Domestic Homicide Reviews Research Articles

Learning legacies: better understanding the dynamics of domestic abuse suicidality through domestic homicide reviews

Learning legacies: better understanding the dynamics of domestic abuse suicidality through domestic homicide reviews

Perpetrator Involvement in Domestic Homicide Reviews in England and Wales

In England and Wales, Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) examine domestic abuse (DA)-related deaths. Despite perpetrators being a potentially important albeit difficult source of information, no study has investigated perpetrator involvement in DHRs or that of others like their family. Data is reported from a documentary analysis of 60 DHR reports and a reflective thematic analysis of 29 stakeholder interviews. This paper explores if, why, when, and how perpetrators—directly or by proxy—are involved in DHRs and the potential benefits but also perceived or actual risks and challenges. Practice and policy implications, and areas for future research, are identified.

Naming practices in domestic homicide reviews in England and Wales

In England and Wales, domestic homicide reviews (DHRs) seek to build a picture of the circumstances preceding a domestic abuse-related death, identify any learning and make recommendations for change. Drawing on data from document analysis of 60 DHR reports, this article explores how a victim’s real name is routinely taken out of use when a DHR report is published and, to disguise their identity, is usually replaced with a pseudonym or some other nomenclature like initials/letters. I report on the name forms used in place of a victim’s real name and the limited explication of both how (pseudo)names were chosen and the role of the family. By exploring how names are used, I argue for a recognition of the assumptions and complexity at the heart of DHRs concerning the place of the victim, family and state, and identify implications for practice, policy and research.

Patterns of mental health service use among perpetrators of domestic homicide: descriptive study of Domestic Homicide Reviews in England and Wales

Aims and method We used data from Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) to describe the patterns of mental health service use by perpetrators of domestic homicide in England and Wales. In 186 DHR reports we compared the characteristics of perpetrators who accessed mental health services with those of perpetrators who did not. Separate analyses were conducted for perpetrators of intimate partner homicide (IPH) and family homicide. Results Over two-thirds (64.5%, n = 120) of the perpetrators had accessed mental healthcare before the homicide. Perpetrators of IPH who had used mental health services compared with those who had not were more likely to have a history of substance misuse, contact with the criminal justice system and a history of self-harm or suicide attempts. Clinical implications Our findings support the need for health services, particularly mental health, addictions and primary care, to take an assertive role in the prevention of domestic violence and abuse by identifying patients who are potential perpetrators of domestic violence and abuse.

The Challenges and Opportunities of Reviewing Domestic Abuse-Related Deaths by Suicide in England and Wales

PurposeIn England and Wales, Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) are conducted into domestic abuse-related killings. In 2016, deaths by suicide were brought into the scope of this review system and, to distinguish them from reviews into domestic homicides, we describe these as ‘Suicide Domestic Abuse-Related Death Reviews’ (S-DARDR). To date, S-DARDRs have been little considered and, in response, this empirical paper seeks to unpack this process.MethodIn a larger study, 40 DHR participants were interviewed, and a reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken. 18 participants discussed S-DARDRs. These interviews were re-read, with relevant extracts identified and re-analysed thematically. Through a shared critical reflection, we drew on our practice experience to interrogate the themes generated from the interviews and offer insight into the underlying challenges.ResultsFrom the interviews, we generated four themes relating to commissioning and delivery; the involvement of stakeholders; intersections with other statutory processes; and purpose. Based on our shared critical reflection, we identified the underlying challenges as an under conceptualisation of S-DARDRs, alongside their de-mooring from the criminal justice system. Taken together, these challenges have implications for the conduct of S-DARDRs. We identify recommendations for policy and practice to address these challenges.ConclusionThe development of S-DARDRs has been little considered and challenges arise around when and how they should be undertaken. A shared understanding of key concepts and expectations around delivery is necessary if S-DARDRs are to enable robust learning and be a driver for systems change while also being accessible and understood by all stakeholders.

Parallels in Practice: Applying Principles of Research Integrity and Ethics in Domestic Violence Fatality Review (DVFR)

PurposeWithin the context of the big data society, new systems of data collection on domestic violence and abuse (DVA) have emerged. One such system is Domestic Violence Fatality Review (DVFR) which captures the various dimensions of gender, violence, and abuse required to form an evidence base for prevention. However, to date, there has been limited dialogue between practitioners and researchers about the ‘doing’ of DVFRs.MethodAs DVFR systems vary by jurisdiction, we conducted a case study of Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) in England and Wales. Applying the Research Integrity Framework (RIF) developed by the four Women’s Aid Federations in the United Kingdom (UK), this article examines both the practice of DHR and how it is utilised as data in research.ResultsInformed by our situated perspectives as researchers and/or practitioners working in the field, our analysis demonstrates how undertaking DHR as a practitioner parallels collecting, accessing, and analysing data from DHRs as a researcher. Guiding principles are identified to help practitioners and researchers navigate the parallel challenges they confront and, critically, inform dialogue between practice and research.ConclusionsImplications for both professional practice and research are presented. To increase transparency and confidence, we argue that more attention should be afforded to the methodological and ethical issues inherent in both the practice of DHRs, and their utilisation as a source of data in research. While DHRs have differences to DVFRs in other jurisdictions, these findings also have implications for these other systems which will also be discussed.

Carers and domestic abuse – the elephant in the room?

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to highlight the issue of carers as victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse. The issue of carers as victims, and sometimes perpetrators, of domestic abuse is being overlooked by statutory organisations because they often do not fit the traditional patterns of abusive relationships, and the complexities of the caring role can make typical safety options unsuitable. However, caring responsibilities are a feature of an increasing number of domestic homicide reviews, and current statutory safeguarding options exclude most carers from support and risk not identifying perpetrators.Design/methodology/approachThis short paper highlights some of the shortfalls around identifying the needs of carer victims/survivors of domestic abuse and carer-perpetrators of domestic abuse and explores ways in which identification and support could be improved.FindingsCarers as victims/survivors of domestic abuse, and as abusers, is an issue that requires more attention from researchers and Adult Social Care, NHS, Carer Support Organisations and Domestic Abuse specialists need to work together to explore these issues and offer workable options.Originality/valueLittle data or research exists around carers as victims or perpetrators of domestic abuse.

An analysis of minoritisation in domestic homicide reviews in England and Wales

This article considers how minoritisation features in Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) in England and Wales and identifies critical learning in relation to addressing minoritisation. Five themes were identified: i) the invisibility of race, culture and ethnicity; ii) perceptions and experiences of services; iii) use of stereotypes and the culturalisation of domestic violence and abuse (DVA); iv) lack of interpreters; and v) DHR recommendations. Our analysis illustrates that statutory sector services should strengthen their responses to Black and minoritised victims by ensuring proper recording of cultural background is used to inform practice; engage professionally trained interpreters with an awareness of DVA; resist framing DVA as endemic to minoritised cultures; and enhance trust and confidence in public services within minoritised communities. The best examples of DHRs challenged service narratives and usually sought expertise from a specialist Black/minoritised DVA service or community organisation (frequently minoritised women's rights organisations).

Inside the black box: domestic homicide reviews as a source of data

Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) are a statutory review process to better understand domestic homicide in England and Wales. As a policy intervention, DHRs are intended to build a picture of the circumstances before such deaths and identify gaps in practice, policy and system response. The rationale is that this learning can improve response to domestic violence and abuse and reduce the likelihood of future homicides. However, little is known about how the DHR process operates, including how knowledge is produced or its subsequent use, including any outcomes. In effect, for the most part, DHRs are a ‘black box’. Yet, researchers are increasingly using DHR reports as a source of data. By locating ourselves within these processes, this article explores the implications of limited engagement with DHRs as a process of knowledge generation to date. It focuses on the implications for researchers, in particular the epistemological and methodological issues that arise, before considering what this might mean for policy and practice. It identifies recommendations to address key gaps in the understanding and use of DHRs for research purposes.

Beyond intimate partner relationships: utilising domestic homicide reviews to prevent adult family domestic homicide

Increasing evidence documents domestic violence and abuse (DVA) and domestic homicide of adults killed by a relative in non-intimate partner relationships. Most literature focuses on intimate partner violence and homicide, yet non-intimate partner homicides form a substantial but neglected minority of domestic homicides. This article addresses this gap by presenting an analysis from 66 domestic homicide reviews (DHRs) in England and Wales where the victim and perpetrator were related, such as parent and adult child. Intimate partner homicides are excluded. These 66 DHRs were a sub-sample drawn from a larger study examining 317 DHRs in England and Wales. The article contributes towards greater understanding of the prevalence, context and characteristics of adult family homicide (AFH). Analysis revealed five interlinked precursors to AFH: mental health and substance/alcohol misuse, criminal history, childhood trauma, economic factors and care dynamics. Findings indicate that, given their contact with both victims and perpetrators, criminal justice agencies, adult social care and health agencies, particularly mental health services, are ideally placed to identify important risk and contextual factors. Understanding of DVA needs to extend to include adult family violence. Risk assessments need to be cognisant of the complex dynamics of AFH and must consider social-structural and relational-contextual factors.

Reviewing in a pandemic? A commentary on COVID-19 and domestic homicide review

PurposeThis paper is a commentary on COVID-19’s impact on Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs), the system in England and Wales that enables learning from domestic abuse-related deaths.Design/methodology/approachDrawing on a practitioner–researcher perspective, this paper reflects on how COVID-19 affected the delivery and experience of DHRs, the place of victims at the heart of this process and what the pandemic’s impact might mean moving forward.FindingsThis paper explicates some of the challenges of undertaking DHRs in a pandemic. Critically, however, it argues that these challenges illuminate broader questions about the practice of DHR.Originality/valueThis paper’s originality comes from the author’s practitioner–researcher perspective and its use of COVID-19 as a lens to consider DHRs.

Outcome of Did Not Attend Outpatient Appointment

AimsFailure to attend outpatient clinic appointments by service users without prior notification is a major contributor to waste resources. Failure to attend earlier in treatment predicts attrition later in treatment (Goode, 1997; Aubrey et al, 2003) leading to further waste of resources. The department of health figures for England show that failure to attend outpatient clinic is more in mental health clinics (19.1%) compared with overall figures for other specialties 11.7% (Department of Health, 2003). Lack of appropriate follow-up when a service user does not attend as appointment has been identified as a contributory factor in Serious Incident investigations, Domestic Homicide Reviews and Safeguarding Adults Reviews. Our aim of this study is to see if we are adherent to trust policy or not.MethodsA questionnaire tool was designed by using trust guidelines regarding DNA appointment a.Was The DNA Recorded in patient's records? YES/NOb.Was the information (DNA) shared with GP? YES/NOc.Was The DNA discussed in MDT meeting? YES/NOd.For new referrals was the referrer involved in review and decision of next step? YES/NOe.Were alternative venues considered for carrying out the assessment to support the person to engage, e.g. GP Surgery? YES/NOData were collected by team and analysed by Dr Saleh using electronic records.Results88 outpatient appointments were flagged as DNA appointments between 1 April 2021 to 31st May 2021 1.In 87.5% cases DNA was recorded in patient's records?2.In 45.45% cases the information (DNA) was shared with GP3.In 45.45% cases DNA was discussed in MDT meeting4.In 0% case the referrer was involved in review and decision of next step5.In 11.36% cases alternative venues was considered for carrying out the assessment to support the person to engage, e.g. GP Surgery.6.25 patients DNA appointment twiceConclusionWe are not adherent to trust policy.

Sharing information about domestic violence and abuse in healthcare: an analysis of English guidance and recommendations for good practice

BackgroundOver two million adults experience domestic violence and abuse (DVA) in England and Wales each year. Domestic homicide reviews often show that health services have frequent contact with victims and...

The Potential and Limitations of Domestic Homicide Review: A Response to Hope et al. (2021)

This article responds to an article by Hope et al. (2021), in which they reported on an analysis of 22 Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) conducted in England and Wales into the domestic-abuse related deaths of men. While the analysis of DHRs individually and in aggregate is an important part of the process of learning from these tragedies, in this response I set out my concerns relating to both the use of DHRs by Hope et al. and also their findings. I highlight the absence of engagement with the literature around DHRs and/or the wider international family of Domestic Violence Fatality Review (DVFRs), as well as the decision to situate the study design and analysis of these deaths without reference to, or consideration of, the broader context of domestic homicide as a phenomenon. I also argue there is a lacuna in the findings, specifically as to the evidence of (alleged) domestic abuse by many of the men whose deaths were examined by these DHRs, the implications of which are overlooked. I conclude by emphasizing the potential learning from research into DHRs, in this case relating to the domestic abuse-related deaths of men, but also the need to recognize complexity in this endeavor.

Risk factors for intimate partner homicide in England and Wales.

Intimate partner homicides are often situated within the context of domestic abuse, and although less prevalent than domestic abuse, there have been several multi‐agency approaches to understanding the risk for these fatal crimes. Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) were introduced in 2011 to provide information to help with assessing such risk. This paper aims to analyse DHRs in England and Wales to investigate/determine risk factors for domestic homicide following intimate partner abuse. All publicly available DHRs published between July 2011 and November 2020 where the victim and perpetrator were or had been intimate partners (N = 263) were retrieved from Community Safety Partnership websites in England and Wales. A quantitative design was used to extract data from DHRs, and descriptive and inferential statistics were generated by SPSS 26. Findings identified risk factors relating to domestic abuse, including stalking, separation, and the victim being in a new relationship. Sociodemographic risk factors included higher levels of deprivation, lower income and higher barriers to housing and services. This highlights the role of both individual and sociodemographic factors in domestic homicides, and particularly the need for greater socioeconomic security for victims of domestic abuse. In conclusion, though much of the data is in line with previous research, our analysis highlights the pivotal role of regional poverty, with comfortable socioeconomic conditions offering protection against intimate partner homicides. This research suggests important directions for future research and makes a valuable contribution to a more in‐depth understanding of the relationship between domestic abuse and intimate partner homicide.

Negotiating organisational blame to foster learning: Professionals’ perspectives about Domestic Homicide Reviews

Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) are a statutory requirement in England and Wales, conducted when somebody aged 16 and over dies from violence, abuse or neglect by a relative, intimate partner or member of the same household. While key aims of DHRs are to identify recommendations and lessons learned to eventually prevent further domestic homicides, there is limited evidence globally regarding the extent to which these are followed up or make a difference. This paper explores the barriers and facilitators to the conduct and impact of DHRs to enhance their learning potential. It is based on nineteen qualitative interviews with professionals involved in the DHR process across five Safeguarding Boards in Wales and fourteen Community Safety Partnerships in the North‐West of England, UK. Findings are presented thematically under four section headings: upskilling and democratising the review process; family and friends’ involvement; negotiating organisational blame to foster learning; and actioning and auditing recommendations. It is suggested that organisational learning cannot be achieved without accepting organisational responsibility, which could be interpreted as blame. The role and skills of the Chair are perceived as key to ensure a safe, evidence‐based, transparent and learning‐focused DHR process. Developing and actioning recommendations may challenge longstanding prejudices. Promoting the role of families/survivor networks and professionals on an equal footing would support a more democratic process. Learning could be enhanced by thematising recommendations and proactively using lessons from one area to inform another. Participants called for appropriate central regulation and accountability to support the action of recommendations.

Constructing Fatality Review: A Policy Analysis of the Emergence of Domestic Homicide Reviews in England and Wales.

In England and Wales, Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) examine domestic abuse-related deaths to identify lessons to be learned. However, their emergence as a policy initiative has been little considered. To address this gap, a thematic discourse analysis of policy documents to 2011 was undertaken, examining the justification for, and conceptualization of, DHRs before their implementation. It is argued that DHRs were constructed as a taken-for-granted good, through which multi-agency partners would generate learning while the (gendered) subject was silenced. Attending to aspirations, contradictions, and tensions in the emergence of DHRs has implications for their understanding and operationalization in the present.

Experiences of domestic abuse within the South Asian community

The Black Lives Matter social movement has once again raised important societal issues around structural and racial inequalities. These issues stem from our political and social structures, which are argued to be a continuance of colonial rule and which allow injustice to amplify. There are many who continue to suffer and are often overlooked, namely victims of domestic abuse within the South Asian community. The Domestic Abuse Bill (DAB) is currently going through the Parliamentary process. It is argued that the DAB is flawed due to an absence of provisions and support for minority ethnic groups, namely the South Asian community. Previous scholarly research has documented the prevalence of honour-based abuse within the South Asian community. Despite the unique nature of abuse, this is not acknowledged in the DAB. The purpose of this paper is to uncover the unique experiences of domestic abuse within the South Asian community by thematically analysing two Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs). The findings will be discussed using aspects of ultra-realism, namely special liberty, and benign neglect. These findings will form the basis of reasoning behind amendment suggestions for the DAB. Following the thematic analysis of the two DHRs and critical literature review, three recommendations were formed: 1) Removal of ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’, thus providing funding to all, despite immigration status; 2) Provide education to police officers and GPs regarding domestic abuse and how it often differs depending on culture, namely the South Asian community; and 3) Implement neighbourhood committees across Britain that have a working relationship with the police to identify cases of domestic abuse within this South Asian demographic.

What can we learn about perpetrators of domestic and familial homicide and their involvement with mental health services from domestic homicide reviews?

IntroductionThe evidence that supports an association between domestic violence and abuse (DVA) perpetration and mental disorders is increasing. Since 2011, authorities in England and Wales have been required to conduct Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) into deaths caused by violence, abuse or neglect of individuals aged 16 or over, by a family member or a current or ex-partner.ObjectivesThe aim of the study is to describe the characteristics of perpetrators of domestic homicide in a sample of DHR reports in which the perpetrator was known to mental health services in the 12 months before the offence. This sample will undergo qualitative framework analysis as part of another study conducted by the authors.MethodsThe researchers compiled a list of DHRs available online and randomly sampled 168 reports; in 20 of those reports, the perpetrators were under the care of mental health services in the 12 months prior to the offence. We have applied descriptive statistics to report on the sample characteristics.ResultsThe common mental illnesses diagnosed amongst perpetrators were depression (20%), anxiety (15%) and schizophrenia (15%). 25% of the perpetrators didn’t have a psychiatric diagnosis and 70% had a history of self-harm and suicidal ideation. Substance use was prevalent (60%). Half of the homicides involved children.ConclusionsThis report describes the demographic and mental health characteristics of a sample of perpetrators of domestic homicides. Further research is needed into the patterns of mental health service use by DVA perpetrators in order to improve identification and risk management.Conflict of interestNo significant relationships.

Interviewee Transcript Review as a Tool to Improve Data Quality and Participant Confidence in Sensitive Research

Interviewee Transcript Review (ITR), a form of Respondent Validation, is a way to share and check interview transcripts with research participants. To date, the literature has considered how these practices affect data quality, focused on the ability of a participant to correct, add or remove data. Less considered is the extent to which ITR might enable sensitive research. Reporting on research examining the experiences and perspectives of different stakeholders involved in Domestic Homicide Reviews, 40 participants who took part in semi-structured interviews were offered the opportunity to review their transcripts. This paper contributes to the understanding of the use of ITR, demonstrating how it can be used to increase participant confidence to provide assurance about, and indeed active involvement in, the steps being taken to preserve their anonymity.