Mental Healthcare Practices from Entry to Release across Southeastern Jails.

Background: Individuals with mental illnesses are disproportionately incarcerated in jails, which have become de facto mental health institutions across the US. Yet there is limited research describing mental healthcare practices from entry to release among multiple jails and states. Methods: We conducted 34 semi-structured interviews with jail healthcare personnel across five Southeastern states. Results: We report results on challenges and practices related to mental health staffing, screening, additional evaluations and services, and discharge planning in jails. Initial mental health screenings were often restricted to the detection of suicidality and history of treatment and medications as opposed to current mental health symptoms. Use of validated mental health screening forms was uncommon. We found delays in care between the initial health screening and being evaluated by a mental health professional. Most jails reported primary responsibilities for mental health care as preventing suicides and managing psychiatric medications. Jails reported mental health care as challenging to manage, with high volumes of individuals with mental health needs, yet limited resources, especially regarding staffing. Discharge planning was limited despite reports of poor continuity of mental healthcare. Conclusions: Jails have a constitutional duty and opportunity to provide adequate healthcare to individuals with mental illnesses, yet practices are insufficient and resources are limited across jails. Based on our findings, we recommend 1) greater adoption and revisions of jail health standards 2) system improvement that expands identification of mental illnesses and quicker, less variable follow-up mental health evaluations, 3) improved linkages and supports for community resources that prevent incarceration of this population.

Provision of health care services related to substance use disorder in southern U.S. jails.

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. jail population has more than tripled since the 1980s, and today, one out of every three incarcerated individuals is being held in a county or city jail. Substance use disorders (SUD) are overrepresented in incarcerated populations; however, little recent research has examined the availability and quality of SUD-related health care services in jail settings. Incarcerated individuals may engage with a variety of SUD-related health care services, including: screening and withdrawal management at entry, SUD treatment or other brief health care interventions while they are being held, and overdose prevention education and reentry planning at release. METHODS: We conducted a thematic analysis of qualitative data from 34 interviews conducted with 38 personnel from a purposive sample of jails that varied in size and rurality within a five-state study area. The goals of the analyses were to: 1) describe jail health care services for SUD and barriers to service provision, 2) compare current practices to best practice recommendations, and 3) provide context by describing factors at the jail and community level that influence service provision, such as access to resources. RESULTS: Interviewees described wide variability in both availability and comprehensiveness of SUD-related health care services. Most adhered to federal guidance for supervising withdrawal from alcohol and benzodiazepines, but not opioids. Medication for addiction treatment was most widely available for pregnant women and rarely for other individuals. Roughly one third of the jails in our sample provided behavioral group or individual therapy with a licensed counselor and roughly one quarter offered self-help groups. Very few jails provided comprehensive re-entry planning and support. Jail staff reported specific barriers to providing each type of service, as well as limiting contextual factors. Despite observed increases in case volume, jail health care staff did not necessarily receive any additional funding or staff members. Overall, lack of investment in mental and behavioral health care contributed to recidivism and feelings of hopelessness among staff. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several areas where jails could improve SUD-related health care services. Many of the barriers to improvement-organizational buy-in, cost/budgeting, staffing, logistics-were not under the control of health care staff. Implementing changes will require support from local governments, jails administrators, private health care companies, and other local health care providers.

Jail Healthcare Staffing in the US Southeast: a Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Jails annually incarcerate millions of people with health problems, yet jail healthcare services have not been well described. OBJECTIVE: To describe jail healthcare staffing. DESIGN: Phone-administered survey conducted October 2020 to May 2021. SETTING: County jails in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. PARTICIPANTS: Jail personnel "most knowledgeable" about jail healthcare. MAIN MEASURES: Weekly on-site healthcare coverage rate (hours per 100 incarcerated person-weeks [IPWs]) by personnel type; telemedicine rates and detention officers' healthcare duties. KEY RESULTS: Survey response rate was 73% (254/346). Among surveyed jails, 71% had on-site non-psychiatric providers (e.g., physicians, physician assistants) (median of 3.3 h per 100 IPWs); 90% had on-site nursing (median of 57.0 h per 100 IPWs) including 50% with on-site registered nurses (median of 25 h per 100 IPWs) and 70% with on-site licensed practical nurses (median of 52 h per 100 IPWs); 9% had on-site psychiatric providers (median of 1.6 h per 100 PWs). Telemedicine was used for primary care in 13% of jails (median 2.1 h per 100 IPW); for mental healthcare in 55% (median 2.1 h per 100 IPW); and for other specialties in 5% (median 1.0 h per 100 IPW). In 81% of jails, officers conducted medical intake and in 58% assessed urgency of medical requests (i.e., "sick call"). The number of officers' healthcare responsibilities increased inversely with weekly nursing coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 30% of surveyed jails routinely lacked on-site healthcare providers and in most other jails providers' on-site presence was modest. Jails relied heavily on LPNs and officers for care, resulting in missed opportunities for care and potentially endangering incarcerated persons.

"We don't wanna birth it here": A qualitative study of Southern jail personnel approaches to pregnancy.

Each year, approximately 55,000 pregnant people are incarcerated in US jails. To learn about pregnancy and postpartum care in jails, we analyzed 34 qualitative interviews with jail personnel from facilities in five Southeastern US states. Themes included jail processes unique to pregnancy and burden on jails produced by liability and limited resources. Societal attitudes such as stigma, distrust of pregnant people, and a focus on fetal well-being were also important themes. Jail-community partnerships may mitigate the effects of scarce resources and improve jail perinatal care. Better community safety nets that decrease contact with jails are needed to improve pregnancy outcomes.

Implementing evidence-based supported employment within specialty mental health probation: A hybrid type I implementation-effectiveness trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illnesses who are involved in the criminal justice system face significant challenges in obtaining meaningful employment. Given the importance of employment in reducing recidivism, the field needs effective interventions to increase employment rates, address mental health needs, and reduce recidivism for justice-involved people with serious mental illnesses. Individual Placement and Support - Supported Employment (IPS-SE) improves employment outcomes among individuals with serious mental illnesses and has shown promising results when implemented with individuals with histories of justice involvement; however, IPS-SE has only been implemented in mental health service settings. Given lower levels of treatment engagement and completion among justice-involved populations, implementation of IPS-SE in specialty mental health probation (SMHP) is an opportunity to increase reach and engagement among justice-involved people with serious mental illnesses. METHODS: This article describes a hybrid type 1 implementation-effectiveness study that aims to: (1) assess the implementation enablers and barriers, as well as the feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability of IPS-SE embedded within SMHP; (2) identify the multi-level factors (i.e., implementation determinants) that influence IPS-SE implementation within the context of a probation setting; and (3) assess the impact of IPS-SE on employment - our primary endpoint - and the impact of IPS-SE on a number of secondary outcomes and potential treatment mechanisms. The efficacy arm of the study will be a randomized controlled trial of 130 adults on community supervision who will either receive treatment as usual or IPS-SE. The implementation arm of the study will examine implementation determinants and implementation outcomes using qualitative methods.

The role of detention officers in the provision of jail healthcare in the Southeastern United States.

Jailed individuals have considerable healthcare needs, yet jail healthcare resources are often limited. We interviewed staff from 34 Southeastern jails about strategies that jails use to deliver healthcare. One of the most prominent strategies was the use of detention officers to provide or facilitate the provision of healthcare. Officers' roles included assessing the need for medical clearance, conducting medical intake screenings, monitoring for suicide/withdrawal, transporting patients to medical appointments, medication administration, monitoring blood glucose and blood pressure, responding to medical emergencies, and communication with healthcare personnel. Several participants reported that due to officer shortages, conflicting priorities, and lack of adequate training, officers' healthcare roles can compromise privacy, delay access to care, and result in inadequate monitoring and safety. Findings suggest the need for training and standardized guidelines for officers' involvement in jail healthcare delivery and reassessment of the scope of officers' healthcare responsibilities.

"You can get a couple of ramen noodle packs for a BusparⓇ": A qualitative examination of medication access, policy, and procedures in southern jails.

BACKGROUND: Jails in the United States are required to provide health care to the over 10 million people entering jails each year, a significant portion of whom need medications. Yet little is known about the processes by which medications are prescribed, obtained, and administered to incarcerated persons in jails. OBJECTIVE: To describe medication access, policy, and procedures in jails. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with administrators and health workers from 34 jails (of 125 contacted) across 5 states in the southeastern United States. The interview guide covered all aspects of healthcare in jails from entry to release; however, the present study focused on responses relating to medications. Interviews were thematically coded using a combination of deductive and inductive coding guided by the research objective. RESULTS: Four processes described medication use chronologically from intake to release: jail entry and health screening, pharmacy and medication protocols, protocols specific to medication dispensing and administration, and medications at release. Many jails had procedures for using medications brought from home, though some declined to use these medications. Medication decision-making in jails was primarily performed by contracted healthcare providers, and most medications were obtained from contract pharmacies. Almost all jails banned narcotics; however, other medication restrictions varied by jail. Most jails charged a copay for medications. Participants discussed various privacy practices related to medication distribution, as well as approaches to diversion prevention including "crushing and floating" medications. Finally, the pre-release medication management process included transition planning that ranged from no planning to sending additional prescriptions to the patient's pharmacy. CONCLUSIONS: Medication access, protocols, and procedures in jails varies considerably, and there is a need for further adoption of existing standards and guidelines for the use of medications in jails, such as the Assess, Plan, Identify, and Coordinate (APIC) model of community re-entry.

SARS-CoV-2 Mitigation Strategies, Testing, and Cases at 254 Jails in the US Southeast, October 2020 to May 2021.

Objectives. To characterize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mitigation strategies, testing, and cases across county jails in the Southeastern United States, examining variability by jail characteristics. Methods. We administered a 1-time telephone survey to personnel of 254 jails in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina between October 2020 and May 2021. Results. Some SARS-CoV-2 mitigation strategies (e.g., screening at intake, isolation and masking for symptomatic persons) were commonly reported (≥ 75% of jails). Other measures, such as masking regardless of symptoms (52%) and screening at release (26%), were less common and varied by jail state or population size. Overall, 41% of jails reported no SARS-CoV-2 testing in the past 30 days. Jails with testing (59%) tested a median of 6 per 100 incarcerated persons; of those jails, one third reported 1 or more cases of positive tests. Although most jails detected no cases, in the 20% of all jails with 1 or more case in the past 30 days, 1 in 5 tests was positive. Conclusions. There was low testing coverage and variable implementation of SARS-CoV-2 mitigation strategies in Southeastern US jails during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(11):1589-1598. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307012).

Jail Health Care in the Southeastern United States From Entry to Release.

Policy Points As a consequence of mass incarceration and related social inequities in the United States, jails annually incarcerate millions of people who have profound and expensive health care needs. Resources allocated for jail health care are scarce, likely resulting in treatment delays, limited access to care, lower-quality care, unnecessary use of emergency medical services (EMS) and emergency departments (EDs), and limited services to support continuity of care upon release. Potential policy solutions include alternative models for jail health care oversight and financing, and providing alternatives to incarceration, particularly for those with mental illness and substance use disorders. CONTEXT: Millions of people are incarcerated in US jails annually. These individuals commonly have ongoing medical needs, and most are released back to their communities within days or weeks. Jails are required to provide health care but have substantial discretion in how they provide care, and a thorough overview of jail health care is lacking. In response, we sought to generate a comprehensive description of jails' health care structures, resources, and delivery across the entire incarceration experience from jail entry to release. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with jail personnel in five southeastern states from August 2018 to February 2019. We purposefully targeted recruitment from 34 jails reflecting a diversity of sizes, rurality, and locations, and we interviewed personnel most knowledgeable about health care delivery within each facility. We coded transcripts for salient themes and summarized content by and across participants. Domains included staffing, prebooking clearance, intake screening and care initiation, withdrawal management, history and physicals, sick calls, urgent care, external health care resources, and transitional care at release. FINDINGS: Ninety percent of jails contracted with private companies to provide health care. We identified two broad staffing models and four variations of the medical intake process. Detention officers often had medical duties, and jails routinely used community resources (e.g., emergency departments) to fill gaps in on-site care. Reentry transitional services were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Jails' strategies for delivering health care were often influenced by a scarcity of on-site resources, particularly in the smaller facilities. Some strategies (e.g., officers performing medical duties) have not been well documented previously and raise immediate questions about safety and effectiveness, and broader questions about the adequacy of jail funding and impact of contracting with private health care companies. Beyond these findings, our description of jail health care newly provides researchers and policymakers a common foundation from which to understand and study the delivery of jail health care.