暂无摘要。

It is important to investigate the needs, experiences, and outcomes of older forensic mental health inpatients. In this consensus document, we offer practitioners working with older forensic inpatients recommendations to meet the unique older-age-related needs of this group.
We report on the findings of a scoping review of service provision and age-responsive interventions for this population. We complement this with a review of qualitative studies investigating staff and patient views on age-responsive inpatient care.
The guidance synthesizes this evidence into sections on: epidemiological studies of demographic, clinical, and legal profiles; qualitative studies; investigations of patient need; evidence for interventions tailored to this patient group; future directions for research; and finally, recommendations for practice. Forensic patients over the age of 50 years have a different set of psychological and physical health needs from their peers. There is a dearth of dedicated interventions and support to assist patients through secure services and into the community.
We suggest service providers involve older patients in treatment and service organization decisions, adapt interventions to be responsive to this group, train staff to recognize physical vulnerabilities and cognitive decline, and embrace methods of communication developed in other areas of care, such as dementia Care.

Negative attitudes towards individuals with a mental illness and/or criminal background are widely studied, but empirical interest in the attitudes towards patients with a forensic mental health status is lacking. Negative attitudes among mental healthcare (MHC) professionals can have a significant impact on treatment outcomes and hence, affect patients\' rehabilitation. This study will elaborate an instrument to assess stigmatising attitudes among community MHC professionals towards patients with a forensic mental health status.
The instrument will be developed by means of a Delphi study and depart from pre-existing instruments that assess public and professional stigma towards individuals with a mental illness and/or criminal background. Relevant instruments were identified through a targeted literature review. A longlist of items has been selected for the Delphi survey. Five expert panels (ie, academic experience in stigma or forensic MHC, clinical experience in community or forensic MHC or patient experience in forensic and community MHC) will be asked to score the relevance of each item on a 7-point Likert scale and to agree on the wording (yes/no). Participants will be provided with the option to suggest additional items or alternative wording. Adapted Delphi methodology will be applied with an expectation of at least three rounds to achieve consensus: ≥60% of the participants of at least four of five expert panels rank the item in the top three (inclusion) or bottom three (exclusion). Items will be reworded for a consecutive round based on a \'yes minus no\' score and participants\' suggestions.
This study has been approved by the ethics committee of Fundación Sant Joan de Déu. Dissemination of results will be through peer-reviewed publications, presentations and (inter-)national academic conferences. A summary of the results will be shared with the participants and key persons in community and forensic MHC.

Patients with substance use disorders (SUD) and co-occurring mental disorders (COD) within forensic psychiatric care often suffer poor treatment outcomes and high rates of criminal recidivism, substance use, and psychiatric problems. This study aimed to describe the conditions for, and mental health care staff\'s experiences with, implementing integrated SUD-focused clinical guidelines, including assessment and treatment for patients with COD at a high-security forensic mental health services (FMHS) facility in Sweden.
Study staff conducted nineteen semi-structured interviews with health care staff experienced in administering the new SUD assessment and treatment. The study conducted a thematic analysis to describe the health care staff\'s experiences with these guidelines and suggestions for improvement.
Most participants reported appreciation for the implementation of clinical guidelines with an SUD focus, an area they considered to have previously been neglected, but also noted the need for more practical guidance in the administration of the assessments. Participants reported the dual roles of caregiver and warden as difficult to reconcile and a similar, hindering division was also present in the health care staff\'s attitudes toward SUD. Participants\' reports also described an imbalance prior to the implementation, whereby SUD was rarely assessed but treatment was still initiated. One year after the implementation, an imbalance still existed, but in reverse: SUD was more frequently assessed, but treatment was difficult to initiate.
Despite indications of some ambivalence among staff regarding the necessity of the assessment and treatment guidelines, many participants considered it helpful to have a structured way to assess and treat SUD in this patient group. The imbalance between frequent assessment and infrequent treatment may have been due to difficulties transitioning patients across the \"gap\" between assessment and treatment. To bridge this gap, mental health services should make efforts to increase patients\' insight concerning their SUD, flexibility in the administration of treatment, and the motivational skills of the health care staff working with this patient group. Participants considered important for enhancing treatment quality a shared knowledge base regarding SUD, and increased collaboration between different professions and between in- and outpatient services.

Treatment guidelines (GL) in psychiatry represent a useful and functional tool to be explored and enhanced in terms of the contribution of patient care and the promotion of scientific improvement. However, they show some limitations, both clinical and forensic. The objective of this paper is to examine the objectives, the clinical limitations and the applicability of the GL on professional liability (forensic aspects). From a clinical point of view, the GL have objectives that are functional to the promotion of physical and mental health, among which the constitutional observance of the right to health, the improvement of public health, the implementation of best clinical practices, the promotion of scientific research, the professional training of operators in the field of physical and mental health. However, GL cannot replace a contextualized clinical judgment. GL must be applied, in the single clinical case, in light of their multiple criticalities, including the limits of the methodology used for their formulation, the differences between the GL\' recommendations, the difficulty of their application in daily clinical practice, the lack of specific treatment interventions. From a forensic psychiatric point of view, GL, as currently conceived, cannot be used in terms of professional liability without their interpretation on a legal basis with forensic psychiatric methodology, similarly to any other clinical and scientific information, with its qualifications and criticalities.

The Cal-DSH Diversion Guidelines provide 10 general guidelines that jurisdictions should consider when developing diversion programs for individuals with a serious mental illness (SMI) who become involved in the criminal justice system. Screening for SMI in a jail setting is reviewed. In addition, important treatment interventions for SMI and substance use disorders are highlighted with the need to address criminogenic risk factors highlighted.

Forensic-psychiatric patients reoffending or absconding during the leave granted to them (hereafter referred to as \"granted leave\") have gained increased attention by researchers and the general public. The patients\' right to freedom on the one hand and the need for protection of the general public from serious harm on the other hand represent broadly discussed ethical issues. Thus, demands on quality regarding decisions on patients\' granted leaves might be high. Despite such requirements, research on decision-making processes regarding granting leave in forensic psychiatry is very limited and focuses primarily on particular aspects. The present study aims at providing a first overview of the decision-making processes regarding granted leave in forensic psychiatry as a whole. Furthermore, the link between the particular steps of the process and absconding should be explored. In this way, the study results should contribute to provide a theoretical framework for the development of guidelines concerning granted leave in forensic psychiatry. A combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches will be used to collect data: information about risk assessment, decisions on granted leave, and documentation systems in forensic psychiatry will be collected via semi-structured interviews and quantified for further analyses using a checklist developed for this study; data on the implementation of risk assessment tools and documented patient information will be obtained via two self-constructed questionnaires; information about the absolute number of abscondences per hospital will be obtained from the Bavarian Authority for Forensic Commitment. The sample will include staff from all 13 forensic-psychiatric hospitals in Bavaria (Germany) comprising six professional groups: hospital directors, security officers, complementary therapists, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and nursing staff. In each hospital, at least one member of each professional group should participate in the study. In total, 151 interviews will be held. As the study goals are descriptive, there are no pre-formulated hypotheses. Developing guidelines would be the first step towards further standardization of the granted leave decisional process in forensic psychiatry and to make it more transparent for patients, staff members, hospital directors, and the government.

The Mastrogiovanni case was a revolutionary case in the field of Italian forensic psychiatry. A recent judgment of the Court of Cassation has defined what the legal limits of mechanical restraint should be. On the other hand, even today, there is a gap in the scientific community about the presence of guidelines governing mechanical restraint. It is probably time to create specific guidelines to protect the psychiatric patient and the mental health worker.

The freedom-restraining measures used during Involuntary Health Treatment (IHT) are highly criticized in the medical community. Physical restraint techniques are currently largely used worldwide in Psychiatry. The use of restraints against the patient\'s will can be considered a serious intrusion of basic human rights and even an act of violence against the patient. In all cases, the restraint should not lead to injuries or damage to the patient\'s health and should be implemented with a respect of the human rights and dignity. Generally, the use of restraint should be considered as a last resource, when all the other methods have failed. Since it represents the principal freedom-limitation measure, it should be constantly monitored by physicians who apply these methods. The case of a 58 years-old white male, affected by chronic schizoaffective disorder and cannabinoid dependence, was under involuntary medical treatment as a consequence of antisocial behavior. During the IHT he suffered firstly a pharmacological restraint and then a physical restraint in order to suppress a slight state of agitation. The patient was completely blocked to the bed for more than 80 hours and died after three days of hospitalization. The aim of this study is to evaluate the suitability of restrictive methods for psychiatric patients in order to establish specific rules to prevent abuse of restraint techniques and even to help physicians to treat psychiatric patients.

The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL) recently published guidelines for forensic assessment intended for psychiatrists and other clinicians working in medicolegal roles, or performing evaluations and offering opinions in relation to legal or regulatory matters. Although these guidelines do not establish a singular standard for forensic evaluation, they are intended to inform practice. Although nuances pertaining to any given case and the pertinent medicolegal issues involved will require professional judgment as to how best to conduct any particular evaluation, the guidelines do offer many helpful tenets and guiding principles that are broadly applicable. Psychiatrists and other clinicians performing forensic evaluations need to be aware of these guidelines and should strive to incorporate them as appropriate. In this column we offer a brief synopsis of the approach to the forensic psychiatric assessment based upon the AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Assessment.