Dataset Information

Characteristics of People Returned to Prison From Medium Secure Psychiatric Services in England and Wales: National Cohort Study

ABSTRACT:

Background

Little is known about people who are admitted to medium secure services (MSSs) from prison, including characteristics and factors that influence clinical pathways and subsequent discharge. We recently published the first study to establish the circumstances by which MSS “prison-transfer” patients are returned to prison. Of particular concern was the finding that a quarter of prison-transfer patients were returned to prison by Responsible Medical Officers (RMOs) because they were not engaging with treatment or were deemed too “high risk” to remain detained within the services, circumstances that would be unacceptable when considering discharge via a community care pathway. It is important to further explore the characteristics of people admitted to MSSs from prison, and to investigate how these may differ for individuals who are returned to prison, as compared to those discharged into the community.

Aim

(a) To describe the characteristics of prison-transfers who receive an RMO directed discharge from MSSs; and (b) to compare these characteristics by discharge destination; prison return and community discharge.

Methods

Prospective cohort comparative study: all prison-transfer patients discharged under the instruction of their RMO over a 6-month period, from 33 NHS medium secure units across England and Wales. Data on patient demographic, clinical and legal characteristics were extracted via full patient health record review and collateral information from clinicians was also obtained. This information was used to complete The Historical, Clinical and Risk-−20 items (HCR-20v3) and The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors (SAPROF). Individuals who were returned to prison were compared with those who were discharged to the community.

Results

Persons returned to prison represented a vulnerable group at time of discharge as compared to those discharged into the community and had a significantly shorter length of stay in MSSs. Over half of those returned to prison had a length of stay of <6 months. Individuals returned to prison displayed significantly more issues with psychological adjustment at time of discharge, and had a higher risk of future violence and a lower prevalence of protective factors that mitigate subsequent risks of relapse and reoffending.

Discussion

MSs in England and Wales are returning vulnerable individuals to prison in lieu of adequate aftercare services. The role of and responsibilities of MSSs as regards admissions from prison needs to be reconsidered.

SUBMITTER: Leonard S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9277066 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSome forensic patients in England remain in secure care for long, possibly unnecessarily prolonged, periods, raising significant ethical and resource issues. Research focused on the patients in secure care has examined quality of life and service provision but not the perspectives of patients experiencing long stays. This study explored how long stay patients experience secure care, what factors they felt influenced long stay, and its impact upon treatment engagement and motivation to progress.MethodsEmbedded within a larger epidemiological study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of forty long stay patients from two high and six medium secure hospitals. Long stay was defined as a 5 years stay in medium secure care or 10 years in high secure care, or 15 years in a combination of high and medium secure. Transcripts were subject to thematic analysis, and narrative analysis at individual case level to explore the relationship between emergent themes.ResultsFour themes emerged illustrating participants' attribution, outlook, approach, and readiness for change. A typology of four long stay stances was developed (dynamic acceptance, dynamic resistance, static acceptance, static resistance). These illustrate differences in the extent to which participants believed being in secure care helped them to get better, and actively work towards progression and leaving secure care. There were considerable differences in how patients adopting these stances attributed the reasons for their long stay, they viewed their future, and their motivation to progress. Negative perceptions arose from excessive restrictions, treatment repetition and changes in therapeutic relationships, leading some patients to exhibiting tokenistic engagement and low motivation to progress.ConclusionsPlanning care for long stay patients in secure psychiatric settings should take account of the differing stances patient's adopt towards engagement and progression. Service providers should be mindful of these stances and provide patients with individualised opportunities to progress through the secure care treatment pathway, avoiding treatment repetition and maintaining continuity in key professional relationships. Refocusing on quality of life may be appropriate for some long-term patients who are unwilling or unable to move on. For some long-term patients, purpose designed long stay setting may be appropriate.

Project description:BackgroundThe recent World Report on Disability highlighted violence as a leading cause of morbidity among disabled people. However, we know little about the extent to which people with disability experience different violence types, and associated health/economic costs. The recent introduction of disability measures into the England&Wales victimization survey provided an opportunity to address this gap.Methods and findingsAnalysis of the 2009/10 British Crime Survey (BCS), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of 44,398 adults living in residential households in England&Wales. Using multivariate logistic regression, we estimated the relative odds of being a victim of past-year violence (physical/sexual domestic or non-domestic violence) in people with disability compared to those without, after adjusting for socio-demographics, behavioural and area confounders. 1256/44398(2.4%) participants had one or more disabilities including mental illness ('mental illness') and 7781(13.9%) had one or more disabilities excluding mental illness ('non-mental disability'). Compared with the non-disabled, those with mental illness had adjusted relative odds (aOR) of 3.0(95% confidence interval (CI) 2.3-3.8) and those with non-mental disability had aOR of 1.8(95% CI: 1.5-2.2) of being a victim of past-year violence (with similar relative odds for domestic and non-domestic violence). Disabled victims were more likely to suffer mental ill health as a result of violence than non-disabled victims. The proportion of violence that could be attributed to the independent effect of disability in the general population was 7.5%(CI 5.7-9.3%), at an estimated cost of £1.51 billion. The main study limitation is the exclusion of institutionalised people with disability.ConclusionsPeople with disability are at increased risk of being victims of domestic and non-domestic violence, and of suffering mental ill health when victimized. The related public health and economic burden calls for an urgent assessment of the causes of this violence, and national policies on violence prevention in this vulnerable group.