Prospective study of factors influencing conditional discharge from a forensic hospital: the DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery structured professional judgement instruments and risk

Mary Davoren, Zareena Abidin, Leena Naughton, Olivia Gibbons, Andrea Nulty, Brenda Wright, Harry G Kennedy, Mary Davoren, Zareena Abidin, Leena Naughton, Olivia Gibbons, Andrea Nulty, Brenda Wright, Harry G Kennedy

Abstract

Background: We set out to examine whether structured professional judgement instruments DUNDRUM-3 programme completion (D-3) and DUNDRUM-4 recovery (D-4) scales along with measures of risk, mental state and global function could distinguish between those forensic patients detained in a secure forensic hospital (not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to stand trial) who were subsequently discharged by a mental health review board. We also examined the interaction between these measures and risk, need for therapeutic security and eventual conditional discharge.

Methods: A naturalistic observational cohort study was carried out for 56 patients newly eligible for conditional discharge. Patients were rated using the D-3, D-4 and other scales including HCR-20, S-RAMM, START, SAPROF, PANSS and GAF and then observed over a period of twenty three months during which they were considered for conditional discharge by an independent Mental Health Review Board.

Results: The D-3 distinguished which patients were subsequently discharged by the Mental Health Review board (AUC = 0.902, p < 0.001) as did the D-4 (AUC = 0.848, p < 0.001). Item to outcome analysis showed each item of the D-3 and D-4 scales performed significantly better than random. The HCR-20 also distinguished those later discharged (AUC = 0.838, p < 0.001) as did the S-RAMM, START, SAPROF, PANSS and GAF. The D-3 and D-4 scores remained significantly lower (better) for those discharged even when corrected for the HCR-20 total score. Item to outcome analyses and logistic regression analysis showed that the strongest antecedents of discharge were the GAF and the DUNDRUM-3 programme completion scores.

Conclusions: Structured professional judgement instruments should improve the quality, consistency and transparency of clinical recommendations and decision making at mental health review boards. Further research is required to determine whether the DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery instruments predict those who are or are not recalled or re-offend after conditional discharge.

References

    1. Butler Committee. Report of the Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders. London: TSO (The Stationery Office); 1975.
    1. Bailey S, McCulloch M. Patterns of reconviction in patients discharged directly to the community from a special hospital: implications for aftercare. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry. 1992;3(3):445–461. doi: 10.1080/09585189208409021.
    1. Coid J, Hickey N, Kahtan N, Zhang T, Yang Y. Patients discharged from medium secure forensic psychiatry services: reconvictions and risk factors. Br J Psychiatry. 2007;190:223–229. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.105.018788.
    1. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) The CPT standards. CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev 2006. .
    1. Dolan MC, Khawaja A. The HCR-20 and post-discharge outcome in male patients discharged from medium security in the UK. Aggress Behav. 2004;30:469–483. doi: 10.1002/ab.20044.
    1. Gray NS, Taylor J, Snowden RJ. Predicting violent reconvictions using the HCR-20. Br J Psychiatry. 2008;192:384–387. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.107.044065.
    1. Doyle M, Dolan M. Predicting community violence from patients discharged from mental health services. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;189:520–526. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.105.021204.
    1. Manguno-Mire G, Thompson JW, Bertman-Pate LJ, Burnett DR, Thompson HW. Are release recommendations for NGRI acquittees informed by relevant data. Behav Sci Law. 2007;25:43–55. doi: 10.1002/bsl.724.
    1. Webster CD, Muller-Isberner R, Fransson G. Violence risk assessment: using structured clinical guidelines professionally. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 2002;1:43–51.
    1. Kennedy HG, O’Neill C, Flynn G, Gill P. The DUNDRUM toolkit. Dangerousness, understanding, recovery and urgency manual (the DUNDRUM quartet) V1.0.21 (18/03/10). Four structured professional judgment instruments for admission triage, urgency, treatment completion and recovery assessments. Dublin, Ireland: Trinity College Dublin; 2010. .
    1. Flynn G, O’Neill C, McInerney C, Kennedy HG. The DUNDRUM-1 structured professional judgement instrument for triage to appropriate levels of therapeutic security: retrospective cohort study. BMC Psychiatry. 2011;11:43. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-11-43.
    1. Flynn G, O’Neill C, Kennedy HG. DUNDRUM-2: Prospective validation of a structured professional judgment instrument assessing priority for admission from the waiting list for a Forensic Mental Health Hospital. BMC Research Notes. 2011;4:230. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-230.
    1. O’Dwyer S, Davoren M, Abidin Z, Doyle E, McDonnell K, Kennedy HG. The DUNDRUM Quartet: validation of structured professional judgement instruments DUNDRUM-3 assessment of programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 assessment of recovery in forensic mental health services. BMC Research Notes. 2011;4:229. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-229.
    1. Davoren M, O’Dwyer S, Abidin Z, Naughton L, Gibbons O, Doyle E, McDonnell K, Monks S, Kennedy HG. Prospective in-patient cohort study of moves between levels of therapeutic security: the DUNDRUM-1 triage security, DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales and the HCR-20. BMC Psychiatry. 2012;12:80. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-12-80. URL: .
    1. Ireland. Criminal Law (insanity) Act 2010. 2010. Irish Statute Book .
    1. Pillay SM, Oliver B, Butler L, Kennedy HG. Risk stratification and the care pathway. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine. 2008;25(4):123–127.
    1. Kennedy HG. Therapeutic uses of security: mapping forensic mental health services by stratifying risk. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2002;8:433–443. doi: 10.1192/apt.8.6.433.
    1. Kennedy H. The Annotated Mental Health Acts. Dublin: Blackhall Publishing; 2007.
    1. Webster CS, Douglas KS, Eaves D, Hart SD. HCR-20: Assessing risk for violence, version 2. Burnaby, British Columbia: Simon Fraser University; 1997.
    1. Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA. The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13:261–277. doi: 10.1093/schbul/13.2.261.
    1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition) Washington DC, American Psychiatric Association; 1994.
    1. Bouch J, Marshall JJ. S-RAMM: Suicide Risk Assessment and Management Manual. Research. Vale of Glamorgan, Cognitive Centre Foundation; 2003.
    1. Webster CD, Martin ML, Brink J, Nicholls TL, Desmarais SL. Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) Version 1.1. Hamilton Ontario, BC Mental Health and Addiction Services Coquitlam: British Columbia & St Joseph's Healthcare; 2009.
    1. de Vogel V, de Ruiter C, Bouman Y, de Vries Robbe M. SAPROF: guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk. Utrecht: Forum Educatief; 2009. (English version).
    1. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for windows. 2007. Release 18.0.1.
    1. World Health Organization. The ICD–10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. Geneva: WHO; 1992.
    1. Carroll A. Good (or bad) vibrations: clinical intuition in violence risk assessment. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2012;18:447–456. doi: 10.1192/apt.bp.111.010025.
    1. Donnelly V, Lynch A, Devlin C, Naughton L, Gibbons O, Mohan D, Kennedy HG. Therapeutic alliance in forensic mental health: coercion, consent and recovery. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine. 2011;28(1):21–28.
    1. Kahneman D. A perspective on judgement and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol. 2003;58(9):697–720. PMID:14584987.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa