No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose A co-produced clinical practice that aims to improve outcomes through a partnership with service users is becoming increasingly important in intellectual disability (ICD) services, yet these approaches are under-evaluated in forensic settings. This study aims to explore and compare the feasibility of two approaches to co-production in the completion of dynamic risk assessments and management plans in a secure setting. Design/methodology/approach A convenience sample of adults admitted to a secure specialist forensic ICD service (N = 54) completed the short dynamic risk scale (SDRS) and drafted risk management plans under one of two conditions. In the first condition, participants rated the SDRS and risk management plan first, separately from the multidisciplinary team (MDT). In the second condition, participants and MDTs rated the SDRS and risk management plan together. Findings In total, 35 (65%) participants rated their risk assessments and 25 (47%) completed their risk management plans. Participants who rated their risk assessments separately from the MDT were significantly more likely to complete the SDRS (p = 0.025) and draft their risk management plans (p = 0.003). When rated separately, MDT scorers recorded significantly higher total SDRS scores compared to participants (p = 0.009). A series of Mann-Whitney U tests revealed significant differences between MDT and participant ratings on questions that required greater skills in abstraction and social reasoning, as well as sexual behaviour and self-harm. Originality/value Detained participants with an intellectual disabilities will engage in their dynamic risk assessment and management plan processes. The study demonstrates the impact of different co-production methodologies on engagement and highlights areas for future research pertaining to co-production.

Purpose People with developmental disorders are significantly more likely to experience adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), although the impact of ACEs on this population is not well understood. Furthermore, considerably less is known about the exposure to, and impact of, ACEs in detained adolescents with complex developmental disorder needs. This paper aims to explore the exposure to ACEs in an adolescent population detained in a secure specialist developmental disorder service. Design/methodology/approach A retrospective file review was used to explore ACEs and placement histories within a specialist developmental disorder inpatient service. Data was collated for a convenience sample of 36 adolescents, 9 of whom were female, aged 13–20 years (M = 17.28 years). Findings A total of 33 participants (91.7%) had experienced at least 1 ACE, with 58% experiencing 4 or more ACEs and 36% experiencing 6 or more ACEs. The most common ACEs reported were physical abuse (61.6%), parental separation (58.3%) and emotional abuse (55.6%). The majority of participants had also experienced high levels of disruption prior to admission, with an average of four placement breakdowns (range 1–13, standard deviation = 3.1). ACEs held a significant positive association with the total number of placement breakdowns and total number of mental health diagnoses. Practical implications Adolescents detained in specialist developmental disorder secure care had, at the point of admission, experienced high levels of adversities and had been exposed to high levels of experienced and observed abuse. The level of exposure to adversity and ongoing disruptions in care suggests that Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services’ developmental secure services should consider adopting dual treatment frameworks of developmental disorder and trauma-informed care. Originality/value This study explored the early-life and placement experiences of a marginalised and understudied population.