Expert consensus on hospitalization for assessment: a survey in Japan for a new forensic mental health system

Shiina, Akihiro; Fujisaki, Mihisa; Nagata, Takako; Oda, Yasunori; Suzuki, Masatoshi; Yoshizawa, Masahiro; Iyo, Masaomi; Igarashi, Yoshito

doi:10.1186/1744-859x-10-11

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to MSUs in the United Kingdom in terms of their capacity and human resources, Japanese inpatient facilities, in accordance with the MTSA in Japan[13], have more long-stay patients. However, this fact should be interpreted cautiously because some patients discharged from an MSU are transferred to a low secure unit, HSU, or prison.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences between British and Japanese perspectives on forensic mental health systems: A preliminary study

Shiina

Tomoto

Omiya

et al. 2017

WJP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIMTo clarify the differences in views on forensic mental health (FMH) systems between the United Kingdom and Japan.METHODSWe conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with six leading forensic psychiatrists. Based on a discussion by the research team, we created an interview form. After we finished conducting all the interviews, we qualitatively analyzed their content.RESULTSIn the United Kingdom the core domain of FMH was risk assessment and management; however, in Japan, the core domain of FMH was psychiatric testimony. In the United Kingdom, forensic psychiatrists were responsible for ensuring public safety, and psychopathy was identified as a disease but deemed as not suitable for medical treatment. On the other hand, in Japan, psychopathy was not considered a mental illness.CONCLUSIONIn conclusion, there are considerable differences between the United Kingdom and Japan with regard to the concepts of FMH. Some ideas taken from both cultures for better FMH practice were suggested.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences between British and Japanese perspectives on forensic mental health systems: A preliminary study

Shiina

Tomoto

Omiya

et al. 2017

WJP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The panel has three possible disposition options: an order to hospitalize the offender for medical treatment, an order to care for the offender as an outpatient in the community, or a no‐treatment order. The offender is obliged to accept the special psychiatric care supplied by the designated medical facilities and to submit to continuous supervision by a rehabilitation coordinator working in a probation office (Shiina et al ., ).…”

Section: Findings (Table )mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…A total of 1,088 patients have been hospitalized into these designated facilities under the MTS Act over a five‐year period (July 15, 2005 to July 31, 2010). A total of 608 patients were discharged during those five years, after an average length of stay of 574 days (Shiina et al ., ).…”

Section: Findings (Table )mentioning

confidence: 97%

Review of psychiatric services to mentally disordered offenders around the Pacific Rim

Every‐Palmer¹,

Brink

Chern

et al. 2013

Asia-Pacific Psychiatry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article was commissioned to collate and review forensic psychiatric services provided in a number of key Pacific Rim locations in the hope that it will assist in future dialogue about service development. The Board of the Pacific Rim College of Psychiatrists identified experts in forensic psychiatry from Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Russia, Singapore, Taiwan, and the US. Each contributor provided an account of issues in their jurisdiction, including mental health services to mentally disordered offenders in prison, competence or fitness to stand trial, legal insanity as a defense at trial, diminished responsibility, and special forensic services available, including forensic hospitals and community forensic mental health services. Responses have been collated and are presented topic by topic and country by country within the body of this review. The availability of mental health screening and psychiatric in-reach or forensic liaison services within prisons differed considerably between countries, as did provisioning of community forensic mental health and rehabilitation services. Diversion of mentally disordered offenders to forensic, state, or hybrid hospitals was common. Legal constructs of criminal responsibility (insanity defense) and fitness to stand trial ("disability") are almost universally recognized, although variably used. Disparities between unmet needs and resourcing available were common themes. The legislative differences between contributing countries with respect to the mental health law and criminal law relating to mentally disordered offenders are relatively subtle. The major differences lie in operationalizing and resourcing forensic services.

show abstract

“…Temporary hospitalization of an offender for psychiatric examination and medical observation (usually for a few months) is called Hospitalization for Assessment (kantei-nyuin, HfA). A psychiatrist appointed by the court, named Examiner Psychiatrist, conducts a psychiatric evaluation of the offender and submits a report to the court [ 9 ]. A lawyer is appointed as an attendant to defend the offender during the judgment process [ 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have been performed in an attempt to optimize the HfA procedure [ 16 – 18 ]. We previously conducted a written questionnaire survey of leading Japanese forensic psychiatrists, to establish an expert consensus about how to deal with HfA cases [ 9 ]. We concluded that this consensus should be widely publicized among practitioners to ensure better management of offenders during HfA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining outcome measures of hospitalization for assessment in the Japanese forensic mental health scheme: a Delphi study

Shiina

Iyo

Igarashi

2015

Int J Ment Health Syst

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA new legislation concerning forensic mental health was established by the Japanese Government in 2005, the “Act on Medical Care and Treatment for the Persons Who Had Caused Serious Cases under the Condition of Insanity,” or the Medical Treatment and Supervision (MTS) Act. Since it was passed, however, there has been broad controversy over Hospitalization for Assessment (HfA), the first stage of the MTS scheme.MethodsFollowing a comprehensive literature search to assemble a list of candidates, we conducted a Delphi study to establish standard outcome measures for HfA.ResultsFive Delphi rounds were conducted by 19 panelists including medical practitioners and lawyers. A total of 139 items were accepted as outcome measures for HfA based on panel agreement.ConclusionThe Delphi study established a list of HfA outcome measures for the MTS act, which will contribute to the optimization of the new forensic mental health system in Japan.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1752-4458-9-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Expert consensus on hospitalization for assessment: a survey in Japan for a new forensic mental health system

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

Differences between British and Japanese perspectives on forensic mental health systems: A preliminary study

Differences between British and Japanese perspectives on forensic mental health systems: A preliminary study

Review of psychiatric services to mentally disordered offenders around the Pacific Rim

Defining outcome measures of hospitalization for assessment in the Japanese forensic mental health scheme: a Delphi study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About