Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:46:54.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Forensic focused treatment planning: a new standard for forensic mental health systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2015

Robert J. Schaufenbil*
Affiliation:
California Department of State Hospitals, Sacramento, California, USA
Rebecca Kornbluh
Affiliation:
California Department of State Hospitals, Sacramento, California, USA
Stephen M. Stahl
Affiliation:
California Department of State Hospitals, Sacramento, California, USA Department of Psychiatry, University of California–San Diego, San Diego, California, USA Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Neuroscience Education Institute, Carlsbad, California, USA
Katherine D. Warburton
Affiliation:
California Department of State Hospitals, Sacramento, California, USA
*
*Address for correspondence: Robert Schaufenbil, California Department of State Hospitals, 1600 9th St., Room 400, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA. (Email: [email protected])

Abstract

Almost no literature addresses treatment planning for the forensic psychiatric patient. In the absence of such guidance, recovery-oriented multifocal treatment planning has been imported into forensic mental health systems from community psychiatric settings, despite the fact that conditions of admission and discharge are vastly different for forensic psychiatry inpatients. We propose that instead of focusing on recovery, forensic treatment planning should prioritize forensic outcomes, such as restoration of trial competence or mitigation of violence risk, as the first steps in a continuum of care that eventually leads to the patient’s ability to resolve forensic issues and return to the community for recovery-oriented care. Here we offer a model for treatment planning in the forensic setting.

Type
Review Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Funding and characteristics of state mental health agencies, 2010. http://www.aahd.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/FundingStateMentalHealthAgencies2010.pdf.Google Scholar
2. Hart, S, Sturmey, P, Logan, C, McMurran, M. Forensic case formulation. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 2011; 10(2): 118126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Hart, SD, Logan, C. Formulation of violence risk using evidenced-based assessments: the structured professional judgment approach. In: Sturmey P, McMurran M, eds. Forensic Case Formulation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley; 2011: 83106.Google Scholar
4. Moran, MJ, Sweda, MG, Fragala, MR, Sasscer-Burgos, J. The clinical application of risk assessment in the treatment-planning process. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 2001; 45(4): 421435.Google Scholar
5. Davis, DL. Treatment planning for the patient who is incompetent to stand trial. Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1985; 36(3): 268271.Google ScholarPubMed
6. Douglas, KS, Hart, SD, Webster, CD, et al. HCR-20V3: Assessing Risk of Violence—User Guide. Burnaby, Canada: Mental Health, Law, and Policy, Institute, Simon Fraser University; 2013.Google Scholar
7. Hare, RD. Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist, 2nd ed. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems; 2003.Google Scholar
8. Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity, Cal. Penal Code § 1026.Google Scholar
9. Mentally Disordered Offender, Cal. Penal Code § 2972.Google Scholar
10. Skeem, JL, Golding, SL, Berge, G, Cohn, NB. Logic and reliability of evaluations of competence to stand trial. Law Hum Behav. 1998; 22(5): 519547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Fogel, MH, Schiffman, W, Mumley, D, Tillbrook, C, Grisso, T. Ten year research update (2001–2010): evaluations for competence to stand trial (adjudicative competence). Behav Sci Law. 2013; 31(2): 165191.Google Scholar
12. McDermott, BE, Warburton, KD, Woofter, C. The effectiveness of structured assessments in the detection of malingering. Presentation, The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Section of Forensic Psychiatry, Prato, Italy, 2010.Google Scholar
13. Nolan, KA, Czobor, P, Roy, BB, et al. Characteristics of assaultive behavior among psychiatric inpatients. Psychiatr Serv. 2003; 54(7): 10121016.Google Scholar
14. Quanbeck, CD, McDermott, BE, Lam, J, Eisenstark, H, Sokolov, G, Scott, CL. Categorization of aggressive acts committed by chronically assaultive state hospital patients. Psychiatr Serv. 2007; 58(4): 521528.Google Scholar
15. Stahl, SM, Morrissette, DA, Cummings, M, et al. California State Hospital Violence Assessment and Treatment (Cal-VAT) guidelines. CNS Spectr. 2014; 19(5): 449465.Google Scholar
16. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).Google Scholar
17. US Cont. amend. VI.Google Scholar
18. Kennedy, J. Fundamentals of Psychiatric Treatment Planning. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.; 2003.Google Scholar