcomes. Security requirements and clinical urgency were assessed using the DUNDRUM Toolkit scales 1 and 2.

RESULTS

541 male prisoners were placed on admission waiting lists and spent an aggregate of over 114 years on admission waiting lists during 2015-2019. Almost one quarter improved with voluntary treatment allowing removal from waiting lists, while over 75% did not. Admission was achieved for a majority of cases, albeit after lengthy delays for some. The most frequent outcome was diversion from remand to non-forensic inpatient settings. Non-forensic admissions arranged by the Prison Inreach and Court Liaison Service (PICLS) at Ireland's main remand prison at Cloverhill contributed 54% (179/332) of all admissions achieved and 76% (179/235) of all non-forensic admissions from prison waiting list. Median delay to admission was 59 days for forensic admissions and 69 days for admissions to non-forensic hospitals from sentenced settings, compared with 16.5 days for admissions to non-forensic hospitals from remand.

CONCLUSIONS

Long delays for forensic admission during a five-year period of limited access to such beds were partly mitigated by transfers to non-forensic hospitals, mainly diversion of minor offenders from remand settings.

Delays in transferring patients from prisons to secure psychiatric hospitals: An international systematic review

BACKGROUND

Transfer to a psychiatric hospital of prisoners who need inpatient treatment for a mental disorder is an important part of prison healthcare in the UK. It is an essential factor in ensuring the principle of equivalence in the treatment of prisoners. In England and Wales, delays in transferring unwell prisoners to hospital were identified by the 2009 Bradley Report. There has been no subsequent systematic review of progress in so doing nor a corresponding appraisal of transfer arrangements in other parts of the world.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review of international literature about transfers of mentally unwell individuals from prison to hospital for the treatment of mental disorder since 2009.

METHOD

Eight databases were searched for data-based publications using terms for prison and transfer to hospital from 1 January 2009 to 4 August 2022. Inclusion criteria limited transfer to arrangements for pre-trial and sentenced prisoners going to a health service hospital, excluding hospital orders made on the conclusion of criminal hearing.

RESULTS

In England, four articles were identified, all showing that transfer times remain considerably longer than the national targets of 14 days (range, 14 days to >9 months); one study from Scotland found shorter mean transfer times, but more patients had been transferred to psychiatric intensive care units than to secure forensic hospitals. There were only two studies that investigated prison to hospital transfers for mental disorder from outside the UK and only one reported time-to-transfer data.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this literature review highlight failures to resolve transfer delays in England and provide little evidence about the problem elsewhere. Given the lack of data, it is unclear whether other countries do not have this problem or simply that there has been no research interest in it. A possible confounding factor here is that, in some countries, all treatment for prisoners' mental disorders occurs in prison. However, the principle that prisons are not hospitals seems important when people need inpatient care. Prospective, longitudinal cohort studies are urgently needed to map transfer times and outcomes.

Diversion from custody: An update

Liaison and diversion services are concerned with ensuring that individuals with mental health problems and related vulnerabilities who come into contact with the criminal justice system receive appropriate support and treatment. In the past 15 years there have been significant changes in policy, legislation and the broader landscape in community, custodial and hospital settings which have shaped these services. The Bradley Report, published in 2009, represents an important landmark in this field. Bradley made 82 recommendations, from interventions to improve identification of mental illness and vulnerable individuals at risk of offending to effecting speedier transfers of mentally disordered prisoners to hospital. Some progress has been made in achieving these recommendations, and further investment is promised, but at present only half of England is covered by liaison and diversion services.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

•

Beyond equivalence: prisoners' right to health

Prisons have high levels of psychiatric morbidity and function as mental illness recognition centres. Their healthcare wings are not hospitals and timely transfers to hospital are often unavailable. The United Nations' right to the highest attainable standard of health is assessed according to whether healthcare services are available, accessible, acceptable and of good quality (AAAQ). It is proposed that the AAAQ framework goes beyond the principle of equivalence of care and provides a more sophisticated measure for exploring prison healthcare.

Postcode lottery? Hospital transfers from one London prison and responsible catchment area

Aims and method

To consider the link between responsible commissioner and delayed prison transfers. All hospital transfers from one London prison in 2006 were audited and reviewed by the prisoner's borough of origin.

Results

Overall, 80 prisoners were transferred from the audited prison to a National Health Service (NHS) facility in 2006: 26% had to wait for more than 1 month for assessment by the receiving hospital unit and 24% had to wait longer than 3 months to be transferred. These 80 individuals were the responsibility of 16 different primary care trusts. Of the delayed transfer cases (n=19), the services commissioned by three primary care trusts were responsible for the delays.

Clinical implications

There are significant differences in performance between different primary care trusts related to hospital transfers of prisoners, with most hospitals able to admit urgent cases within 3 months. This suggests that a postcode lottery operates for prisoners requiring hospital transfer. Data from prison services may be useful in monitoring and improving the performance of local NHS services.

Assaults by Mentally Disordered Offenders in Prison: Equity and Equivalence

Managing the violent behaviour of mentally disordered offenders (MDO) is challenging in all jurisdictions. We describe the ethical framework and practical management of MDOs in England and Wales in the context of the move to equivalence of healthcare between hospital and prison. We consider the similarities and differences between prison and hospital management of the violent and challenging behaviours of MDOs. We argue that both types of institution can learn from each other and that equivalence of care should extend to equivalence of criminal proceedings in court and prisons for MDOs. We argue that any adjudication process in prison for MDOs is enhanced by the relevant involvement of mental health professionals and the articulation of the ethical principles underpinning health and criminal justice practices.

Influencing the care pathway for prisoners with acute mental illness

BACKGROUND

Despite improved mental health services in prisons in England and Wales, there are often delays in transferring acutely mentally ill prisoners to hospital, particularly in the London area.

AIM

To establish whether clinical pathway interventions can reduce such transfer delays.

METHODS

Two clinical pathway interventions - one based in a medium secure forensic hospital and the other in a remand prison (pre-trial/sentence) - were independently introduced to manage referrals of prisoners with acute mental illness in London, UK. Time taken to transfer to hospital was measured for each and compared with the best available estimates for time to transfer prior to the new pathways.

RESULTS

Both interventions produced significant reductions in prison to hospital transfer times.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTISE

The nature of the projects precluded ideal research design, but despite small sample sizes, provision of modestly funded small but dedicated elements of service to target the specified problem of transfer to hospital delays showed a significant advantage for such provision, whether hospital or prison based, psychiatrist or nurse led. Further research is now required to examine the whole pathway. More secure psychiatric beds may be required, at least in the short term, to support diversion policies and enable compliance with national policy directive, and to establish whether redesigned pathways can enhance treatment and behavioural outcomes for acutely mentally ill prisoners on a larger scale.

Variations in prison mental health services in England and Wales

In responding to high levels of psychiatric morbidity amongst prisoners and recognising earlier poor quality prison mental health care, prison mental health in-reach teams have been established in England and Wales over the last decade. They are mostly provided by the National Health Service (NHS), which provides the majority of UK healthcare services. Over the same period, the prison population has grown to record levels, such that prisons in England and Wales now contain almost 90,000 of the world's overall prison population of over 10 million people (roughly the size of Paris or Istanbul). This study provides an overview of mental health in-reach services in prisons in England and Wales, including variations between them, through a telephone survey of senior staff in all prisons and young offender institutions in England and Wales. 73% of prisons took part; of them 13% had no in-reach team at all (usually low security establishments) and the majority of services were run by NHS teams, usually according to a generic community mental health team (CMHT) model rather than other specialist models. Team size was unrelated to prison size. Each nurse covered around 500 prisoners, each doctor over 3700. Many provided few or no healthcare cells and 24-h psychiatric cover (including on-call cover) was uncommon. Despite developments in recent years, mental health in-reach services still fall short of community equivalence and there is wide variation in service arrangements that cannot be explained by prison size or function. The aim of community equivalence has not yet been reached in prison healthcare and a more sophisticated measure of service improvement and standardisation would now be useful to drive and monitor future development.

Prison health-care wings: psychiatry's forgotten frontier?

BACKGROUND

There is worldwide evidence of high rates of mental disorder among prisoners, with significant co-morbidity. In England and Wales, mental health services have been introduced from the National Health Service to meet the need, but prison health-care wings have hardly been evaluated.

AIMS/HYPOTHESES

To conduct a service evaluation of the health-care wing of a busy London remand (pre-trial) prison and examine the prevalence and range of mental health problems, including previously unrecognised psychosis.

METHODS

Service-use data were collected from prison medical records over a 20-week period in 2006-2007, and basic descriptive statistics were generated.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight prisoners were admitted (4.4 per week). Most suffered from psychosis, a third of whom were not previously known to services. Eleven men were so ill that they required emergency compulsory treatment in the prison under Common Law before hospital transfer could take place. Over a quarter of the men required hospital transfer. Problem behaviours while on the prison health-care wing were common.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Prison health-care wings operate front-line mental illness triaging and recognition functions and also provide care for complex individuals who display behavioural disturbance. Services are not equivalent to those in hospitals, nor the community, but instead reflect the needs of the prison in which they are situated. There is a recognised failure to divert at earlier points in the criminal justice pathway, which may be a consequence of national failure to fund services properly. Hospital treatment is often delayed.