Organizing Forensic Mental Health Care Delivery: Putting the Trinitarian Model of Therapeutic Security to the Test

The Trinitarian model of therapeutic security is used to organize forensic mental health care in Ireland, England and Scotland. However, it remains unclear whether this model captures all significant factors for the organization of forensic mental health care delivery. In this case study, the Trinitarian model is applied to and tested on Belgian forensic mental health services. Relational security as a discriminative factor is debated and an extension of this institution-oriented model to the policy- and service users’ level is recommended. Finally, we propose to disentangle the concepts of therapeutic security, risk and care in forensic mental health

Voices to be heard: Understanding family perspectives in forensic care trajectoreis

Introduction: De-institutionalization of psychiatric care has greatly increased the role of family members in the recovery pathways of Persons labeled as Not Criminally Responsible (PNCR). However, the role of family members in supporting PNCR in forensic psychiatric care remains understudied. Scarce evidence indicates that PNCR have to deal with stigma and endure specific burdens (i.e., symptom-specific, financial, social, and emotional). Recovery-focused research showed that recovery in both persons with a severe mental illness and family members develop in parallel with each other and are characterized by similar helpful principles (e.g., hope and coping skills). As such, the recovery pathways of PNCR often goes hand in hand with the recovery pathway of their family members. During the family recovery process, family members often experience not being listened to or being empowered by professionals or not being involved in the decision-making process in the care trajectory of their relative. Therefore, the aim of this study is to capture how family members experience the care trajectories of their relatives, more specifically by looking at family recovery aspects and personal advocacy of family members. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 family members of PNCR from 14 families. A thematic analysis confirms that family members suffer from stigma and worry significantly about the future of their relative. Results: Regarding the care trajectory of PNCR, family members experienced barriers in multiple domains while trying to support their relative: involvement in care and information sharing, visiting procedures, transitions between wards, and the psychiatric and judicial reporting by professionals. In addition, family members emphasized the importance of (social) support for themselves during the forensic psychiatric care trajectories and of a shared partnership. Discussion: These findings tie in with procedural justice theory as a precondition for family support and family recovery within forensic psychiatric care