Prisons represent sites of singular healthcare need–characterized by high levels of distress and disorder. In many jurisdictions, practitioners are ethically charged with delivering healthcare that is “equivalent” to that available in the wider community. This claim has been much debated–yet the emergence of a global coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the arguments in a particularly stark manner. In the following conceptual analysis, we explore the emergent discourse of the coronavirus and consider its particular significance for prison healthcare decision making and the concept of equivalence. For example, both the coronavirus pandemic and practice of prison incarceration induce a sense of varied temporality: The discourse of prison is replete in this area–such as the concept of “hard time.” Alongside this, the discourse in relation to coronavirus has highlighted two competing modes of temporal understanding: The political–where the pandemic is conceptualized as has having a discrete “beginning and end”, and the scientific–where the “new normal” reflects the incorporation of the “novel” coronavirus into the wider ecology. The impact of these disparate understandings on the prison population is complex: “Locking down” prisoners–to safeguard the vulnerable against infection–is relatively simple, yet it has traumatic repercussions with respect to liberty and psychosocial health. Easing lockdown, by contrast, is a difficult endeavor and risks collision between the temporalities of prison–where “hard time” is accentuated by separation from the “real world”–the political and the scientific. Whither then the concept of equivalence in relation to a field that is definitively non-equivalent? How can practitioners and policy makers maintain a just ethical stance in relation to the allocation of resources when it comes to a politically marginalized yet manifestly vulnerable population? We argue that further debate and consideration are required in this field–and propose a framework for such discussion.

Objectives Prisoners use healthcare services three times more frequently than the general population with poorer health outcomes. Their distinct healthcare needs often pose challenges to safe healthcare provision. This study aimed to characterise patient safety incidents reported in prisons to guide practice improvement and identify health policy priorities. Design: We carried out an exploratory multi-method analysis of anonymised safety incidents from prisons. Setting Safety incidents had been reported to the National Reporting and Learning System by prisons in England between April 2018 and March 2019. Participants Reports were reviewed to identify any unintended or unexpected incident(s) which could have, or did, lead to harm for prisoners receiving healthcare. Main outcome measures Free-text descriptions were examined to identify the type and nature of safety incidents, their outcomes and harm severity. Analysis was contextualised with subject experts through structured workshops to explain relationships between the most common incidents and contributory factors. Results Of 4112 reports, the most frequently observed incidents were medication-related (n = 1167, 33%), specifically whilst administering medications (n = 626, 54%). Next, were access-related (n = 559,15%), inclusive of delays in patients accessing healthcare professionals (n = 236, 42%) and managing medical appointments (n =  171, 31%). The workshops contextualised incidents involving contributing factors (n = 1529, 28%) into three key themes, namely healthcare access, continuity of care and the balance between prison and healthcare priorities. Conclusions This study highlights the importance of improving medication safety and access to healthcare services for prisoners. We recommend staffing level reviews to ensure healthcare appointments are attended, and to review procedures for handling missed appointments, communication during patient transfers and medication prescribing.

BackgroundPsychiatrists are at high risk of developing burnout and mental health problems mainly due to their emotionally demanding jobs, difficult working conditions, long working hours, and poor work-life balance. As leisure activities are associated with better physical and mental health, engaging in these activities has been recommended as a measure to improve the wellbeing of healthcare workers. However, it is unclear the extent of which psychiatrists and trainees are involved in leisure activities, what type of activities they prefer, or how these impact their self-perceived health, stress, confidence in stress management, and satisfaction with their social support.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify differences in self-perceived health, perceived stress, confidence in stress management, and satisfaction with social support, between psychiatrists and trainees who engage in different leisure activities, compared with those who do not.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study, including Mexican psychiatrists (n = 355) and trainees (n = 330) who agreed to participate through an online survey.Results73.1% of participants engaged in some leisure activity, being solitary-passive activities the most reported. Those who have a leisure activity reported lower stress, greater confidence in stress management, and more satisfaction with their social support. Passive-solitary activities were associated with less perceived stress and better confidence in stress management, while active-solitary and social activities were associated with better satisfaction with social support.ConclusionPsychiatrists' and trainees' wellbeing benefits from engagement in leisure activities, which should be part of their daily schedules to reduce stress, and potentially improve their mental health.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were made differently. This included more prominent roles for specialties such as psychiatry and doctors in training. Concerns about inappropriate DNAR decisions led to anxiety for doctors, patients and the public. Positive outcomes may have included earlier and better-quality end-of life-discussions. However, COVID-19 exposed the need for support, training and guidance in this area for all doctors. It also highlighted the importance of effective public education about advanced care planning.