Clinicians’ perspectives of forensic rehabilitation

Abstract

Having sought 22 clinicians’ views of how rehabilitation was practised in a forensic mental health service, this study explores whether or not these views are consistent with claims that forensic rehabilitation can be hampered by the lack of a coherent rehabilitation framework. Two major, mutually influencing themes emerged from the participants’ narratives, the first of which delineates the culture and functioning of individuals and systems in a forensic service and the underlying philosophies and beliefs guiding professional behaviour. The second theme outlines the participants’ views of the ways in which client needs are assessed and how clients are subsequently provided with the skills and opportunities required for their rehabilitation. The results indicate that while the participants perceived that there were positive aspects to the forensic mental health care that was provided; they also stated that systematicity in the formulation and provision of forensic mental health clients’ needs was lacking. These findings reinforce previous claims that there needs to be a theoretically sound means of embedding and systematising effective rehabilitation practice in forensic services.

Keywords:

• rehabilitation
• risk management
• forensic services

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Peter Robertson has declared no conflicts of interest.

Mary Barnao has declared no conflicts of interest.

Tony Ward has declared no conflicts of interest.

Astrid Birgden has declared no conflicts of interest.

Sharon Casey has declared no conflicts of interest.

Belinda Guardagno has declared no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee and the Central Regional Ethics Committee of the Ministry of Health in Wellington, New Zealand, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.