Specialist beds for learning disability

Palanisamy, Vikram; Odiyoor, Mahesh

doi:10.1192/pb.31.11.436

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Concerns are being expressed referring to the need for high levels of secure provision for forensic learning disability patients with a clear view that medium and low secure services are probably more appropriate levels of security (Birgden & Perlin 2008). This, of course, is not to question the need for specialist services but to raise issues of appropriateness of security levels (Palanisamy & Odiyoor 2007; Lyall & Kelly 2007). From an acceptance of the need for specialist forensic learning disability services, research has focused on the characteristics of those requiring such services (Beer et al.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic learning disability nursing role analysis

Mason¹,

Phipps²,

Melling³

2011

Brit J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accessible summary• For nurses working with people with a learning disability in forensic settings (possibly having committed a criminal act), it is thought that they need different skills than those nurses in general learning disability settings. • Research in forensic nurses working in mental health secure settings suggest that they nurse according to six themes.• This research study tested this six theme framework for forensic learning disability nursing. • Whilst some of the themes were relevant for nurses working in forensic learning disability services, some were not relevant. SummaryThis article reports on a study carried out on the role constructs of forensic and nonforensic Learning Disability Nursing in relation to six binary themes. The aims were to identify if there were differences in perceptions of forensic learning disability nurses and nonforensic learning disability nurses in relation to the six binary themes of the role construct framework and then to establish if there were differences between the two groups of nurses. The method was a survey design with the sample drawn from high, medium and low security settings and nonsecure settings in the UK. From 400 questionnaires distributed, response rates of 46% and 49% were achieved from secure and nonsecure settings, respectively. The results indicate that the forensic nurses group show a significant difference between ranked scores on a number of themes but no significant difference was found between scores on one of the themes. The nonforensic nurses group also showed a significant difference between scores on a number of the themes but no significant difference was found between scores on a number of themes. Finally, the results of the between group analysis show a significant difference between forensic and nonforensic groups scores on several themes but these are few in number. The conclusions drawn are that whilst there is some support for the relevance of the themes in relation to learning disabilities in the forensic setting, there is less support for nonforensic settings.

show abstract