Author:
Davoren Mary,Abidin Zareena,Naughton Leena,Gibbons Olivia,Nulty Andrea,Wright Brenda,Kennedy Harry G
Abstract
Abstract
Background
We set out to examine whether structured professional judgement instruments DUNDRUM-3 programme completion (D-3) and DUNDRUM-4 recovery (D-4) scales along with measures of risk, mental state and global function could distinguish between those forensic patients detained in a secure forensic hospital (not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to stand trial) who were subsequently discharged by a mental health review board. We also examined the interaction between these measures and risk, need for therapeutic security and eventual conditional discharge.
Methods
A naturalistic observational cohort study was carried out for 56 patients newly eligible for conditional discharge. Patients were rated using the D-3, D-4 and other scales including HCR-20, S-RAMM, START, SAPROF, PANSS and GAF and then observed over a period of twenty three months during which they were considered for conditional discharge by an independent Mental Health Review Board.
Results
The D-3 distinguished which patients were subsequently discharged by the Mental Health Review board (AUC = 0.902, p < 0.001) as did the D-4 (AUC = 0.848, p < 0.001). Item to outcome analysis showed each item of the D-3 and D-4 scales performed significantly better than random. The HCR-20 also distinguished those later discharged (AUC = 0.838, p < 0.001) as did the S-RAMM, START, SAPROF, PANSS and GAF. The D-3 and D-4 scores remained significantly lower (better) for those discharged even when corrected for the HCR-20 total score. Item to outcome analyses and logistic regression analysis showed that the strongest antecedents of discharge were the GAF and the DUNDRUM-3 programme completion scores.
Conclusions
Structured professional judgement instruments should improve the quality, consistency and transparency of clinical recommendations and decision making at mental health review boards. Further research is required to determine whether the DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery instruments predict those who are or are not recalled or re-offend after conditional discharge.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Psychiatry and Mental health
Reference29 articles.
1. Butler Committee: Report of the Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders. 1975, London: TSO (The Stationery Office)
2. Bailey S, McCulloch M: Patterns of reconviction in patients discharged directly to the community from a special hospital: implications for aftercare. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry. 1992, 3 (3): 445-461. 10.1080/09585189208409021.
3. Coid J, Hickey N, Kahtan N, Zhang T, Yang Y: Patients discharged from medium secure forensic psychiatry services: reconvictions and risk factors. Br J Psychiatry. 2007, 190: 223-229. 10.1192/bjp.bp.105.018788.
4. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT): The CPT standards. CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev 2006. http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/documents/eng-standards-prn.pdf
5. Dolan MC, Khawaja A: The HCR-20 and post-discharge outcome in male patients discharged from medium security in the UK. Aggress Behav. 2004, 30: 469-483. 10.1002/ab.20044.
Cited by
55 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献