ArticleBMC psychiatry2015
Triage, decision-making and follow-up of patients referred to a UK forensic service: validation of the DUNDRUM toolkit.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05074732 (Dundrum Forensic Redevelopment Evaluation Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Dundrum Forensic Redevelopment Evaluation Study: D-FOREST Study.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Longitudinal Validity of the DUNDRUM-1 Triage Security Scale in a Canadian Not Criminally Responsible Cohort: A Retrospective Study of 85 Patients.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2026Article
- Neuroethics and treatment without consent.CNS spectrums · 2025Article
- Italian Evaluation and Excellence in REMS (ITAL-EE-REMS): appropriate placement of forensic patients in REMS forensic facilities.International journal of mental health systems · 2024Article
- Examining the need for a high level of therapeutic security at a regional forensic mental health service in Aotearoa New Zealand.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2024Article
- Article
- A tool to evaluate proportionality and necessity in the use of restrictive practices in forensic mental health settings: the DRILL tool (Dundrum restriction, intrusion and liberty ladders).BMC psychiatry · 2020Observational
- Outcome measures of risk and recovery in Broadmoor High Secure Forensic Hospital: stratification of care pathways and moves to medium secure hospitals.BJPsych open · 2020Article
- Security needs among patients referred for high secure care in Broadmoor Hospital England.BJPsych open · 2020Article
- Assessment of need for inpatient treatment for mental disorder among female prisoners: a cross-sectional study of provincially detained women in Ontario.BMC psychiatry · 2019Article
- Perspective On Excellence in Forensic Mental Health Services: What We Can Learn From Oncology and Other Medical Services.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Article
- The risks, needs and stages of recovery of a complete forensic patient cohort in an Australian state.BMC psychiatry · 2018Article
- External validity and anchoring heuristics: application of DUNDRUM-1 to secure service gatekeeping in South Wales.BJPsych bulletin · 2018Article
- STRESS-testing clinical activity and outcomes for a combined prison in-reach and court liaison service: a 3-year observational study of 6177 consecutive male remands.International journal of mental health systems · 2016Article
- Factors affecting length of stay in forensic hospital setting: need for therapeutic security and course of admission.BMC psychiatry · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundForensic medium secure services in the UK are a scarce but essential resource providing care for those in the criminal justice system with severe mental disorder. Appropriate allocation of beds to those most in need is essential to ensure efficient use of this resource. To improve decision-making processes in a UK forensic service, an admissions panel utilized the DUNDRUM 1&2 (D1 & D2) triage instruments.
methodsDemographic, diagnostic and clinical information on a prospective sample of referrals to a UK adult forensic service was gathered (n = 195). D1 and D2 measures were scored by a panel of clinical managers considering referral information and clinician opinion in reaching their ratings; those not admitted were also followed up.
resultsWithin the sample, D1 ratings were predictive of decisions to admit (AUC = .79) and also differentiated between levels of security (F(4) = 16.54, p < .001). Non-admission was not significantly associated with increased risk of offending at follow-up. Items relating to self-harm and institutional behaviour did not show a predictive relationship with the panel decision to admit.
conclusionsUse of a structured professional judgement tool showing good predictive validity has improved transparency of decisions and appears to be associated with more efficient use of resources, without increased risk to the public.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.