Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-05T19:04:37.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Can electronic monitoring (GPS ‘tracking’) enhance risk management in psychiatry?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

John Tully*
Affiliation:
Forensic Psychiatry Service, South London and Maudsley Foundation Trust, UK
Dave Hearn
Affiliation:
Forensic Psychiatry Service, South London and Maudsley Foundation Trust, UK
Thomas Fahy
Affiliation:
Forensic Psychiatry Service, South London and Maudsley Foundation Trust, UK
*
John Tully, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF, UK. Email: john.tully@slam.nhs.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Electronic monitoring has been used in criminal justice and some health settings for three decades. Technological interventions are becoming more common in psychiatry, but may be a cause for ethical concerns and controversy. We discuss electronic monitoring as an aid to security and public safety in a forensic setting.

Type
Editorial
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2014 

Decision to introduce electronic monitoring

Following a series of high-profile incidents related to absconding by patients on leave from our medium secure forensic service, one of which had a tragic outcome,Reference France1 we reviewed the possible role of new technologies in increasing safety. We introduced a secure ‘tracking’ device using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology for electronic monitoring of patients on leave from the service as part of a comprehensive protocol for risk management and recovery.

The device was used for patients in the initial stages of taking leave as part of their clinical pathway towards discharge into the community. It was envisioned that public protection could be enhanced by introducing a facility that would notify clinical staff immediately should any patient violate their leave conditions or if patients were not returning from leave at the agreed time. The device also provided the facility to identify the patient’s location if they failed to return from leave or if they absconded from escorting staff. No patient was obliged to wear the device without consent, with the exception of high-risk patients requiring emergency hospital or court transfer. The introduction of this technology nonetheless proved controversial at local and national levels.Reference Samuels2

GPS and other technologies used in electronic monitoring

Two location-based technologies have been employed for electronic monitoring since its inception: radio frequency and GPS. The distinctions between these are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1 Comparison of radio frequency and Global Positioning System technology

TechnologyHow it worksFirst
operational
AdvantagesDisadvantagesExamples of use
Radio
frequency
(RF)
Uses RF electromagnetic fields to transfer
data from a ‘tag’ attached to an object, for
the purposes of automatic identification
In conjunction with wireless systems,
allows for contactless reading of
RF-enabled tags
1983Strong signals for
providing information
on a small scale
Does not allow for ‘tracking’
Requires specialised scanners
to read and transmit data
Systems may be of great
cost on a large scale
Motorway/toll systems for
cars
Identification of animals
‘Home detention’ systems
Identification of humans
by passport
Global
Positioning
System (GPS)
A worldwide satellite-based navigation
system that can calculate position in
three dimensions
Radio waves sent out from satellites
transmit data to receivers, which can
then triangulate their position relative to
the satellites, and thus on the Earth’s
surface
1994Suited for tracking
anywhere in the
world
Individual devices may be
more expensive than RF
Signal may be weaker than
RF (depending on device)
Some models are not as
accurate in certain situations,
(e.g. underground in
thick-walled buildings)
Sat Nav devices
Mobile telephone technology
(e.g- Google maps)
Modern tracking devices
in criminal justice and
healthcare systems

The early years of electronic monitoring relied on radio frequency technology. Since 1997, devices using GPS technology have gradually begun to replace radio frequency devices. Although more expensive than conventional radio frequency curfew-based tags, US criminal justice studies have shown that GPS devices reduce the likelihood of and increase the time until breach, thereby aiding compliance.Reference Geoghegan3,Reference Bales, Mann, Blomberg, Gaes, Barrick and Dhungana4 A 2010 quantitative analysisReference Bales, Mann, Blomberg, Gaes, Barrick and Dhungana4 determined that GPS-based electronic monitoring had 6% fewer supervision failures than radio frequency-based electronic monitoring.

The GPS project was developed in 1973 by the US Department of Defence and became fully operational in 1994, with initial uses primarily in the development of military technology. Since then, GPS technology has become ubiquitous through use in mobile telephones, laptop computers and Sat Nav devices. A GPS tracking device determines the precise location of a vehicle, person or other asset to which it is attached, and tracks mobile assets.

Some GPS systems store data within the GPS device for future review, known as ‘passive’ tracking, whereas others send information on a regular basis to a centraliased database via a modem within the device, known as ‘active’ tracking. The ‘Buddi’ tracker used in our forensic service is an active tracking device. A security version of the device is attached to the patient’s ankle with an individually measured lockable strap. The strap incorporates cabling to make the device non-removable and optic fibres to provide anti-tamper alarms. Each patient using the system has their own allocated device. It can be set with geographical parameters - known as ‘geo-fences’ - enabling the creation of exclusion and inclusion zones, a common sanction in forensic patients. Information from each device is monitored by a security company and breaches in agreed terms and conditions trigger a predetermined alert to relevant parties and a risk management plan.

Where has electronic monitoring been used to date and is it effective?

Criminal justice system

Electronic monitoring has been used for over three decades in criminal justice systems. Initially, agencies adopted ‘home curfews’ using radio frequency technology as a punishment and to reduce demand on prison places, rather than a means of preventing crime or aiding the rehabilitation of offenders.Reference Geoghegan3 These priorities have shifted to reducing recidivism and non-compliance of paroled and other offenders.Reference Geoghegan3

Use of electronic monitoring is on the increase, with more than 80 000 ‘tagging’ orders made in the UK in 2010-2011, as both a community penalty and to monitor prisoners released early on home detention curfews.Reference Travis and Hill5 A recent comprehensive report was critical of the lack of evidence from UK studies for use of electronic monitoring and for the slow progress made in converting to GPS-based systems.Reference Geoghegan3

The evidence for electronic monitoring has failed to keep pace with increased use and development of technology. Most scientific literature is related to enforced use in offending populations in the USA. In 2010, however, a large-scale evaluation of use of electronic monitoring in a large population of offendersReference Bales, Mann, Blomberg, Gaes, Barrick and Dhungana4 found that it reduced the likelihood of failure under community supervision by 31%, relative to offenders placed on other forms of community supervision. The outcomes were absconding from supervision and revocations for technical violations, misdemeanour or felony arrest. A national cost-benefit analysis in the USAReference Yeh6 estimated that use of electronic monitoring could yield a social value in the annual reduction in crime of $481.1 billion, compared with an estimated cost of $37.9 billion for implementation.

Sex offenders

In the USA, community notification of sex offenders is federally mandated and has been instituted in all 50 states, regulated by community notification laws. In 2005, Florida passed legislation requiring certain individuals who have committed sex offences against children to wear a GPS device for the rest of their lives. Considerable concern has been expressed about the dearth of evidence supporting electronic monitoring in sex offenders and outcomes remain unconvincing, with only one study showing a reduced rate of recidivism.Reference Barnes7

Dementia

Although the use of a tracking device is a novel intervention in forensic psychiatry, there is a precedent for its use in mental health as a risk management strategy for wandering in people with dementia, where there have been some encouraging results on a small scale. One study Reference Miskelly8 tested electronic monitoring in a teaching hospital, a residential home and in patients’ own homes. The system proved very reliable: two incidences of wandering were successfully detected and compliance was excellent. However, recent plans to introduce this on a wide scale met with criticism from elderly care campaigners.9 Further debate has highlighted ongoing concerns about disempowerment, labelling, imposition and stigmatisation of the elderly.Reference O'Neill10

Legal and ethical considerations

The introduction of electronic monitoring in a forensic service gave rise to considerable public debate regarding legal and ethical issues. A spokesperson for one service user group described electronic monitoring devices as ‘21st-century shackles’ and warned that involvement of private security companies could deprive patients of the human aspects of care and supervision.Reference Samuels2 Others have stated that electronic monitoring is coercive and in violation of human rights and that visible ankle bracelets may reinforce stigma,Reference Samuels2 as a recent controversy in the USA indicated may be the case.Reference Lovett11 Equalities groups have voiced concern about the impact on Black patients who are overrepresented in secure settings.Reference Samuels2 And prominent mental health professionals have also raised objections - one described electronic monitoring as a ‘brutalising treatment that should not be used on anyone who does not have a criminal record’. Reference Samuels2

Our service was acutely aware of these important considerations and we sought legal and ethical advice. Use of electronic monitoring was found to be legal and not in violation of human rights, although this may well require ‘stress testing’ in a legal forum. The ethical controversies are complex, but must take account of possible benefits, including potential increases in patients’ autonomy, acceleration of clinical progression through secure services and back to the community, as well as the cost-effectiveness of treatment programmes. It was concluded that ongoing use of electronic monitoring needs to be accompanied by quantitative and qualitative measures of effectiveness and patient experience.

Potential use of GPS-based electronic monitoring in other mental health settings

Novel technological interventions are increasingly used in mental health settings. Examples include mood monitoring by text messaging, cognitive-behavioural therapy by smartphone apps and telepsychiatry. GPS-based electronic monitoring may be viewed in this context as another technological tool. It is currently being used by two other medium secure forensic units and for some individuals with severe neurodevelopmental disorders. Several psychiatric intensive care units are also investigating its potential use.

Conclusions

Electronic monitoring is becoming increasingly prevalent and in 2010 was introduced for the first time in forensic psychiatry. Although there have been some promising recent outcomes in terms of its effectiveness, this remains under-evaluated and there is an ongoing need for robust, well-designed studies in this area. As significant ethical and legal questions remain about the use of electronic monitoring, data from such studies are paramount for a balanced and meaningful debate.

GPS-based electronic monitoring should be seen in the context of other novel technological developments used in mental health. Recent outcomes suggest that it is more likely to be effective as the technology behind devices improves and becomes more user-friendly for both the monitoring authority and the patient.

As novel technologies become more prominent, there is an implicit danger in perceiving any tool as a panacea. Although these developments will continue to offer benefits to patients and healthcare providers, it is essential that they are seen and used as part of comprehensive care packages rather than isolated interventions.

Footnotes

Declaration of interest

The authors are all employees of the forensic psychiatry service at South London and Maudsley Foundation Trust, where electronic monitoring has been introduced for monitoring of patients on leave. They confirm that they have not received fees or benefits from the developers of the electronic monitoring devices.

References

1 France, A. Escaped lag killed OAP for drug cash. In The Sun 2009; 16 Jun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2482862/Escaped-lag-Terrence-OKeefe-killed-OAP.html).Google Scholar
2 Samuels, Z. GPS tracking mental health patients – human rights concerns. Black Mental Health UK, 2010; 22 Jun (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/uksurvivors/conversations/topics/60843).Google Scholar
3 Geoghegan, R. Future of Corrections: Exploring the Use of Electronic Monitoring. Policy Exchange, 2012.Google Scholar
4 Bales, B, Mann, K, Blomberg, T, Gaes, G, Barrick, K, Dhungana, K, et al. A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Electronic Monitoring. Florida State University, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research, 2010.Google Scholar
5 Travis, A, Hill, A. Half of all tagged offenders break curfew rules, says report. In The Guardian 2012; 14 Jun (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/14/half-tagged-offenders-break-curfew-rules).Google Scholar
6 Yeh, S. Cost-benefit analysis of reducing crime through electronic monitoring of parolees and probationers. In J Crim Just 2010; 38: 1090–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Barnes, PJ. Report on New Jersey's GPS Monitoring of Sex Offenders. New Jersey State Parole Board, 2007.Google Scholar
8 Miskelly, F. A novel system of electronic tagging in patients with dementia and wandering. Age Ageing 2004; 33: 304–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Sky News. GPS tags for dementia patient ‘barbaric’. Sky News 2013; 1 May (http://news.sky.com/story1085308).Google Scholar
10 O'Neill, D. Should patients with dementia who wander be electronically tagged? No. BMJ 2013; 346: f3606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Lovett, I. Neighborhoods seek to banish sex offenders by building parks. In The New York Times 2013; 9 Mar (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/building-tiny-parks-to-drive-sex-offenders-away.html?pagewanted=all).Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Comparison of radio frequency and Global Positioning System technology

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.