Can electronic monitoring (GPS 'tracking') enhance risk management in psychiatry?

Electronic monitoring has been used in criminal justice and some health settings for three decades. Technological interventions are becoming more common in psychiatry, but may be a cause for ethical concerns and controversy. We discuss electronic monitoring as an aid to security and public safety in a forensic setting.

Legal and human rights issues in the use of electronic monitoring (using GPS 'tracking' technology) in forensic mental health settings in the UK.

Electronic monitoring (EM) of individuals has been used by the criminal justice system for the past thirty years, and in the UK, use is on the increase. Its use has been justified as an alternative to prison to reduce recidivism and allowing early release of prisoners, however, the evidence base for this remains mixed. In 2010, it was employed for the first time in a forensic psychiatry setting. A study investigating the effects of EM on leave episodes concluded that EM may improve the speed of patient progress and reduce the length of admission, leading to reduced costs and increased public safety. However, the intervention generated considerable controversy and sparked discussion about ethical concerns. Here, we consider specifically legal and human rights issues that emerge from use of EM in forensic healthcare settings, scrutinising its use in the context of the Mental Health Act and the Human Rights Act. We conclude that EM is legal and justifiable, providing it is used judiciously and with due consideration of concerns for the individual and the given context.