Forensic psychiatry in Europe is a specialty primarily concerned with individuals who have either offended or present a risk of doing so, and who also suffer from a psychiatric condition. These mentally disordered offenders (MDOs) are often cared for in secure psychiatric environments or prisons. In this guidance paper we first present an overview of the field of forensic psychiatry from a European perspective. We then present a review of the literature summarising the evidence on the assessment and treatment of MDOs under the following headings: The forensic psychiatrist as expert witness, risk, treatment settings for mentally disordered offenders, and what works for MDOs. We undertook a rapid review of the literature with search terms related to: forensic psychiatry, review articles, randomised controlled trials and best practice. We searched the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane library databases from 2000 onwards for adult groups only. We scrutinised publications for additional relevant literature, and searched the websites of relevant professional organisations for policies, statements or guidance of interest. We present the findings of the scientific literature as well as recommendations for best practice drawing additionally from the guidance documents identified. We found that the evidence base for forensic-psychiatric practice is weak though there is some evidence to suggest that psychiatric care produces better outcomes than criminal justice detention only. Practitioners need to follow general psychiatric guidance as well as that for offenders, adapted for the complex needs of this patient group, paying particular attention to long-term detention and ethical issues.

Objectives: Despite emerging evidence that older prisoners experience poor mental health, literature in this area is still limited. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we report on the prevalence of psychiatric disorders among older prisoners and compare our findings against community studies on older people. Methods: We searched on Assia, PsycInfo, MedLine, Embase, Web of Science, Google and Gov.uk. We carried out bias assessments, rated studies for quality and ran a heterogeneity test. We meta-analysed prevalence rates of psychiatric disorders through an aggregate weighted mean and calculated relative risk (RR) and statistical significance against community studies. Sensitivity analyses were further performed. Results: We reviewed nine studies and obtained the following prevalence: ‘Any psychiatric disorder’ 38.4%, depression 28.3%, schizophrenia/psychoses 5.5%, bipolar disorder 4.5%, dementia 3.3%, cognitive impairment 11.8%, personality disorder 22.9%, alcohol abuse 15.9%, anxiety disorders 14.2%, PTSD 6.2%. Older prisoners were found to have higher RR for every single psychiatric disorder against older people in the community, with the sole exception of alcohol abuse (RR = 1) and dementia (RR = .75). The prevalence rates were statistically significantly higher (p < .05) among the prisoners for ‘Any psychiatric disorder’, depression and personality disorder. Overall, the sensitivity analyses confirmed our original results. Conclusion: Our findings point at a high prevalence of every single psychiatric disorder among older prisoners, who also experience rates of dementia and alcohol abuse comparable to those reported in the community. Our results have relevant implications for policy and practice in this area. Further research is crucial to confirm findings from this study.

Purpose: While the number of forensic beds and the duration of psychiatric forensic psychiatric treatment have increased in several European Union (EU) states, this is not observed in others. Patient demographics, average lengths of stay and legal frameworks also differ substantially. The lack of basic epidemiological information on forensic patients and of shared indicators on forensic care within Europe is an obstacle to comparative research. The reasons for such variation are not well understood. Methods: Experts from seventeen EU states submitted data on forensic bed prevalence rates, gender distributions and average length of stay in forensic in-patient facilities. Average length of stay and bed prevalence rates were examined for associations with country-level variables including Gross Domestic Product (GDP), expenditure on healthcare, prison population, general psychiatric bed prevalence rates and democracy index scores. Results: The data demonstrated substantial differences between states. Average length of stay was approximately ten times greater in the Netherlands than Slovenia. In England and Wales, 18% of patients were female compared to 5% in Slovenia. There was a 17-fold difference in forensic bed rates per 100,000 between the Netherlands and Spain. Exploratory analyses suggested average length of stay was associated with GDP, expenditure on healthcare and democracy index scores. Conclusion: The data presented in this study represent the most recent overview of key epidemiological data in forensic services across seventeen EU states. However, systematically collected epidemiological data of good quality remain elusive in forensic psychiatry. States need to develop common definitions and recording practices and contribute to a publicly available database of such epidemiological indicators.

Background: Forensic psychiatric services provide care for those with mental disorders and offending behaviour. Concerns have been expressed that patients may stay for too long in too high levels of security. The economic burden of these services is high, and they are highly restrictive for patients. There is no agreed standard for ‘long stay’; we defined a length of stay exceeding 5 years in medium secure care, 10 years in high secure care or 15 years in a combination of both settings as long stay.Objectives: To (1) estimate the number of long-stay patients in secure settings; (2) describe patients’ characteristics, needs and care pathways and the reasons for their prolonged stay; (3) identify patients’ perceptions of their treatment and quality of life; and (4) explore stakeholders’ views on long stay.Design: A mixed-methods approach, including a cross-sectional survey (on 1 April 2013) of all patients in participating units to identify long-stay patients [work package (WP) 1], file reviews and consultant questionnaires for long-stay patients (WP2), interviews with patients (WP3) and focus groups with other stakeholders (WP4).Setting: All three high secure hospitals and 23 medium secure units (16 NHS and 9 independent providers) in England.Participants: Information was gathered on all patients in participating units (WP1), from which 401 long-stay patients were identified (WP2), 40 patients (WP3), 17 international and 31 UK experts were interviewed and three focus groups were held (WP4).Results: Approximately 23.5% of high secure patients and 18% of medium secure patients were long-stay patients. We estimated that there are currently about 730 forensic long-stay patients in England. The source of a patient’s admission and the current section of the Mental Health Act [Great Britain.Mental Health Act 1983 (as Amended by the Mental Health Act 2007). London: The Stationery Office; 2007] under which they were admitted predicted long-stay status. Long-stay patients had complex pathways, moving ‘around’ between settings rather than moving forward. They were most likely to be detained under a hospital order with restrictions (section 37/41) and to have disturbed backgrounds with previous psychiatric admissions, self-harm and significant offending histories. The most common diagnosis was schizophrenia, but 47% had been diagnosed with personality disorder. Only 50% had current formal psychological therapies. The rates of violent incidents within institutions and seclusion were high, and a large proportion had unsuccessful referrals to less secure settings. Most patients had some contact with their families. We identified five classes of patients within the long-stay sample with different characteristics. Patients differed in their attribution of reasons for long stay (internal/external), outlook (positive/negative), approach (active/passive) and readiness for change. Other countries have successfully developed specific long-stay services; however, UK experts were reluctant to accept the reality of long stay and that the medical model of ‘cure’ does not work with this group.Limitations: We did not conduct file reviews on non-long-stay patients; therefore, we cannot say which factors differentiate between long-stay patients and non-long-stay patients.Conclusions: The number of long-stay patients in England is high, resulting in high resource use. Significant barriers were identified in developing designated long-stay services. Without a national strategy, these issues are likely to remain.Future work: To compare long-stay patients and non-long-stay patients. To evaluate new service models specifically designed for long-stay patients.Study registration: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network Portfolio 129376.Funding: The NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Forensic services provide care for mentally disordered offenders. In England this is provided at three levels of security—low, medium and high. Significant number of patients within these settings remain detained for protracted periods of time. This is both very costly and restrictive for individuals. No national studies have been conducted on this subject in England.