Influencing the care pathway for prisoners with acute mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Despite improved mental health services in prisons in England and Wales, there are often delays in transferring acutely mentally ill prisoners to hospital, particularly in the London area. AIM: To establish whether clinical pathway interventions can reduce such transfer delays. METHODS: Two clinical pathway interventions - one based in a medium secure forensic hospital and the other in a remand prison (pre-trial/sentence) - were independently introduced to manage referrals of prisoners with acute mental illness in London, UK. Time taken to transfer to hospital was measured for each and compared with the best available estimates for time to transfer prior to the new pathways. RESULTS: Both interventions produced significant reductions in prison to hospital transfer times. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTISE: The nature of the projects precluded ideal research design, but despite small sample sizes, provision of modestly funded small but dedicated elements of service to target the specified problem of transfer to hospital delays showed a significant advantage for such provision, whether hospital or prison based, psychiatrist or nurse led. Further research is now required to examine the whole pathway. More secure psychiatric beds may be required, at least in the short term, to support diversion policies and enable compliance with national policy directive, and to establish whether redesigned pathways can enhance treatment and behavioural outcomes for acutely mentally ill prisoners on a larger scale.

Mental health and fitness to plead proposals in England and Wales.

Proposals to reform fitness to plead legislation have been published by the Law Commission in England and Wales; they include a new test of decision making capacity and a new psychiatric test that has yet to be fully developed. Although proposals have met with some support, there have also been detractors. The history of fitness to plead is reviewed and current case law (including the 1836 Pritchard criteria) is examined. Although existing arrangements have been criticised, this may be attributable to inconsistent practical application, rather than inherent conceptual flaws. The Pritchard test has largely stood the test of time and has emerged relatively unscathed. Fitness to plead is not a medical construct, but rather a legal entity and any new test would be likely to introduce its own difficulties. A capacity based assessment could enhance debate and disagreement and increase court time in many cases, presenting new resource implications with questionable benefit. As the existing Pritchard criteria, amended by case law, already include a five limb test that closely resembles a capacity assessment (ability to plead to the indictment, to understand the course of the proceedings, to instruct a lawyer, to challenge a juror and to understand the evidence) and given the difficulties in introducing a functional test format in other jurisdictions, the Law Commission's proposals should now be set aside, perhaps for another day: reconsideration may be possible some decades hence, pending enhanced scientific developments within psychiatry and better understanding of the mind.