Differences between British and Japanese perspectives on forensic mental health systems: A preliminary study

AIM

To clarify the differences in views on forensic mental health (FMH) systems between the United Kingdom and Japan.

METHODS

We conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with six leading forensic psychiatrists. Based on a discussion by the research team, we created an interview form. After we finished conducting all the interviews, we qualitatively analyzed their content.

RESULTS

In the United Kingdom the core domain of FMH was risk assessment and management; however, in Japan, the core domain of FMH was psychiatric testimony. In the United Kingdom, forensic psychiatrists were responsible for ensuring public safety, and psychopathy was identified as a disease but deemed as not suitable for medical treatment. On the other hand, in Japan, psychopathy was not considered a mental illness.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, there are considerable differences between the United Kingdom and Japan with regard to the concepts of FMH. Some ideas taken from both cultures for better FMH practice were suggested.

Audit study of the new hospitalization for assessment scheme for forensic mental health in Japan

AIM: To clarify the components of hospitalization for assessment (HfA) and the management changes from the beginning of the scheme to the present.

METHODS: This study is composed of two surveys. In 2013 survey, we created two paper questionnaires (facility and case questionnaires) for psychiatrists working in psychiatric hospitals accepting HfA patients. Questionnaires were sent to 205 hospitals that were identified as accepting the HfA cases, and responses were requested via mail. The facility questionnaire was designed to clarify the following specifications and characteristics of each facility: the facility organizer (public sector or private hospital), and the number of beds, psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, occupational therapists, psychiatric social workers, psychotherapists, public health nurses, and patients treated through HfA during the survey period. The case questionnaire was then used to collect data of the patients under HfA based on the Medical Treatment and Supervision (MTS) Act who were discharged between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. Gathered information included: legal information of each case, demographic data, past history of the offenders, issued offense and the relationship to the victim, information regarding past psychiatric testimonies, psychiatric diagnoses, contents of the treatment during HfA, information regarding seclusion and restraint during the HfA, the verdict of the District Court panel, and so forth. Next, we compared those results with relevant data obtained in 2007. The 2007 survey comprised data of HfA patients from July 15, 2005 (the date the MTS Act was enforced) to January 15, 2007.

RESULTS: We obtained 171 cases, approximately a half of whole contemporary cases of HfA, from 134 facilities, of which 46 were national, prefectural, or semi-official hospitals, and 88 were private hospitals, in 2013 survey. The majority of subjects were male, schizophrenic, and experienced previous psychiatric treatment. The most frequent type of the offense was injury, followed by arson. Most of the subjects were medicated, and a few cases took psychotropic injection during the HfA. The frequency of injection was decreased in 2013 (χ² = 7.54, df = 1, P = 0.006) than in 2007. Psychiatric testimony was more likely to be conducted in 2013 (χ² = 8.56, df = 1, P = 0.004). The examiner psychiatrist was more likely to belong to the HfA facility to which the patient was hospitalized (χ² = 5.32, df = 1, P = 0.02). Hospitalization orders were more frequently selected in 2013 (χ² = 19.76, df = 3, P < 0.001), although the characteristics of the subjects had not changed.

CONCLUSION: Although the management of HfA has improved in recent years, structural problems remain.