Mental Health Services in a U.S. Prison During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Pandemics pose unique risks to people in correctional facilities. Among other vulnerabilities, incarcerated populations often have high rates of mental disorders and substance use disorders, which may increase risks for morbidity and mortality during a pandemic. California's San Quentin State Prison (SQSP) experienced multiple outbreaks during the 1918 influenza pandemic, and, a century later, the prison faces a new pandemic. This Open Forum describes the modification of mental health services in SQSP during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors explore the challenges of reducing risks of viral contagion while maintaining high-quality mental health care in a correctional setting.

Ferguson v. Florida: rationally understanding competence to be executed?

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed competency to be executed in Ford v. Wainwright, holding that execution of the insane violates the Eighth Amendment. More than 20 years later, the Court defined this standard in its landmark decision in Panetti v. Quarterman. The Panetti ruling held that an inmate's factual awareness of the reasons for his execution was not sufficient to determine his competence. The Court advised that a prisoner must have a rational understanding of the reasons for his death sentence. The Panetti Court declined to establish specific competency criteria and acknowledged that rational understanding is difficult to define. Following Ford and Panetti, lower courts have struggled to apply the standards articulated in these two landmark cases. This struggle was recently highlighted in Ferguson v. Florida (2013), a case that received substantial attention and was decided by the Florida Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court. Ferguson featured majority and concurring opinions that, although consistent in their ultimate conclusions, expressed differing interpretations of their application of the Panetti standard. Although the Panetti Court declined to set a national standard for competency to be executed, Ferguson v. Florida is a cautionary reminder that more tangible guidelines are necessary for consistent application of a conclusion that cannot be revised.

Firesetting, arson, pyromania, and the forensic mental health expert.

Firesetting is a common behavior that is frequently encountered by forensic mental health experts when consulting on criminal and civil legal cases. Despite its prevalence, minimal attention has been paid in the literature to conducting firesetting-related forensic evaluations. In this article, we discuss the differences in the behavior of firesetting, the crime of arson, and the diagnosis of pyromania. The literature on adult firesetter characteristics, classification systems, recidivism, and treatment is reviewed. Several types of common criminal and civil firesetting-related evaluations referred to forensic mental health experts are discussed, along with case examples illustrating how the courts have approached such assessments. To our knowledge, this article is the first in 20 years to address firesetting-related forensic evaluations within the psychiatry literature. It also represents the first comprehensive discussion of civil evaluations related to firesetting.

Psychiatric assessment of aggressive patients: a violent attack on a resident.

Aggressive patients often target psychiatrists and psychiatric residents, yet most clinicians are insufficiently trained in violence risk assessment and management. Consequently, many clinicians are reluctant to diagnose and treat aggressive and assaultive features in psychiatric patients and instead focus attention on other axis I mental disorders with proven pharmacological treatment in the hope that this approach will reduce the aggressive behavior. Unclear or nonexistent reporting policies or feelings of self-blame may impede clinicians from reporting assaults, thus limiting our knowledge of the impact of, and best response to, aggression in psychiatric patients. The authors pre-sent the case of a young adult inpatient with a long history of antisocial and assaultive behavior who struck and injured a psychiatric resident. With this case in mind, the authors discuss the diagnostic complexities related to violent patients, the importance of assessing violence risk when initially evaluating a patient, and the relevance of risk assessment for treatment considerations and future management. This report illustrates common deficiencies in the prevention of violence on inpatient psychiatric units and in the reporting and response to an assault, and has implications for residency and clinician training.