ArticleBJPsych open2023
Excellence in forensic psychiatry services: international survey of qualities and correlates.
Article in BJPsych open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Behind closed doors: unlocking hospital variations in the use of seclusion and mechanical restraint - a nationwide multilevel analysis in adult mental healthcare in France.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- A Thirty-Year Forensic Case Report of Chronic Psychosis: Systemic Implications for Italian Forensic Psychiatry.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- International developments in the provision of recovery-oriented care in forensic mental health services.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2025Article
- Neuroethics and treatment without consent.CNS spectrums · 2025Article
- The Italian general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry treatment model: a unique story.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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExcellence is that quality that drives continuously improving outcomes for patients. Excellence must be measurable. We set out to measure excellence in forensic mental health services according to four levels of organisation and complexity (basic, standard, progressive and excellent) across seven domains: values and rights; clinical organisation; consistency; timescale; specialisation; routine outcome measures; research and development.
aimsTo validate the psychometric properties of a measurement scale to test which objective features of forensic services might relate to excellence: for example, university linkages, service size and integrated patient pathways across levels of therapeutic security.
methodA survey instrument was devised by a modified Delphi process. Forensic leads, either clinical or academic, in 48 forensic services across 5 jurisdictions completed the questionnaire.
resultsRegression analysis found that the number of security levels, linked patient pathways, number of in-patient teams and joint university appointments predicted total excellence score.
conclusionsLarger services organised according to stratified therapeutic security and with strong university and research links scored higher on this measure of excellence. A weakness is that these were self-ratings. Reliability could be improved with peer review and with objective measures such as quality and quantity of research output. For the future, studies are needed of the determinants of other objective measures of better outcomes for patients, including shorter lengths of stay, reduced recidivism and readmission, and improved physical and mental health and quality of life.
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.