Search results

Abstract High secure services treat patients who may have very complex clinical needs under conditions of security. Until very recently such services were run and managed on the periphery of the structures and accountability arrangements put in place for the rest of the NHS, becoming isolated from modern thinking and evidence‐based therapeutic practice. A high percentage of patients in the high secure system were assessed as no longer requiring that level of security.Following an inquiry at Ashworth hospital which reported in 1999, steps were taken to bring these services into the mainstream of the NHS, to decentralise further the commissioning and performance management and to develop the capacity and capability to enable discharge of patients to lower levels of security. New partnerships and new relationships have resulted in an NHS Plan target of 400 patients discharged from high security.The inclusion of high security services within Health & Offender Partnerships creates a framework for managing proposed and ongoing changes. High security services are a necessary part of our mental health system and should be valued and developed. This paper outlines how quality improvements will be enabled and embedded.

The purpose of this paper is to describe service users’ perspectives on the difference between high secure long-stay forensic psychiatric services in the Netherlands and high secure forensic psychiatric care in England. These perspectives are relevant in considering the benefits of a similar long-stay service in England.

A current in-patient detained in a high secure hospital in England and other mental health service users and carers with experience in forensic-psychiatric settings were asked to watch a documentary on a Dutch high secure long-stay service. Then they were invited to make comparisons between this service and high secure care in England. These perspectives were gained in the context of their membership of the Service User Reference Group of an externally funded study on long-stay in forensic-psychiatric settings in England.

The small group of participants highlighted the importance of relational security, meaningful occupation, autonomy, positive therapeutic relationships with staff and a homely environment for those with lengthy admissions and perceived these to be better met in the Dutch service. These factors might contribute to improved quality of life that services should strive to achieve, especially for those with prolonged admissions.

Perspectives of service users with lived experience of long-stay in forensic settings are important in informing service developments. Lessons can be learnt from initiatives to improve the quality of life in long-stay services in other countries and consideration be given on how to best manage this unique group.

To the authors’ knowledge this is the first study asking service users about their view on forensic services in other countries. The findings suggest that service users have valuable contributions to make to aid service developments and should be involved in similar such exercises in the future.

The purpose of this paper is to complete a thorough needs assessment that would enable the development of a robust pathway of care for adults with a learning disability requiring secure care, and to assist commissioners to make informed planning decisions.

The paper identified people with a learning disability originating from London who were in secure care, and collected data about them. The paper used reference groups to inform the analysis.

The paper identified 249 people in secure services and was able to include 136 patients in the analysis. In all, 64 were in NHS provision and 72 in independent sector provision; 109 (80.1 per cent) were male and 27 (19.9 per cent) female; on average, patients were cared for 61.5 miles away from their homes; NHS patients were far closer to home; 69.1 per cent had a mild learning disability; 82.3 per cent had a history of violence; approximately one in six patients could not progress due to a lack of an appropriate ward, facility, resource and/or intervention.

Secure care for this population is a major public health issue. Many are placed a long way from home. Local services should be developed, and there should be sufficiently robust “step down” places for patients to be discharged to.

Systematic identification of the needs of a marginalised group to enable better more appropriate care pathways to be developed in the future.

The “outcomes revolution” in healthcare has yet to impact strongly on secure intellectual disability (ID) services in the UK. The purpose of this paper is to review the service-level outcome studies that exist for this population, and to explore some of the challenges of conducting such research. It further describes some illustrative routine outcome data from the National High Secure Learning Disability Service.

Routinely collected outcome measures (length of stay; violent incidents; Emotional Problem Scale (EPS) Behaviour Rating Scale and EPS Self-Report Inventory) were analysed for two overlapping cohorts of patients resident in the high-secure service between 2008 and 2013.

The median length of stay of those discharged during the study period (n=27) was around 9.9 years (range one to 40 years). A significant proportion (25 per cent) of discharges resulted in an eventual return to high security. There did not appear to be a treatment effect over two to three years using staff-rated global clinical measures, but patient-rated clinical measures did reduce. Violent incidents also reduced significantly over a longer period of four years in treatment.

There are identified challenges to research design and outcome measurement which need to be addressed in any future cross-service studies.

There are relatively few published outcome studies from forensic ID services. None of the studies have used clinical measures of changes or patient-rated outcome measures.

The evidence base for what works with forensic patients in high-security inpatient settings has typically focused on outcome research and not included clinical expertise from practice-based experience, which is an important facet of evidence-based practice. The purpose of this paper is to establish whether experts with clinical and/or research experience in this setting could reach consensus on elements of high-security hospital services that would be essential to the rehabilitation of forensic patients.

A three-round Delphi survey was conducted to achieve this aim. Experts were invited to rate agreement with elements of practice and interventions derived from existing research evidence and patient perspectives on what worked. Experts were also invited to propose elements of hospital treatment based on their individual knowledge and experience.

In the first round 54 experts reached consensus on 27 (out of 39) elements that included physical (e.g. use of CCTV), procedural (e.g. managing restricted items) and relational practices (e.g. promoting therapeutic alliances), and to a lesser extent-specific medical, psychological and social interventions. In total, 16 additional elements were also proposed by experts. In round 2 experts (n=45) were unable to reach a consensus on how essential each of the described practices were. In round 3 (n=35), where group consensus feedback from round 2 was provided, consensus was still not reached.

Patient case complexity, interventions with overlapping outcomes and a chequered evidence base history for this population are offered as explanations for this finding alongside limitations with the Delphi method.

Based on the consensus for essential elements derived from research evidence and patient experience, high-secure hospital services might consider those practices and interventions that experts agreed were therapeutic options for reducing risk of offending, improving interpersonal skills and therapeutic interactions with patients, and mental health restoration.

The study triangulates what works research evidence from this type of forensic setting and is the first to use a Delphi survey in an attempt to collate this information.

The social climate of psychiatric institutions correlates with multiple outcomes related to staff and patients. Research into social climate in Learning Disability services is limited. Staff and patients in Learning Disability services have documented both positive and negative experiences. No research has directly compared the social climate of Learning Disability and non-Learning Disability psychiatric services. The purpose of this paper is to understand how these compare. The study will also compare staff and patient views of social climate and the impact of security on social climate in Learning Disability services.

A total of 64 patients and 73 staff, from Learning Disability and non-Learning Disability psychiatric hospitals completed the Essen Climate Evaluation Schema (EssenCES) measure of social climate.

Patients in Learning Disability and non-Learning Disability services did not differ in their perceptions of social climate. Staff in non-Learning Disability services had a more positive perception of social climate than staff in Learning Disability services. Patients and staff did not differ in their views on climate. Security was negatively related to patients’ Experienced Safety.

The findings suggest that staff perceive that the deficits associated with Learning Disabilities may limit patients’ therapeutic experience and relationships with their peers. Despite this, patients with Learning Disabilities feel supported by their peers, have positive views of the treatment process and feel as safe as non-Learning Disabled psychiatric patients.

This article describes a process undertaken to develop a set of commissioning principles to support the commissioning of secure learning disability services across England. The principles, shaped around the 11 competencies laid down in the World Class Commissioning competencies framework (Department of Health, 2008a), were produced following a scoping exercise that looked at provision and commissioning of secure learning disability services within each strategic health authority (SHA) area in England. Specific details were collected about types of services provided, including detailed service specification, quality indicators, how these (specialist) services link with local services (secure and non secure) and cost of services. Information collected about commissioning concentrated on strategic vision, practical commissioning arrangements, how the quality of services was monitored, how access to services was controlled and how ‘secure’ service users are reintegrated back into local (non secure) services and communities. This scoping exercise was augmented by qualitative data obtained from interview with a group of former service users. Themes generated through the interviews were integrated within the general guidance. A quality assurance framework based on the World Class Commissioning Competencies is proposed, against which specialist and local commissioners can benchmark their current commissioning arrangements.

Medium secure units were designed to treat patients for up to three years, but some patients spend longer in acute medium secure settings which in general do not have a 'longer term focus'. The aim of this investigation was to assess and describe the needs of these patients. A survey questionnaire was designed and sent to responsible clinicians who had patients admitted at least five years previously to the Three Bridges Medium Secure Unit (males) in West London. Carer ratings using the Camberwell Assessment of Need: forensic version (CAN‐FOR) were completed by the primary nurse for each patient, complementing the survey questionnaire. Of 122 medium secure male patients 25 (21%) had been admitted at least five years before. We found high levels of co‐morbidity and treatment resistance. The CAN‐FOR revealed two groups, one with chronic challenging behaviour, treatment‐resistant mental illness and need for a high level of support, and another more able group not needing as much support but with a dependency on the hospital. It is considered here whether certain groups would benefit from a different approach or setting.

The aim of the present study is to explore the psychometric properties of the EssenCES measure (patient report) of social climate in a secure service for people with intellectual disabilities.

Patients (37 men, 14 women, Mean age=33.24 years, SD=11.29, age range: 18‐71 years) residing in a secure intellectual disabilities service completed the EssenCES as part of routine clinical practice.

Reliability analysis revealed acceptable reliability for all three subscales (α=0.76‐0.88). In order to consider one aspect of the construct validity of this measure, a predicted group difference regarding the impact of security level on ratings of social climate was investigated. Analysis revealed that social climate ratings were more positive on low secure wards than medium secure wards as measured by the combined EssenCES subscales F(3, 31)=4.71, p=0.008; Λ=0.69; η²=0.31, and the Experienced Safety subscale, F(1, 33)=7.41, p=0.01.

Future research should consider the link between social climate and treatment outcome within forensic secure intellectual disability services.

Results provide preliminary evidence to suggest that the EssenCES subscales (patient report) are reliable in this previously unconsidered population. However the validity of the measure is still unclear and requires further investigation.