Developing an initial programme theory for a model of social care in prisons and on release (empowered together): A realist synthesis approach.

Many people are living in prison with a range of social care needs, for example, requiring support with washing, eating, getting around safely, and/or maintaining relationships. However, social care for this vulnerable group is generally inadequate. There is uncertainty and confusion about who is legally responsible for this and how it can best be provided, and a lack of integration with healthcare. We used realist-informed approaches to develop an initial programme theory (IPT) for identifying/assessing social care needs of, and providing care to, male adults in prison and on release. IPT development was an iterative process involving (a) an initial scoping of the international prison literature; (b) scoping prison and community social care policy documents and guidelines; (c) full systematic search of the international prison social care literature; (d) insights from the community social care literature; (e) stakeholder workshops. Information from 189 documents/sources and stakeholder feedback informed the IPT, which recommended that models of prison social care should be: trauma-informed; well integrated with health, criminal justice, third-sector services and families; and person-centred involving service-users in all aspects including co-production of care plans, goals, and staff training/awareness programmes. Our IPT provides an initial gold standard model for social care provision for people in prison and on release. The model, named Empowered Together, will be evaluated in a future trial and will be of interest to those working in the criminal justice system, care providers and commissioners, local authorities, housing authorities, voluntary groups, and service-users and their families.

Managing returns to prison from medium-secure services: qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about factors that influence discharge decision-making for people admitted to medium-secure services from prison, particularly for those who are returned to prison following treatment. AIMS: To explore the organisational influences on care pathways through medium-secure services for those admitted from prison. METHOD: We recruited 24 clinicians via purposive and snowball sampling; 13 shared their experiences via a focus group, and 11 shared their experiences via individual semi-structured interviews. A thematic analysis was conducted, producing three overarching themes: maintenance of throughput and service provision, class of two systems, and desirable and undesirable patients. RESULTS: Data indicated external factors that direct and, at times, limit clinicians' pathway decisions, including commissioning criteria and legal status under the Mental Health Act 1983 and within the criminal courts system (i.e. whether on remand or sentenced). These factors also influence how clinicians view the role and function of medium-secure services within the wider forensic mental health system, and therefore the types of patients that are deemed 'appropriate' for continued treatment when making discretionary pathway decisions. CONCLUSIONS: There remains a deficit in adequate resources to meet the mental health needs of prisoners who are admitted to medium-secure services. To meet the clinical need of all admissions, criteria for prolonged treatment in medium-secure services needs to be reconsidered, and it is likely that provision for the medium-secure hospital estate will need to increase substantially if effective rehabilitation of those who transfer from prison is to take place.

Service transitions, interventions and care pathways following remittal to prison from medium secure psychiatric services in England and Wales: national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known internationally about return to prison from in-patient psychiatric services, including: circumstances leading to return, aftercare services and subsequent patient outcomes. AIMS: To examine and describe: (a) circumstances leading to return to prison from medium secure services; (b) available aftercare and early outcomes of returned persons; and (c) implications for policy development. METHOD: Prospective cohort design with all patients (n = 96) returned to prisons from 33 National Health Service (NHS) medium secure services over a 6-month period in England and Wales. Follow-up was conducted for 1 year post-remittal, across 60 prisons. RESULTS: Less than 20% of patients with legal entitlement to section 117 aftercare under the Mental Health Act 1983 were receiving care managed/delivered via the care programme approach. Subsequent pathways included: inter-prison transfer (30%), use of the Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork process (49%), referral to secure services (21%) and community release (30%). Less than half of community releases were referred to a community mental health team. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that persons returned to prison are a vulnerable group of patients, many of whom require intervention (e.g. enhanced monitoring, admission to a healthcare wing, readmission to secure mental health services) on return to prison in the absence of targeted aftercare services. More robust guidance for discharge and aftercare planning procedures for persons remitted to prison should be developed to ensure that the benefits of in-patient admission are maintained and that individuals' legal rights to ongoing aftercare are upheld.

Cognitive-behavioural therapy v. social activity therapy for people with psychosis and a history of violence: randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Aggression and violence are serious problems in schizophrenia. Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) has been shown to be an effective treatment for psychosis although there have been no studies to date evaluating the impact of CBT for people with psychosis and a history of violence. AIMS: To investigate the effectiveness of CBT on violence, anger, psychosis and risk outcomes with people who had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and a history of violence. METHOD: This was a single-blind randomised controlled trial of CBT v. social activity therapy (SAT) with a primary outcome of violence and secondary outcomes of anger, symptoms, functioning and risk. Outcomes were evaluated by masked assessors at 6 and 12 months (trial registration: NRR NO50087441). RESULTS: Significant benefits were shown for CBT compared with control over the intervention and follow-up period on violence, delusions and risk management. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive-behavioural therapy targeted at psychosis and anger may be an effective treatment for reducing the occurrence of violence and further investigation of its benefits is warranted.