Escapes or absconding from secure healthcare units have different characteristics, but may best be prevented by convergent strategies. Relational security is likely to be as important for foiling plans for the former as it is for reducing boredom, building strong family support and managing substance misuse in the latter.

SUMMARY Much exists in the literature on filicide and the characteristics of perpetrators and their victims but there is little in the way of practical advice on how to manage perpetrators of filicide in secure psychiatric wards. Clinically, these patients can rapidly respond to medical treatment, only to be faced with the reality of what they have done. In the authors' experiences, certain aspects of their management are particularly challenging due to the emotive nature of their offence. These include managing the interpersonal dynamics on a ward, the media interest that surrounds the case and rehabilitation back into the community. In this article we outline a brief background to filicide in the context of mental illness and describe our experiences of managing the practical difficulties outlined above. The approaches used, outcomes and the supporting evidence base are discussed and illustrated through examples.

AimsTo understand and learn from patients’ views and experiences. Ultimately, to improve quality, safety, and patients’ experiences and outcomes.Service evaluation project of Mariposa House, London, the new women's forensic high support community step-down hostel after hospital admission. Run in partnership with Langley House (charitable) Trust. It is a co-produced, rare and innovative service- to our knowledge the only NHS women's service of its kind in England. In female and forensic community populations: transitions are the highest risk periods; the same treatment as men is unlikely to produce the same outcomes; and performance indicators and outcome measures are poorly understood.MethodConfidential patient questionnaire and self-reported Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL) measure. Given to all patients in Mariposa House, before (in hospital) and 2-3 months after transfer to hostel. Themes included “my: care; voice (co-production); transition; & gender”. 12 questionnaires were received from 9 patients: 5 completed both pre- & post-; 3 (20%) were given but not received. Analysed by thematic content analysis. Additional focus group feedback session with patients and staff.ResultOverall, patients had very positive and similar views about both hostel and hospital(s), and similar views about both. Generally, patients feel treated with compassion, dignity and respect, and listened to and understood by staff members. They feel involved in and positive about their care.There was a huge amount of involvement in co-producing the service and feeding back experiences, which has been very helpful. Co-production activities included: interviewing for staff and tenders; choosing hostel building; stakeholder meetings; and participating in meetings about training, policies and expectations. “I've been in hospital for so long moving was scary! But helping set up the project has given me confidence to move.”There was strong agreement that transitions are difficult. Views on gender-specific needs being met were very positive, for both hostel and hospital. The main area for improvement was having better awareness of local neighbourhood and facilities- booklet now produced. Quality of life measures were at least maintained from hospital to hostel: 80% (n = 4) showed no reliable improvement/ deterioration, and 20% (n = 1) showed reliable improvement.ConclusionThere are very positive and similar views about the hostel and hospital(s). Co-production and service user involvement has been very helpful. The new hostel has maintained patient satisfaction and quality of life measures compared to established inpatient services. These are positive findings, and crucially: in a less- secure, contained, established, and cheaper new community setting, involving complex and challenging transitions.

No abstract