Italian Evaluation and Excellence in REMS (ITAL-EE-REMS): appropriate placement of forensic patients in REMS forensic facilities.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Lia Parente, Fulvio Carabellese, Alan Felthous, Donatella La Tegola, Mary Davoren, Harry G Kennedy, Felice F Carabellese
{"title":"Italian Evaluation and Excellence in REMS (ITAL-EE-REMS): appropriate placement of forensic patients in REMS forensic facilities.","authors":"Lia Parente, Fulvio Carabellese, Alan Felthous, Donatella La Tegola, Mary Davoren, Harry G Kennedy, Felice F Carabellese","doi":"10.1186/s13033-024-00647-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We set out to assess the appropriateness of current placement of mentally disordered offenders allocated by the courts in Italy to REMS or to forensic community residences. We hypothesised that as in other countries, the match between a standardised assessment and the decision of the court would be imperfect.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The DUNDRUM Toolkit was translated into Italian. The translation had good psychometric properties. In order to compare the current level of therapeutic security with a calculated safest current placement, we compared the DUNDRUM-1 triage security assessment of need for therapeutic security prior to treatment, with evidence for progress made in treatment (DUNDRUM-3) and forensic recovery (DUNDRUM-4). The more conservative of these two would be taken as the safe current level of need for therapeutic security.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Italian translation of the DUNDRUM Toolkit had good internal consistency and mean scores had a Reliable Change Index less than one unit. 3.7% of those in REMS (medium security) were assessed as needing high security and 38% were ready to move to a less secure place. In low secure places, 56% were assessed as needing a higher level of therapeutic security and 6% could have moved to open non-secure places.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Italian translation of the DUNDRUM Toolkit allows an assessment of the current working of the model of care for forensic psychiatry following the reforms of 2015. Most patients are safely placed. A small but important proportion needed high secure places that are not currently available. (3.7% of 604 nationally, 95% Confidence Interval 1.2% to 8.4%, 7 to 50). A greater use of such measures would enable better health gains and safer outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06018298 Unique Protocol ID: ITAL-EE-REMS.</p>","PeriodicalId":47752,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Mental Health Systems","volume":"18 1","pages":"33"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11531105/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Mental Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-024-00647-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We set out to assess the appropriateness of current placement of mentally disordered offenders allocated by the courts in Italy to REMS or to forensic community residences. We hypothesised that as in other countries, the match between a standardised assessment and the decision of the court would be imperfect.

Methods: The DUNDRUM Toolkit was translated into Italian. The translation had good psychometric properties. In order to compare the current level of therapeutic security with a calculated safest current placement, we compared the DUNDRUM-1 triage security assessment of need for therapeutic security prior to treatment, with evidence for progress made in treatment (DUNDRUM-3) and forensic recovery (DUNDRUM-4). The more conservative of these two would be taken as the safe current level of need for therapeutic security.

Results: The Italian translation of the DUNDRUM Toolkit had good internal consistency and mean scores had a Reliable Change Index less than one unit. 3.7% of those in REMS (medium security) were assessed as needing high security and 38% were ready to move to a less secure place. In low secure places, 56% were assessed as needing a higher level of therapeutic security and 6% could have moved to open non-secure places.

Conclusions: The Italian translation of the DUNDRUM Toolkit allows an assessment of the current working of the model of care for forensic psychiatry following the reforms of 2015. Most patients are safely placed. A small but important proportion needed high secure places that are not currently available. (3.7% of 604 nationally, 95% Confidence Interval 1.2% to 8.4%, 7 to 50). A greater use of such measures would enable better health gains and safer outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06018298 Unique Protocol ID: ITAL-EE-REMS.

意大利 REMS 评估与卓越(ITAL-EE-REMS):将法医病人适当安置在 REMS 法医设施中。
背景:我们的目的是评估目前意大利法院将精神失常的罪犯安置到康复管理中心或法医社区住所的适当性。我们假设,与其他国家一样,标准化评估与法院决定之间的匹配并不完美:方法:将 "邓德鲁姆工具包 "翻译成意大利语。该译本具有良好的心理测量特性。为了将当前的治疗安全水平与计算出的当前最安全安置进行比较,我们将治疗前需要治疗安全的 DUNDRUM-1 分流安全评估与治疗进展证据(DUNDRUM-3)和法医康复证据(DUNDRUM-4)进行了比较。这两者中较为保守的一个将被视为当前治疗安全需求的安全级别:DUNDRUM 工具包的意大利语译文具有良好的内部一致性,平均分的可靠变化指数小于一个单位。在 REMS(中等安全级别)中,3.7% 的人被评估为需要高度安全级别,38% 的人准备转移到安全级别较低的地方。在低度安全场所,56%的人被评估为需要更高水平的治疗安全,6%的人可以转移到开放的非安全场所:通过对 "DUNDRUM工具包 "的意大利语翻译,可以对2015年改革后法医精神病学护理模式的当前运作情况进行评估。大多数患者都得到了安全安置。一小部分患者需要高度安全的场所,但目前还没有这样的场所。(全国 604 人中有 3.7%,95% 置信区间为 1.2% 至 8.4%,7 至 50 人)。更多地采用此类措施将能更好地改善健康状况,取得更安全的结果。试验注册 ClinicalTrials.gov ID:NCT06018298 唯一协议 ID:ITAL-EE-REMS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
2.80%
发文量
52
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信