Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the complexities involved in the role of forensic practitioners working with people with learning disabilities and to put forward a preliminary model of forensic practitioner resilience.Design/methodology/approachThis study uses a cross‐sectional qualitative design and samples ten professionals working within a forensic learning disabilities service.FindingsStaff identified a number of complexities in their role which included the presentation of the client group, risk assessment and management, multi‐agency working, and the emotional complexity of the work. A preliminary model of resilience was developed which set out factors that would help staff manage these complexities and work towards meeting the needs of service users. This model includes individual, proximal and wider systemic factors. It is argued that building relationships and establishing trust with service users, staff, and wider agencies is the bedrock of forensic practitioner resilience. Moreover, it is argued that an integrative model of multi‐disciplinary team working helps facilitate trust between staff and is underpinned by trust in the first place.Originality/valueThis paper makes an original contribution because it qualitatively examines how staff within a forensic learning disabilities service interpret their role and details the complexities involved in their jobs. It also puts forward a preliminary model of forensic practitioner resilience.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.