Needs and risks of patients in a state‐wide inpatient forensic mental health population

Abstract

Routine needs assessments have become mandated requirements for public mental health services. However, the appropriateness of these generic health needs assessments to specialist populations remains questionable. This study sought to assess individual needs assessed using a widely used clinician rated assessment (Health of the Nation Outcome Scales-Secure; HoNOS-Secure), a subjective needs assessment that considers both staff and patient perspectives (Camberwell Assessment of Need-Forensic version; CANFOR), and a measure of risk for general criminal recidivism (Level of Service Inventory: Screening Version; LSI:SV) in a secure forensic mental health service. Results revealed significant positive correlations between staff ratings on HoNOS-Secure, CANFOR total needs, and CANFOR met needs scores, but no significant association between CANFOR ratings or HoNOS-Secure ratings and LSI:SV scores. Although patients and staff reported the same number of needs overall according to CANFOR (7.2 vs. 7.5, P > 0.05), patients reported that more of these needs were unmet (3.1 vs. 2.3, P < 0.05). Differences between staff and patient ratings of need suggest that needs assessments should include patient perspectives to facilitate more collaborative and comprehensive care planning. Divergent perspectives between patients and staff may impair patient engagement in treatment and therefore negatively impact on outcome. Service planning issues and opportunities for future research are discussed.