A preliminary case series on the use of quetiapine for posttraumatic stress disorder in juveniles within a youth detention center

Juveniles within the youth justice system have high rates of psychiatric morbidity, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This case series describes 6 young people aged 15 to 17 years within a youth detention center who met the criteria for PTSD and reported an improvement in symptoms after 6 weeks of treatment with low-dose quetiapine. The primary outcome measure used was the Traumatic Symptom Checklist in Children. The dose of quetiapine ranged from 50 to 200 mg/d; T scores for PTSD symptoms decreased from 75 (SD, +/- 5.2; range, 68-82) to 54 (SD: +/- 7.4; range, 43-62) (P <= 0.01). Significant improvements in symptoms of dissociation (P <= 0.01), anxiety (P < 0.01), depression (P < 0.01).. and anger (P < 0.05) were also noted over the 6-week evaluation period. Low-dose quetiapine was tolerated well, with no persisting side effects or adverse events. Nighttime sedation was reported, although this was viewed as beneficial. All young people opted to continue with treatment after the assessment period. This preliminary case series suggests that juveniles in detention who have PTSD may benefit from treatment with quetiapine. Caution is needed in interpreting these findings. Both larger open-label and blinded trials are war-ranted to define the use of quetiapine in the treatment of PTSD in the adolescent forensic population.

Public and private psychiatry: Can they work together and is it worth the effort?

Objective: Partnerships in mental health care, particularly between public and private psychiatric services, are being increasingly recognized as important for optimizing patient management and the efficient organization of services. However, public sector mental health services and private psychiatrists do not always work well together and there seem to be a number of barriers to effective collaboration. This study set out to investigate the extent of collaborative 'shared care' arrangements between a public mental health service and private psychiatrists practising nearby. It also examined possible barriers to collaboration and some possible solutions to the identified problems. Method: A questionnaire examining the above factors was sent to all public sector mental health clinicians and all private psychiatrists in the area. Results: One hundred and five of the 154 (68.2%) public sector clinicians and 103 of the 194 (53.1%) private psychiatrists returned surveys. The main barriers to successful collaboration identified by members of both sectors were: 'Difficulty communicating' endorsed by 71.4% of public clinicians and 72% of private psychiatrists, 'Confusion of roles and responsibilities' endorsed by 62.9% and 66%, respectively, and 'Different treatment approach' by 47.6% and 45.6%, respectively. Over 60% of private psychiatrists identified problems with access to the public system as a barrier to successful shared care arrangements. It also emerged, as hypothesized, that the public and private systems tend to manage different patient populations and that public clinicians in particular are not fully aware of the private psychiatrists' range of expertise. This would result in fewer referrals for shared care across the sectors. Conclusions: A number of barriers to public sector clinicians and private psychiatrists collaborating in shared care arrangements were identified. The two groups surveyed identified similar barriers. Some of these can potentially be addressed by changes to service systems. Others require cultural shifts in both sectors. Improved communications including more opportunities for formal and informal meetings between people working in the two sectors would be likely to improve the understanding of the complementary sector's perspective and practice. Further changes would be expected to require careful work between the sectors on training, employment and practice protocols and initiatives, to allow better use of the existing services and resources.

Aggressive behaviour in the high-secure forensic setting: the perceptions of patients

Twenty-seven patients undergoing treatment in a high-secure forensic facility participated in focus group interviews to elicit their perceptions of (1) the factors leading to aggressive behaviour; and (2) strategies to reduce the risk of such behaviour. The focus group interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed using content analysis. The participants identified that a combination of patient, staff and environmental factors contributed to violence in the study wards. The cause of aggressive behaviour centred around five major themes: the environment; empty days; staff interactions; medication issues; and patient-centred factors. Potential strategies identified by patients to reduce aggressive behaviour included: early intervention; the provision of meaningful activities to reduce boredom; separation of acutely disturbed patients; improved staff attitudes; implementation of effective justice procedures; and a patient advocate to mediate during times of conflict. Findings suggested that social and organizational factors need to be addressed to change the punitive subculture inherent in forensic psychiatric facilities, and to ensure a balance between security and effective therapy.

Exclusionary DNA of forensic workers and Australian forensic procedures legislation

Consideration of regulatory issues covering exclusionary DNA of forensic workers - probative effect of eliminating extraneous DNA in a criminal prosecution - current regulatory scheme leaves the legal position of forensic workers' exclusionary DNA obscure.

Quantifying evidence for forensic authorship analysis

The judicial interest in ‘scientific’ evidence has driven recent work to quantify results for forensic linguistic authorship analysis. Through a methodological discussion and a worked example this paper examines the issues which complicate attempts to quantify results in work. The solution suggested to some of the difficulties is a sampling and testing strategy which helps to identify potentially useful, valid and reliable markers of authorship. An important feature of the sampling strategy is that these markers identified as being generally valid and reliable are retested for use in specific authorship analysis cases. The suggested approach for drawing quantified conclusions combines discriminant function analysis and Bayesian likelihood measures. The worked example starts with twenty comparison texts for each of three potential authors and then uses a progressively smaller comparison corpus, reducing to fifteen, ten, five and finally three texts per author. This worked example demonstrates how reducing the amount of data affects the way conclusions can be drawn. With greater numbers of reference texts quantified and safe attributions are shown to be possible, but as the number of reference texts reduces the analysis shows how the conclusion which should be reached is that no attribution can be made. The testing process at no point results in instances of a misattribution.

A study of outcomes measures in forensic mental health

Outcomes measures, which is the measurement of effectiveness of interventions and services has been propelled onto the health service agenda since the introduction of the internal market in the 1990s. It arose as a result of the escalating cost of inpatient care, the need to identify what interventions work and in what situations, and the desire for effective information by service users enabled by the consumerist agenda introduced by Working for Patients white paper. The research reported in this thesis is an assessment of the readiness of the forensic mental health service to measure outcomes of interventions. The research examines the type, prevalence and scope of use of outcomes measures, and further seeks a consensus of views of key stakeholders on the priority areas for future development. It discusses the theoretical basis for defining health and advocates the argument that the present focus on measuring effectiveness of care is misdirected without the input of users, particularly patients in their care, drawing together the views of the many stakeholders who have an interest in the provision of care in the service. The research further draws on the theory of structuration to demonstrate the degree to which a duality of action, which is necessary for the development, and use of outcomes measures is in place within the service. Consequently, it highlights some of the hurdles that need to be surmounted before effective measurement of health gain can be developed in the field of study. It concludes by advancing the view that outcomes research can enable practitioners to better understand the relationship between the illness of the patient and the efficacy of treatment. This understanding it is argued would contribute to improving dialogue between the health care practitioner and the patient, and further providing the information necessary for moving away from untested assumptions, which are numerous in the field about the superiority of one treatment approach over another.

Communication in investigative and legal contexts:integrated approaches from forensic psychology, linguistics and law enforcement

Communication in Forensic Contexts provides in-depth coverage of the complex area of communication in forensic situations. Drawing on expertise from forensic psychology, linguistics and law enforcement worldwide, the text bridges the gap between these fields in a definitive guide to best practice. • Offers best practice for understanding and improving communication in forensic contexts, including interviewing of victims, witnesses and suspects, discourse in courtrooms, and discourse via interpreters • Bridges the knowledge gaps between forensic psychology, forensic linguistics and law enforcement, with chapters written by teams bringing together expertise from each field • Published in collaboration with the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group, dedicated to furthering evidence-based practice and practice-based research amongst researchers and practitioners • International, cross-disciplinary team includes contributors from North America, Europe and Asia Pacific, and from psychology, linguistics and forensic practice

Approaching questions in forensic authorship analysis

This chapter demonstrates diversity in the activity of authorship and the corresponding diversity of forensic authorship analysis questions and techniques. Authorship is discussed in terms of Love’s (2002) multifunctional description of precursory, executive, declarative and revisionary authorship activities and the implications of this distinction for forensic problem solving. Four different authorship questions are considered. These are ‘How was the text produced?’, ‘How many people wrote the text?’, ‘What kind of person wrote the text?’ and ‘What is the relationship of a queried text with comparison texts?’ Different approaches to forensic authorship analysis are discussed in terms of their appropriateness to answering different authorship questions. The conclusion drawn is that no one technique will ever be appropriate to all problems.