4.1 Article

The characteristics and needs of older forensic psychiatric patients: a cross-sectional study in secure units within one UK regional service

Journal

JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY & PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 6, Pages 975-992

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14789949.2019.1659390

Keywords

Forensic psychiatry; older adults; secure services; special needs; cognitive functioning

Funding

  1. CLAHRC East Midlands

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although the number of older patients in forensic psychiatric settings is increasing, there is limited information around their sociodemographic characteristics, needs and cognitive abilities. This cross-sectional study focuses on patients aged >= 50 years in three (high, medium and low) secure forensic psychiatric services in England. The study comprises: 1. Analysis of sociodemographic characteristics of all patients (n = 94) in the services; 2. Analysis of the clinical notes and administration of needs and cognitive assessments to a subsample of patients (n = 41). The main outcomes include: sociodemographic characteristics, data on residency, risk, violence, mental and physical health, cognitive ability and individual needs. Data analysis is carried out through descriptive tests and correlation and inferential analyses of outcomes. Results evidence that most patients are White-British single males aged 50-54 years and 88% have at least one physical health condition. A quarter of the patients has cognitive impairment. The most common psychiatric disorder is Personality Disorder (60%); comorbid psychiatric disorders are prevalent (54%). Length of stay averages 6+ years and is longest in high security. Patients' needs are mostly met. The least met needs are social opportunities. Future comparative research against younger populations could give better context to research findings from this study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available