Police custody health care: a review of health morbidity, models of care and innovations within police custody in the UK, with international comparisons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a scoping review of the available evidence regarding health care issues in police custody. It describes the types and prevalence of health disorders encountered in custody and provides an overview of current practice and recent innovations in police custody health care. In contrast to the health of prisoners, the health of police custody detainees has, until recently, received little academic or clinical attention. Studies on health care in police custody identified for this review are limited to a few geographical jurisdictions, including the UK, continental Europe, North America, and Australia. There are significant health concerns among police detainees including acute injury, chronic physical health problems, mental and cognitive disorders, and the risks associated with drug and alcohol intoxication or withdrawal. There is some evidence that deaths in police custody have reduced where attention has been paid to the latter issue. Police personnel continue to experience difficulties identifying detainees with health issues relevant to their safe detention, but research shows that the use of evidence-based screening tools improves detection of such morbidities. Innovations in police custody health care mainly relate to detainees with mental disorders, including improved identification of illness, timely access to mental health services, the protection of the rights of mentally disordered detainees, and the diversion of mentally disordered persons from the criminal justice system into appropriate health and social care interventions. There is a lack of rigorous research relating to interventions for physical health problems, protecting those at risk of substance withdrawal, and detainees with preexisting or peri-arrest injures. Research to improve the health of police custody detainees requires greater priority, focusing on case identification and service redesign to address high levels of morbidity and to facilitate health promotion and prevention activities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".