| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Psychiatric Bulletin | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Section of Forensic Mental Health, University of Nottingham
Arnold Lodge, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust
Arnold Lodge, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust
Rampton Hospital, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust
Correspondence: Professor Conor Duggan, Arnold Lodge RSU, Cordelia Close, Leicester LE5 0LE, UK. Email: conor.duggan{at}nottshc.nhs.uk
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Aim To examine the utility of a standardised assessment of offenders with personality disorder referred for treatment in secure care in a naturalistic study.
Method A consecutive series of 89 men were assessed with a battery of four recommended instruments measuring personality and risk. Decisions on whether or not to admit were based on a multidisciplinary discussion informed by these assessments.
Results Of the 89 comprehensively assessed referrals, 60 (67%) were offered admission. High scores on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (especially on Factor 1) was the only measure that was associated with rejection. Of 44 patients discharged, 29 (66%) failed to complete treatment; none of the pre-admission assessments distinguished `completers' from `non-completers'. Although skills were acquired on the unit, follow-up of 24 men in the community showed that this had only a marginal effect on re-offending rate (58%).
Conclusions Current recommended assessment methods appear unsatisfactory in identifying those who either (a) complete treatment or (b) benefit from treatment. Our results throw doubt on their value.
|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
This lack of a standardised process led Reed (1994) and the Dangerous and Severe Personality (DSPD) Programme (Home Office & Department of Health, 2001) to recommend that personality disorder be assessed with multiple standardised measures. Despite these recommendations, there have been few empirical reports of their implementation. Milton et al (2007), in a preliminary study, described the results of this process in a medium secure setting. We expand on this sample and evaluate the process both with regard to treatment adherence and short- to medium-term outcome following discharge.
|
|
METHOD |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Assessment process
Referrals were made by medical practitioners in forensic or prison
settings. Each referral was initially screened by a consultant psychiatrist to
determine if there was sufficient evidence to proceed to a multidisciplinary
assessment. Referrals deemed as inappropriate were screened out at that stage
and the remainder had an independent assessment from the psychiatrist,
psychologist and nurse attached to the unit. The psychiatrist, in addition to
obtaining the usual psychiatric history, administered the Schedule for
Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia–Lifetime Version (SADS–L;
Endicott & Spitzer, 1979)
or Structural Clinical Interview for DSM–IV Disorder (SCID–1;
First et al, 1997) to
determine the presence of important mental state (Axis I) disorders and the
interview version of the International Personality Disorders (IPDE;
Loranger et al, 1994)
to document personality (Axis II) psychopathology. The psychologist assessed
intellectual ability with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (3rd edn,
revised) (WAIS–R; Wechsler et
al, 1998) and psychopathy with the PCL–R
(Hare, 1991). The nurses
assessed risk with the Historial/Clinical/Risk Management 20-item scale
(HCR–20; Webster et al,
1997), and motivation and manageability using prison records and
interviewing staff. Each professional made an independent recommendation as to
whether or not the individual ought to be admitted and the final decision was
made by the full multidisciplinary team.
Treatment
The general principle underpinning the treatment approach was that these
individuals offended because they lacked the necessary skills to do otherwise.
Hence, any augmentation of their skills repertoire (e.g. improved
problem-solving, social skills or better anger management) ought to lead to a
reduction in their rate of re-offending. Treatment was based primarily on
principles of cognitive–behavioural therapy informed by a therapeutic
community approach modified for a secure setting. Specific provision was made
to tackle criminogenic needs. Treatments were generally provided in a group
which was mostly nurse led. Individual work also took place if this was
indicated. A battery of psychometric tests was completed at each care
programme approach or case conference meeting (i.e. 3 months after admission
and 6 months thereafter).
The programme accepted individuals for a maximum of 2 years, after which they were discharged either back to prison, hospital or the community. All participants volunteered for treatment and could choose to leave the unit and return to the host institution at any time during their admission. There was an expectation that they would engage actively with the treatment regime. The unit had a zero tolerance for physical violence, the use of illicit drugs or alcohol. All these rules were actively enforced so that any departures resulted in individuals being returned to their host institution (usually prison). Those discharged prematurely were usually offered a second opportunity to be readmitted after a period of reflection.
Follow-up
As outcome is one of the validating criteria of any classification process
(Robins & Guze, 1970), we
selected adherence to treatment and a reduction of re-offending after
discharge as the main criteria to evaluate the assessment process. Thus, we
assumed that those who were deemed to be suitable for the unit, following this
complex battery of assessments, would be likely (a) to complete treatment and
(b) to benefit from it. Hence, we examined the completion rate of treatment
among those admitted and followed-up all those discharged from the service
(whether they had completed or not) annually for five years after discharge.
The follow-up usually comprised a face-to-face interview that documented the
mental health status over the previous 12 months, any criminal activity and
completion of relevant psychometric tests. Permission for the follow-up study
and for the use of routine clinical data for research purposes was obtained
from the North Nottinghamshire Ethics Committee.
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Of the 89 men assessed by the multidisciplinary team, 60 were offered admission (67%) and 29 were declined admission (33%). Table 1 shows the characteristics of those who were and were not accepted for admission. Those with a high total PCL–R score (and especially a high score on the PCL–R Factor 1) and a high HCR–20 score were unlikely to be offered admission.
|
Adherence to treatment
Adherence to treatment was poor. Of the 44 patients who had been discharged
from the unit by 30 September 2005, 29 (66%) left treatment prematurely, with
only 15 (34%) of those discharged completing the treatment originally
recommended by the multidisciplinary team. The reasons for this failure
comprised: (a) 4 (9%) who were subsequently found to be inappropriate for
treatment despite being deemed suitable at the initial assessment; (b) 3 (7%)
who chose to leave despite clinical advice to the contrary; (c) 11 (25%) who
disengaged from the programme; (d) 6 (14%) who showed violent behaviour; and
(e) 5 (11%) who indulged in illicit drug taking. None of the original
assessment variables was useful in identifying those who were likely to
complete treatment. While on the unit, those in the treatment programmes
showed a positive response as measured by self-report.
Follow-up
Only 1 of the 44 patients discharged refused to be followed-up after
discharge and by September 2005 (5 years after the first discharge), 37
continued to be part of the follow-up process. By that stage, 6 (14%) had
either withdrawn their consent for any further follow-up, could not be traced
or had died (1 from a heroin overdose).
The rate of re-offending (primary outcome) at 5 years showed that of the 24 that were alive and had lived at some time in the community (and hence were at risk of re-offending), 10 (42%) had not reoffended, 12 (50%) had reoffended to a similar or lesser degree compared with their index offence, and 2 (8%) had re-offended more seriously. Although there was roughly a similar number among those who did or did not re-offend who completed the programme, both men who re-offended more seriously were non-completers. Despite the relatively high rate of re-offending, there was evidence that at least to 1 year of follow-up (when we had the largest sample) the gains on social problem-solving on the self-report Social Problem-Solving Inventory (SPSI; D'Zurilla & Nezu, 1990) persisted.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Limitations
This is a prospective naturalistic descriptive study and hence is subject
to the limitations of such a design. First, the continued collection of new
data might result in these preliminary results changing in the future,
particularly as the small size of this initial data-set makes it sensitive to
changes in whatever data are subsequently entered. For instance, if a few more
men were convicted of re-offending (or a few less), this would result in a
major change in the proportions in the re-offending outcome category. Second,
we are describing a clinical service that is likely to take account of regular
feedback on its effectiveness and change its practice accordingly. There was
evidence that this indeed occurred: when the results of the early follow-up
demonstrated that re-offending was a common outcome, a specific programme was
introduced that focused on criminogenic needs to reduce such high rates of
re-offending. However, a proper evaluation of the impact of this programme
will take some further time.
Third, the absence of a control group makes interpretation of the data difficult. For instance, is our rate of re-offending (58%) in those with a personality disorder on discharge over a variable follow-up period either high or low? We simply do not know as comparable data from other studies are not available. However, we do know that 58.2% of prisoners released in 2001 (the period during which this study took place) were reconvicted of a standard list offence within 2 years (Home Office 2002), a rate that is equivalent to our findings. Fourth, although the assessment provided guidance as to who should or should not be admitted, such guidance was applied loosely, with a degree of clinical override, and not as would have been the case in a clinical trial.
Pre-admission assessment
Examination of the data in relation to admission shows that few of the
measures separated the groups, apart from a high score on the PLC–R
(especially a high score on Factor 1), which led to the individual being
rejected. (This was not a surprise as a high score on the PLC–R was one
of our exclusion criteria.) However, these comparisons of mean scores tell us
very little about the decision-making process, as these measures were combined
to provide a composite score which was used to decide whether or not to admit.
Thus, it is impossible to tell from the data in
Table 1 as to whether, and in
what way, the multidisciplinary team was informed by the assessment process
(with the exception of the PCL–R). This is because all of the data were
fed into a complex decision-making process and, as this was not hierarchically
designed, it is not possible to tell whether a low score on the WAIS–R
was more important than a high score on the PCL–R in leading to someone
being rejected. Hence, our failure to find differences in the individual
assessment measures is neither an argument for abandoning or retaining a
systematic assessment using these measures.
Post-admission
Two main points emerged when the patients were on the unit. The first was
that there was an improvement in patients' skills acquisition and the second
that there was considerable attrition. One criticism of the first finding was
that skills acquisition was measured by self-report, and hence was likely to
be inaccurate as patients would wish to portray themselves in the best
possible light. We believe that this is unlikely for two reasons. First, all
patients were volunteers and so were not being detained or released on the
basis of their improvement (or the reverse). Hence, there was little incentive
to portray themselves positively. (A possible exception was those serving life
sentences or on restriction orders where a favourable report would be of
benefit. However, this group comprised less than 10% of the sample.) Second,
there was an observed improvement in patients' behaviour when they were on the
unit and this paralleled the improvement in their self-report. In addition,
the self-reported improvement on the social problem measure was enhanced
further a year after discharge when those completing the form could not have
achieved any further advantage by a positive response.
However, the rate of attrition from the service paints a less favourable picture: with two-thirds of the sample dropping out from treatment prematurely. Drop-outs from treatment are infrequently reported, with the exception of clinical trials where the drop-out from psychological treatments in those with personality disorder ranges between 30 and 70% (Garfield, 1986). As those who enter trials are often a self-selected sample in the community that are enthusiastic and thus more likely to engage, our drop-out rates are surprisingly concordant with those from trial data. Moreover, as the most robust predictors of an increased drop-out in those with personality disorder are low educational attainment (Berrigan & Garfield, 1981), young age and hostility (Smith et al, 1995), all of which were common in our sample of young antisocial offenders, our finding of a 50–66% non-completion rate (depending on the definition) is perhaps better than might be expected. None the less, it is disappointing. What is most troubling is that the failure to select those who are likely to complete treatment is, not only an inappropriate use of an expensive facility, but may be damaging as there are data to suggest that non-completion of treatment predicts a less favourable course compared with no treatment (McMurran & Theodosi, 2007).
Finally, the follow-up results were also disappointing as the re-offending rate was similar to that of those released directly from prison to the community (Home Office, 2002). This high rate of re-offending occurred despite our data showing – at least for the social problem-solving measure – that gains in treatment persisted during the first year of follow-up.
There are a number of reasons to explain this discrepancy. First, re-offending may either be weakly related or unrelated to the acquisition of skills. Many mental health programmes that treat offenders have been criticised in not focusing sufficiently on the core criminological issues that need to be addressed if future violence is to be reduced (Maden et al, 2004). Hence, one of the reasons for our lack of success might have been the initial injudicious selection of the treatment programme, and this has changed since the unit was formed. Second, the reason that the programme was unsuccessful might have been, not that it was inappropriately selected, rather that it was inappropriately applied. There are many reports indicating that programmes fail because of poor implementation rather than deficiencies in the programmes themselves (Hollin, 1995). Third, patient selection might have failed to identify those who would be likely to benefit from what was on offer. We recognise that there needs to be a more systematic assessment of the individual's motivation and if treatment resistance is strong little progress is likely to be made with programmes designed to change personality (Tyrer et al, 2003). Deciding which is the best explanation for these negative findings requires more careful investigation than was possible in this pilot project.
Implications
Clearly, one needs to be cautious in drawing too many definite conclusions
from such a small sample. In addition, one might ask about their relevance to
the DSPD Programme as this clearly has a very different remit. None the less,
we believe that the findings of this study are relevant to the DSPD Programme
for the following reasons. First, the DSPD Programme currently employs similar
assessments to those used in this study as entry criteria to its service (i.e.
scores on the PCL–R and IPDE), albeit in a different direction. That is,
that the selection process employed by the Personality Disorder Unit was
predicated on criteria (i.e. being volunteers, having a low PCL–R score,
absence of sadistic offending, etc.) so that those admitted ought to have had
a favourable outcome – certainly compared with those admitted to the
DSPD services. Hence the evidence that this treatment programme had little
effect on the re-offending rates after release – even in this group
chosen to optimise outcome – ought to cause some pause for thought.
Second, our finding that a relatively comprehensive examination had only a very modest impact – if any impact at all – on either adherence to treatment or its outcome is noteworthy. This must call into question the assessment process (that is being replicated within the DSPD Programme), as those selected for admission showed neither the expected adherence to treatment nor a significant benefit in primary outcome. These data provide additional ammunition for those who believe that our current conceptions of personality disorder that underpin the DSM–IV categorical system are fundamentally flawed (Malik & Beutler, 2002).
Third, although one could argue that this selection procedure and treatment implementation bear little resemblance to the DSPD Programme, many patients transferred from hospital DSPD services will pass through `step-down' services such as our unit. Hence, our very modest reduction in re-offending after release, if replicated elsewhere, ought to be a cause for concern in the light of the high cost of these services.
Future directions
There is a general principle that offenders with active psychosis ought to
be transferred to a mental health setting and treated, rather than remain in
prison. The position for offenders with a personality disorder is less clear.
Should they remain in custodial settings or be transferred to mental health
settings for treatment? Those who argue for the former make the following
points: (a) that those referred to mental health settings are so similar to
other incarcerated inmates that whatever treatment is offered in the former
(at considerably increased cost) ought to be offered to all prison inmates;
(b) that programmes addressing criminogenic factors within prisons may be as
(or even more) effective in reducing re-offending then those provided in
mental health settings. Hence, if a reduction in re-offending is the primary
outcome, is it not more sensible to treat all people with personality
disorders in custodial settings? There is also a concern that the
medicalisation of personality disorder may be used as an excuse for antisocial
behaviour and thereby encourage irresponsible individuals to take even less
responsibility for their behaviour than they might otherwise do.
Although all of these arguments are plausible, what is clearly lacking at present are empirical studies. Although the DSPD Programme has many detractors, it has at least caused mental health professionals, service providers and other policy makers to place the connection between personality disorder and offending centre stage and thereby wrestle with several different questions that all of theses groups have hitherto managed to avoid.
|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Berrigan, L. P. & Garfield, S. L. (1981) Relationship between missed psychotherapy appointments to premature termination and social class. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 39,239 -242.
Berry, A., Duggan, C. & Larkin, E. (1999) The treatability of psychopathic disorder: how clinicians decide. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 10,710 -719.
Collins, P. (1991) The treatability of psychopaths. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 2, 103-110.
D'Zurilla, T. N. & Nezu, A. (1990) Development and preliminary evaluation of the Social Problem Solving Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 2, 156-163.[CrossRef]
Endicott, J. & Spitzer, R. L. (1979) Use of
Research Daignostic Criteria and the `Schedule of Affective Disorders and
Schizophrenia' to study affective disorders. American Journal of
Psychiatry. 136,52
-56.
Fallon, P., Bluglass, R., Edwards, B., et al (1999) Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Personality Disorder Unit, Ashworth Special Hospital. TSO (The Stationery Office).
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., et al (1997) Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–1V Disorders (SCID). American Psychiatric Association.
Garfield, S. L. (1986) Research on client variables in psychotherapy. In Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (3rd edn), (eds S. L. Garfield & A. E. Bergin), pp. 213-256. Wiley.
Hare, R. D. (1991) Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist. Multi-Health Systems.
Hollin, C. R. (1995) The meaning and implication of `Treatment Integrity'. In What Works: in Reducing Re-Offending? Guidelines from Research and Practice. (ed. J. McGuire), pp. 195-208, Wiley.
Home Office (2002) Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 2001 (Cm 5696). TSO (The Stationery Office).
Home Office & Department of Health (2001) DSPD Programme: Dangerous People with Severe Personality Disorder Initiative: Progress Report. Home Office.
Loranger, A., Sartorious, N., Andreoli, A., et al (1994) The International Personality Disorder Examination: the WHO/ADAMHA international pilot study of personality disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51,215 -224.[Abstract]
Maden, A., Willaims, J., Wong, C. P., et al (2004) Treating dangerous and severe personality disorder in high security: lessons from the Regional Centre, Saskatoon, Canada. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 15,375 -390.[CrossRef]
Malik, M. L. & Beutler, L. E. (2002) The emergence of dissatisfaction with the DSM. In Rethinking DSM: A Psychological Perspective (eds L. E. Beulter & M. L. Malik), pp. 3-16. American Psychological Association.
McMurran, M. & Theodosi, E. (2007) Is treatment non-completion associated with increased reconviction over no treatment? Psychology, Crime and Law, in press.
Milton, J. (2000) A postal survey of the
assessment procedure for personality disorder in forensic settings.
Psychiatric Bulletin,
24,254
-257.
Milton, J., Duggan, C., McCarthy, L., et al (2007) Characteristics of offenders referred to a medium secure NHS service: the first five years. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 17,57 -67.[CrossRef][Medline]
Reed, J. (1994) Report of the Department of Heath and Home Office working group on Psychopathic Disorder. Department of Health & Home Office.
Robins, E. & Guze, S. B. (1970)
Establishment of diagnostic validity in psychiatric illness: its application
to schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry,
126,983
-987.
Smith, T. E., Koenigsberg, H. W., Yeomans, F. E., et al
(1995) Predictors of dropout in psychodynamic psychotherapy
of borderline personality disorder. Journal of Psychotherapy
Practice and Research, 4,205
-213.
Tyrer, P. & Johnson, T. (1996) Establishing
the severity of personality disorder. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 153,1593
-1597.
Tyrer, P., Mitchard, S., Methuen, C., et al (2003) Treatment-rejecting and treatment-seeking personality disorders: Type R and Type S. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17,265 -270.
Webster, C. D., Douglas K. S., Eaves, D., et al (1997) HCR–20: Assessing Risk for Violence (version 2). Mental Health Law and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.
Wechsler, D., Wyncherley, R. J., Benjamin, L., et al (1998) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (3rd edn). The Psychological Corporation.
World Health Organization (1992) The ICD–10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. WHO.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Psychiatric Bulletin | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |
