Improving continuity of forensic mental health care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose Continuity of forensic mental health care is important in building protective structures around a patient and has been shown to decrease risks of relapse. Realising continuity can be complicated due to restrictions from finances or legislation and difficulties in collaboration between settings. In the Netherlands, several programs have been developed to improve continuity of forensic care. It is unknown whether professionals and clients are sufficiently aware of these programs. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach The experienced difficulties and needs of professionals and patients regarding continuity of forensic care were explored by means of an online survey and focus groups. The survey was completed by 318 professionals. Two focus groups with professionals (15 participants), one focus group and one interview with patients (six participants) were conducted. Findings The overall majority (85.6 percent) reported to experience problems in continuity on a frequent basis. The three main problems are: first, limited capacity for discharge from inpatient to outpatient or sheltered living; second, collaboration between forensic and regular mental health care; and, third, limited capacity for long-term inpatient care. Only a quarter of the participants knew the existing programs. Actual implementation of these programs was even lower (3.9 percent). The top three of professionals’ needs are: better collaboration; higher capacity; more knowledge about rules and regulation. Participants of the focus groups emphasized the importance of transparent communication, timely discharge planning and education. Practical implications Gathering best practices about regional collaboration networks and developing a blueprint based on the best practices could be helpful in improving collaboration between setting in the forensic field. In addition, more use of systematic discharge planning is needed to improve continuity in forensic mental health care. It is important to communicate in an honest, transparent way to clients about their forensic mental health trajectories, even if there are setbacks or delays. More emphasis needs to be placed on communicating and implementing policy programs in daily practice and more education about legislation is needed Structured evaluations of programs aiming to improve continuity of forensic mental health care are highly needed. Originality/value Policy programs hardly reach professionals. Professionals see improvements in collaboration as top priority. Patients emphasize the human approach and transparent communication.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».