Incompetent to Stand Trial, Not Restorable, and Dangerous.

This article focuses on the preferred disposition for an individual charged with a serious crime against another person, adjudicated incompetent to stand trial and not restorable to competence, whose original criminal charges are dismissed without prejudice, and who is regarded by the state as dangerous to the general public. Three current models used today in California, Oregon, and Ohio are described. All three rely on modifications of various aspects of civil commitment law. We then propose a fourth model based on a modified version of the 1989 American Bar Association (ABA) Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards, in which individuals who are found incompetent to stand trial and not restorable to competence and are considered dangerous would be committed under the same special procedures governing the management and treatment of insanity acquittees.

Discontinuing involuntary mental health holds for children: Does psychiatrist specialty matter? A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Involuntary mental health detainments should only be utilized when less restrictive alternatives are unavailable and should be discontinued as soon as safety can be ensured. The study objective was to determine if child and adolescent psychiatrists discontinue a greater proportion of involuntary holds than general psychiatrists for similar pediatric patients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients under 18 years placed on an involuntary hold in the prehospital setting presenting over a 1-year period to one high-volume emergency department (ED) where youth on involuntary holds are seen by child and adolescent psychiatrists when available and general psychiatrists otherwise. The primary outcome of interest was hold discontinuation after initial psychiatric consultation. The key predictor of interest was psychiatrist specialty (child and adolescent vs. general). We conducted multivariate logistic regression modeling adjusting for patient characteristics and time of arrival. RESULTS: Child and adolescent psychiatrists discontinued 27.4% (51/186) of prehospital holds while general psychiatrists discontinued only 10.6% (22/207). After adjusting for observable confounders, holds were over 3 times as likely to be discontinued in patients evaluated by child and adolescent psychiatrists rather than general emergency psychiatrists (adjusted OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.7-5.9, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Child and adolescent psychiatrists are much more likely to discontinue prehospital involuntary mental health holds compared with general emergency psychiatrists. While inappropriate hold discontinuation places patients at risk of harm, prolonged hold continuation limits patients' rights and potentially increases psychiatric boarding in EDs. Earlier access to child and adolescent psychiatry may facilitate early hold discontinuation and standardize patient care.

Structured versus unstructured judgment: DUNDRUM-1 compared to court decisions.

BACKGROUND: Criteria to determine in which level of security forensic patients should receive treatment are currently non-existent in Belgium. Courts largely rely on the evaluations of the prison psychiatrists and psychologists to form their decision. None of the few available instruments - e.g., the DUNDRUM-1 - is currently used to provide structured clinical judgment when determining security level. METHOD: DUNDRUM-1 scores were collected for 150 forensic patients. Security levels according to DUNDRUM-1 assessment were compared to security levels as decided by the court. RESULTS: There was little agreement between DUNDRUM-1 scores and proposals for secure care made by the court. The DUNDRUM-1 predicted eventual admission to a high security setting, but not a medium security setting. CONCLUSION: The DUNDRUM-1 is an instrument that can help clinicians and judges to make more reliable and transparent decisions regarding secure care. However, further research with regard to practical applicability is needed.