Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Measuring relational security in forensic mental health services

  • Verity Chester (a1), Regi T. Alexander (a1) (a2) and Wendy Morgan (a3)
Abstract
Aims and method

Relational security is an important component of care and risk assessment in mental health services, but the utility of available measures remains under-researched. This study analysed the psychometric properties of two relational security tools, the See Think Act (STA) scale and the Relational Security Explorer (RSE).

Results

The STA scale had good internal consistency and could highlight differences between occupational groups, whereas the RSE did not perform well as a psychometric measure.

Clinical implications

The measures provide unique and complimentary perspectives on the quality of relational security within secure services, but have some limitations. Use of the RSE should be restricted to its intended purpose; to guide team discussions about relational security, and services should refrain from collecting and aggregating this data. Until further research validates their use, relational security measurement should be multidimensional and form part of a wider process of service quality assessment.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Measuring relational security in forensic mental health services
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Measuring relational security in forensic mental health services
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Measuring relational security in forensic mental health services
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an open-access article published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Corresponding author
Verity Chester (VerityChester@priorygroup.com)
Footnotes
Hide All

Declaration of interest

None.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
1 Allen, E. See Think Act: Relational Security in Secure Mental Health Services. Department of Health, 2010.
2 Tighe, J, Gudjonsson, GH. See, Think, Act Scale: preliminary development and validation of a measure of relational security in medium- and low-secure units. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol 2012; 23: 184–99.
3 Chester, V, Morgan, W. Relational security within secure services: summary of findings from a literature review. Quality Network for Forensic Mental Health Services Newsletter 2012; September: 10–4.
4 Dale, C, Storey, L. High, medium and low security care: does the type of care make any difference to the role of the forensic mental health nurse? Res Nurs 2004; 9: 168–84.
5 Department of Health. Relational Security Explorer. Department of Health, 2010.
6 Department of Health. Your Guide to Relational Security: See, Think, Act. Department of Health, 2010.
7 Johnson, S, Wood, S, Paul, M, Osborn, D, Wearn, E, Lloyd-Evans, B, et al. Inpatient Mental Health Staff Morale: A National Investigation. National Institute for Health Research, 2011.
8 Schalast, N, Redies, M, Collins, M, Stacey, J, Howells, K. EssenCES, a short questionnaire for assessing the social climate of forensic psychiatric wards. Crim Behav Ment Health 2008; 18: 4958.
9 Lodewijks, HPB, Doreleijers, TAH, De Ruiter, C. Savry risk assessment in violent dutch adolescents: relation to sentencing and recidivism. Crim Justice Behav 2008; 35: 696709.
10 NHS Health Research Authority. Defining Research. NHS Health Research Authority, 2016.
11 Department of Health. Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care. NHS Health Service Authority, 2005.
12 NHS Benchmarking Network. Use of Restraint in Mental Health, CAMHS and LD Phase 2 Data Collection: Participant Feedback. 2015.
13 Alexander, RT, Chester, V, Gray, NS, Snowden, RJ. Patients with personality disorders and intellectual disability – closer to personality disorders or intellectual disability? A three-way comparison. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol 2012; 23: 435–51.
14 Morrissey, C, Beeley, C, Milton, J. Longitudinal HCR-20 scores in a high-secure psychiatric hospital. Crim Behav Ment Heal 2014; 24: 169–80.
15 Fitzgerald, S, Gray, NS, Alexander, RT, Bagshaw, R, Chesterman, P, Huckle, P, et al. Predicting institutional violence in offenders with intellectual disabilities: the predictive efficacy of the VRAG and the HCR-20. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil 2013; 26: 384–93.
16 Quinn, M, Thomas, C, Chester, V. The Essen Climate Evaluation Schema measure of social climate in a secure service for people with intellectual disabilities. Adv Ment Heal Intellect Disabil 2012; 6: 171–8.
17 Langdon, PE, Swift, A, Budd, R. Social climate within secure inpatient services for people with intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res 2006; 50(Pt 11): 828–36.
18 Aiyegbusi, A. Thinking under fire—the challenge for forensic mental health nurses working with women in secure care. In Working Therapeutically with Women in Secure Mental Health Settings (ed Jeffcote, N): 108–19. Jessica Kingsley, 2004.
19 Chester, V, Alexander, RT. Women with intellectual disabilities and forensic involvement. In The Wiley Handbook on Offenders with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (eds Lindsay, WR, Taylor, JL). John Wiley and Sons, in press.
20 Kennedy, HG. Therapeutic uses of security: mapping forensic mental health services by stratifying risk. Adv Psychiatr Treat 2002; 8: 433–43.
21 Allen, E. Your Guide to Relational Security: See Think Act (2nd edn). Royal College of Psychiatrists Quality Network for Forensic Mental Health Services, 2016.
22 Parry-Crooke, G, Stafford, P. My Life: In Safe Hands? Dedicated Women's Medium Secure Services in England. London Metropolitan University, 2009.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

BJPsych Bulletin
  • ISSN: 2056-4694
  • EISSN: 2056-4708
  • URL: /core/journals/bjpsych-bulletin
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 49 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 136 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 2nd January 2018 - 27th May 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Measuring relational security in forensic mental health services

  • Verity Chester (a1), Regi T. Alexander (a1) (a2) and Wendy Morgan (a3)
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *