There is a growing body of international research investigating the impact of patient suicide on mental health professionals. The experience of losing a patient to suicide can have a significant and, in some cases, long-lasting (negative) impact on mental health professionals. However, the nature and extent of the impact on prison staff or forensic mental health professionals in particular is less clear. This narrative review summarises both quantitative and qualitative studies and key findings in this area, focusing on the above professions. A literature search was conducted using PsychInfo and Google Scholar, covering the period from 2000 onwards. The vast majority of findings relate to mental health professionals in general. We were unable to identify any published reports on the responses of forensic psychiatric staff. The majority of identified studies in the prison context are qualitative. Studies from German-speaking countries are particularly scarce in both the prison and mental health contexts. We conclude that there is a profound lack of knowledge about the impact of client/patient suicide on the subgroups of (German) prison and forensic psychiatric staff. Clearly, more research is needed on both the nature and extent of the impact, as well as on the specific organisational and supportive factors that help to mitigate the negative effects of suicide.

Pathological dissociation is relatively common in the United States and may be associated with violent or criminal behavior. Dissociative Disorders, especially Dissociative Identity Disorder, are considered controversial diagnoses by some in the psychiatric and legal professions. Individuals who offend during dissociative states may not be criminally responsible if they meet the legal standard for insanity, however, insanity pleas based on dissociative symptoms are rare. This review examined Federal appellate case law for potential legal barriers to the insanity defense for dissociative conditions and any restrictions imposed on related expert evidence. Few rulings directly addressed these questions but there do not appear to be any unique barriers for dissociation-related insanity pleas. Some cases provided valuable insights regarding the admission of expert evidence, effective expert testimony, and the role of defense counsel.

Previous research has suggested that the core features of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) may contribute to offending behaviours and increased vulnerability within the Criminal Justice System. To date, there is a paucity of evidence assessing the effectiveness of interventions for offending behaviour in adults with ASD but without co-occurring intellectual disability (ID) across a broad range of forensic settings. The lack of robust evidence is concerning, as limited effectiveness may contribute to an increased likelihood of prolonged incarceration, particularly in the most restrictive settings. A PRISMA systematic review was conducted with a narrative synthesis to: (a) evaluate the evidence of the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing recidivism, (b) assess whether the core features of ASD impact the effectiveness of these interventions, and (c) identify additional factors that may affect the effectiveness of interventions within this population. Seven studies involving ten male participants were identified. The findings suggest that interventions for offending behaviours in adults with ASD without intellectual disability (ID) are largely inadequate, and that core ASD features need to be considered. Additionally, a complex interplay of risk factors potentially impacting intervention effectiveness was suggested. Limitations include heterogeneity across intervention types, measures of effectiveness, and what constitutes effectiveness. Despite the limited number of studies and data quality, the review aligns with a growing body of literature highlighting vulnerability and a need for evidence-based interventions for people with ASD. The review also discusses the broader implications of ineffective interventions.

BACKGROUND: Forensic psychiatry is often associated with long admissions and has a high cost of care. There is little known about factors influencing length of stay (LOS), and no previous systematic review has synthesised the available data. This paper aims to identify factors influencing the LOS in forensic psychiatry hospitals to inform care and interventions that may reduce the length of admissions.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching major databases, including PubMed, EMBASE and PsycInfo, from inception until May 2022. Observational studies conducted in forensic hospitals that examined associations between variables of interest and LOS were included. Following data extraction, the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale was used for quality appraisal. No meta-analysis was conducted due to heterogeneity of information; a quantitative measure to assess the strength of evidence was developed and reported.
RESULTS: A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria out of 1606 citations. A detailed quantitative synthesis was performed using robust criteria. Having committed homicide/attempted homicide, a criminal legal status with restrictions, and a diagnosis of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders were all associated with longer LOS. Higher Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores were associated with a shorter LOS.
CONCLUSIONS: High-quality research examining factors associated with LOS in forensic psychiatry is lacking, and studies are heterogeneous. No modifiable characteristics were identified, and thus, practice recommendations were not made. There is an increasing necessity to understand the factors associated with longer admissions to inform care and increase success in reintegration and rehabilitation. This paper provides recommendations for future research.

BACKGROUND: Risk of violence is closely associated with aggression propensity. However, there is a lack of research to explain the mechanisms behind this association, especially among the patients of forensic secure facilities. This review aimed to identify and synthesize the available literature concerning the intervening factors (mediating or moderating factors) in the relationship between the risk of violence and aggressive behavior in forensic secure facilities.
METHODS: Two electronic academic databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) using specific keywords as search terms derived from the PCC framework with no specific time limit. The search strategy was developed based on the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and utilised the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Data on the risk of violence, intervening factors, and aggressive behavior were extracted from the included studies. Further analysis was performed whereby similar data were grouped and synthesised together.
RESULTS: The initial search produced 342 studies. However, only nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The nine studies included 1,068 adult forensic inpatients from various psychiatric hospitals. Only mediation studies reported significant mechanisms of influence between the risk of violence and aggressive behavior. It is postulated that the human agency factor may be the underlying factor that influences a person\'s functioning and the subsequent series of events between the risk of violence and aggression.
CONCLUSIONS: In light of the paucity of evidence in this area, a generalised conclusion cannot be established. More studies are warranted to address the gaps before conclusive recommendations can be proposed to the relevant stakeholders.

As Forensic Psychology continues to expand as an independent field, professionals regularly resort to psychological assessment tools to assess people involved within the justice system. The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is a 344-item, self-report inventory that aims to provide meaningful information for diagnosis and clinical decision-making, specifically relating to psychopathology, personality, and psychosocial environment. Its applicability in forensic settings has been increasingly recognized on account of its benefits in comparison to other self-report inventories (e.g., MMPI-2, MCMI-III), since it includes scales that are relevant to forensic settings (e.g., violence risk levels, psychopathy, substance abuse), and the existence of profile distortion indicators is useful when dealing with highly defensive and/or malingering populations. The goal of this paper is to conduct a thorough review of the PAI\'s utility in forensic settings, by focusing on the relevant forensic constructs assessed by the PAI (e.g., personality disorders, psychosis, substance abuse, aggression, recidivism risk, and response distortion), as well as its application to offender and inmate populations, intimate partner violence contexts, family law cases, and forensic professionals. Overall, the PAI continues to gather international recognition and its relevance and usefulness in forensic settings is generally accepted and acknowledged.

Purpose:The COVID-19 pandemic prompted significant challenges in clinical forensic medicine and forensic psychiatry and emphasised the need for sustainable service delivery. Both fields faced difficulties in maintaining services due to COVID-19 precautions and limited referrals. This review examined the changes in forensic practices, aiming to understand their impact and learn from them to inform future strategies. Methods: A search was conducted across Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid Emcare and PubMed, and webpages of governments and other organisations. Studies were included if they assessed any change that occurred in clinical forensic medicine or forensic psychiatry during the pandemic. A narrative review with a systematic approach was undertaken. Results: A total of 27 articles were included. There was a notable decrease in the volume of forensic assessments in early 2020. The numbers gradually rebounded with the easing of restrictions yet have not fully returned to pre COVID-19 levels. Telemedicine and COVID-19 precautions were widely incorporated into forensic services, which were seen to disrupt the patient-doctor dynamics, restrict the setting of examinations and complicate work processes and sample handling steps. Conclusion: This is the first review that describes the pandemic-driven changes in clinical forensic medicine and forensic psychiatry in respect of case trends and incorporation of COVID-19 precautions. The pandemic emphasised the need for adaptability and adoption of new assessment approaches in forensic services. Technology, like telemedicine, emerged as a valuable tool, enhancing accessibility for individuals in remote or high-risk areas. It is necessary to review the changes and re-evaluate their impacts in the post COVID-19 era.

UNASSIGNED: Containment (e.g. physical restraint and seclusion) is used frequently in mental health inpatient settings. Containment is associated with serious psychological and physical harms. De-escalation (psychosocial techniques to manage distress without containment) is recommended to manage aggression and other unsafe behaviours, for example self-harm. All National Health Service staff are trained in de-escalation but there is little to no evidence supporting training\'s effectiveness.
UNASSIGNED: Objectives were to: (1) qualitatively investigate de-escalation and identify barriers and facilitators to use across the range of adult acute and forensic mental health inpatient settings; (2) co-produce with relevant stakeholders an intervention to enhance de-escalation across these settings; (3) evaluate the intervention\'s preliminary effect on rates of conflict (e.g. violence, self-harm) and containment (e.g. seclusion and physical restraint) and understand barriers and facilitators to intervention effects.
UNASSIGNED: Intervention development informed by Experience-based Co-design and uncontrolled pre and post feasibility evaluation. Systematic reviews and qualitative interviews investigated contextual variation in use and effects of de-escalation. Synthesis of this evidence informed co-design of an intervention to enhance de-escalation. An uncontrolled feasibility trial of the intervention followed. Clinical outcome data were collected over 24 weeks including an 8-week pre-intervention phase, an 8-week embedding and an 8-week post-intervention phase.
UNASSIGNED: Ten inpatient wards (including acute, psychiatric intensive care, low, medium and high secure forensic) in two United Kingdom mental health trusts.
UNASSIGNED: In-patients, clinical staff, managers, carers/relatives and training staff in the target settings.
UNASSIGNED: Enhancing de-escalation techniques in adult acute and forensic units: Development and evaluation of an evidence-based training intervention (EDITION) interventions included de-escalation training, two novel models of reflective practice, post-incident debriefing and feedback on clinical practice, collaborative prescribing and ward rounds, practice changes around admission, shift handovers and the social and physical environment, and sensory modulation and support planning to reduce patient distress.
UNASSIGNED: Outcomes measured related to feasibility (recruitment and retention, completion of outcome measures), training outcomes and clinical and safety outcomes. Conflict and containment rates were measured via the Patient-Staff Conflict Checklist. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Attitudes to Containment Measures Questionnaire, Attitudes to Personality Disorder Questionnaire, Violence Prevention Climate Scale, Capabilities, Opportunities, and Motivation Scale, Coercion Experience Scale and Perceived Expressed Emotion in Staff Scale.
UNASSIGNED: Completion rates of the proposed primary outcome were very good at 68% overall (excluding remote data collection), which increased to 76% (excluding remote data collection) in the post-intervention period. Secondary outcomes had high completion rates for both staff and patient respondents. Regression analyses indicated that reductions in conflict and containment were both predicted by study phase (pre, embedding, post intervention). There were no adverse events or serious adverse events related to the intervention.
UNASSIGNED: Intervention and data-collection procedures were feasible, and there was a signal of an effect on the proposed primary outcome.
UNASSIGNED: Uncontrolled design and self-selecting sample.
UNASSIGNED: Definitive trial determining intervention effects.
UNASSIGNED: This trial is registered as ISRCTN12826685 (closed to recruitment).
UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/101/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 3. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
UNASSIGNED: Conflict (a term used to describe a range of potentially unsafe events including violence, self-harm, rule-breaking, medication refusal, illicit drug and alcohol use and absconding) in mental health settings causes serious physical and psychological harm. Containment interventions which are intended to minimise harm from violence (and other conflict behaviours) such as restraint, seclusion and rapid tranquilisation can result in serious injuries to patients and, occasionally, death. Involvement in physical restraint is the most common cause of serious physical injury to National Health Service mental health staff in the United Kingdom. Violence to staff results in substantial costs to the health service in sickness and litigation payments. Containment interventions are also expensive (e.g. physical restraint costs mental health services £6.1 million and enhanced observations £88 million per annum). Despite these harms, recent findings indicate containment interventions such as seclusion and physical restraint continue to be used frequently in mental health settings. Clinical trials have demonstrated that interventions can reduce containment without increasing violence and other conflict behaviours (e.g. verbal aggression, self-harm). Substantial cost-savings result from reducing containment use. De-escalation, as an intervention to manage aggression and potential violence without restrictive practices, is a core intervention. \'De-escalation\' is a collective term for a range of psychosocial techniques designed to reduce distress and anger without the need to use \'containment\' interventions (measures to prevent harm through restricting a person\'s ability to act independently, such as physical restraint and seclusion). Evidence indicates that de-escalation involves ensuring conditions for safe intervention and effective communication are established, clarifying and attempting to resolve the patient\'s concern, conveyance of respect and empathy and regulating unhelpful emotions such as anxiety and anger. Despite featuring prominently in clinical guidelines and training policy domestically and internationally and being a component of mandatory National Health Service training, there is no evidence-based model on which to base training. A systematic review of de-escalation training effectiveness and acceptability conducted in 2015 concluded: (1) no model of training has demonstrated effectiveness in a sufficiently rigorous evaluation, (2) the theoretical underpinning of evaluated models was often unclear and (3) there has been inadequate investigation of the characteristics of training likely to enhance acceptability and uptake. Despite all National Health Service staff being trained in de-escalation there have been no high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of training. Feasibility studies are needed to establish whether it is possible to conduct a definitive trial that can determine the clinical, safety and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.
Mental health hospitals are stressful places for patients and staff. Patients are often detained against their will, in places that are noisy, unfamiliar and frightening. Violence and self-injury happen quite frequently. Sometimes staff physically restrain patients or isolate patients in locked rooms (called seclusion). While these measures might sometimes be necessary to maintain safety, they are psychologically and physically harmful. To help reduce the use of these unsafe measures, staff are trained in communication skills designed to reduce anger and distress without using physical force. Professionals call these skills ‘de-escalation’. Although training in de-escalation is mandatory, there is no good evidence to say whether it works or not, or what specific techniques staff should be trained in. The Enhancing de-escalation techniques in adult acute and forensic units: Development and evaluation of an evidence-based training intervention (EDITION) project aimed to develop and evaluate a de-escalation training programme informed by research evidence. We interviewed over one hundred people who either worked in or received treatment in a mental health hospital. These people were clear that the training should target key sources of interpersonal and environmental stress that prevent de-escalation from working. We also reviewed all the scientific studies on de-escalation and training, aiming to identify the elements of training that are most likely to increase use of de-escalation. Then, in partnership with current mental health service users and clinical staff, we developed the training programme. Training was delivered to more than 270 staff working in 10 different wards in mental health hospitals. We measured rates of violence, self-injury and use of physical restraint and seclusion 8 weeks before staff received training and 16 weeks after they received training (24 weeks of data collection in total). Analysis of these data showed that these unsafe events were occurring significantly less frequently after training than they were before training, which raised the possibility that the training was helping to reduce harm.

BACKGROUND: Introduction of guidance by the National Institute for Health Research has led to an increase in participation by people with \'lived experience\' of mental health problems. However, some researchers have questioned the extent to which involvement has been meaningful, expressing concerns that involvement is impeded by the structure and culture of academia. A prior review of literature to 2016 provided little evidence of active engagement.
OBJECTIVE: To find out from published literature how patient and public involvement in designing and or conducting research has been used in forensic mental health settings, prisons or probation since the last review period.
METHODS: A systematic scoping review of research published in academic journals between 2016 and February 2023 was completed using terms for research activity, involvement of people with experience of receiving services and health or justice systems to search three databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO. We used the Guidance for Reporting Patient and Public Involvement in Research Tool to support data extraction and to summarise our own service user involvement in this study.
RESULTS: From 675 unique titles retrieved, 17 were eligible for inclusion, covering 16 unique studies. Most of the included research was by/with people who had prison experience. Only two studies had been conducted by/with people who had experience of secure hospital wards/forensic mental health services. Details of how people with lived experience had contributed to the research were scarce, but in 8 studies they had been involved throughout and included in the authorship group.
CONCLUSIONS: Whilst this review identifies pockets of good practice, meaningful engagement in forensic mental health research seems to remain rare, at least as reported in papers published in academic journals. Further research is required into whether this reflects real limits on inclusion, as we suspect, or such full integration that such reporting is not regarded as necessary or desirable, which we doubt. We urge journal editors to routinely ask authors to include information about how people with lived experience have been involved in any published research and the nature and extent of the influence they had. This may help to develop the evidence base and guard against tokenistic involvement.

In Canada, ensuring public safety, and the safety and well-being of accused individuals under the jurisdiction of the provincial review board are very important. While previous studies have reported a significant risk of self-harming behaviors (non-suicidal self-injury and suicide attempt) in forensic psychiatric settings, no large population study has assessed any relationship between forensic system-related factors and self-harming behaviors. A better understanding of these factors can help clinicians implement protective measures to mitigate self-harming behaviors or actions.
Using the Ontario Review Board (ORB) database covering 2014-2015 period (n = 1211, mean age = 42.5 ± 13.37 years, males = 86.1%), we analyzed the prevalence and factors associated with self-harming behaviors, emphasizing the characterization of the forensic system-related factors (ORB status, legal status, type of offense, previous criminal history, and victim relationship). The relationships between the forensic system-related factors and self-harming behaviors were explored using five separate logistic regression models, controlling for clinical and sociodemographic characteristics.
Approximately 4% of the individuals in the forensic system over the study period engaged in self-harming behaviors Among the studied patients, individuals determined to be unfit to stand trial and inpatients were significantly more likely to have self-harming behaviors. There was no significant relationship between the type of offence, victim relationship, and previous criminal history with self-harming behavior.
Forensic psychiatry inpatients should have close observation, screening, monitoring, and individual tailored management strategies for self-harming behaviors. The findings of this study indicate that forensic system-related factors, especially those that pertain to the status of individuals in the forensic system (i.e., unfit to stand trial and being an inpatient) are more responsible for self-harming behaviors among forensic patients in Ontario.