A survey of national trends in psychiatric patients found incompetent to stand trial: reasons for the reinstitutionalization of people with serious mental illness in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Recent information indicates that the number of forensic patients in state hospitals has been increasing, largely driven by an increase in patients referred to state hospitals as incompetent to stand trial (IST). This survey was intended to broaden the understanding of IST population trends on a national level. METHODS: The authors developed a 30-question survey to gather specific information on IST commitments in each state and the District of Columbia. The survey was administered to all 50 states and the District of Columbia via email. Specific individuals identified as primary administrators responsible for the care and evaluation of IST admissions in each state were contacted. RESULTS: A total of 50 out of the 51 jurisdictions contacted completed the survey. Fully 82% of states indicated that referrals for competency evaluation were increasing. Additionally, 78% of respondents thought referrals for competency restoration were increasing. When asked to rank factors that led to an increase, the highest ranked response was inadequate general mental health services in the community. Inadequate crisis services were the second ranked reason. Inadequate number of inpatient psychiatric beds in the community was the third highest, with inadequate assertive community treatment services ranking fourth. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the national trend and causes behind the recent surge in referrals for IST admissions will benefit states searching for ways to remedy this crisis. Our survey indicates most states are facing this issue, and that it is largely related to insufficient services in the community.

Clinical risk factors of acute severe or fatal violence among forensic mental health patients.

Existing violence risk assessment studies of mental health patients focus mostly on the association of historical presence of clinical risk factors and long-term violence, with little emphasis on the short-term temporal proximity between clinically relevant risk factors and the occurrence of violent behaviors. This research examined the proximal clinical risk factors (within days to a week prior) of acute severe or fatal violence among a group of forensic patients with serious mental illness (N = 287) found Not Criminally Responsible for offenses that involved violence against person(s), based on file review. Command hallucinations (OR  = â€¯2.35, 95% CI â€¯= â€¯1.05 - 5.24), Threat/control-override symptoms (OR â€¯= â€¯3.10, 95% CI â€¯= â€¯1.51 - 6.35) and Capgras syndrome (OR â€¯= â€¯3.58, 95% CI  = â€¯1.06 - 12.15) were identified as independent significant risk factors associated with acute severe or fatal violence. First degree relatives and intimate partners were significantly associated with being a victim of acute severe or fatal violence. Gender, recent alcohol use and recent drug use were not significantly associated with acute severe or fatal violence. Clinical utilities of the results and future directions for research are discussed.

Cognitive predictors of reactive and proactive aggression in a forensic sample: A comparison with a non-clinical sample.

This study aimed at examining cognitive predictors of reactive and proactive aggression in a forensic-psychiatric (n = 80) and a non-clinical sample (n = 98; Brugman et al., 2015). Three different cognitive predictors were incorporated: (1) attentional bias towards aggressive stimuli (measured with Emotional Stroop task) and towards angry faces (measured with a visual search task); (2) interpretation biases (measured with Aggressive Interpretative Bias Task (AIBT) and a vignette task), and (3) implicit self-aggression association (measured with a Single-Target Implicit Association Task). To measure aggression, the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) and the Taylor Aggression Paradigm (TAP) were used. An automatic self-aggression association positively predicted proactive aggressive behavior on the TAP in both samples. Furthermore, this self-aggression association predicted, increased self-reported proactive aggression (RPQ) in the forensic sample only. Pain, injury, and danger interpretations reported on the vignettes, negatively predicted self-reported proactive aggression in both samples. A stronger aggressive interpretation bias on the AIBT predicted more reactive aggressive behavior (TAP) in the non-clinical sample only. Taken together, findings show both common and distinct mechanisms in reactively vs. proactively driven aggressive behavior.