Psychosis is more prevalent among people in prison compared with the community. Early detection is important to optimise health and justice outcomes; for some, this may be the first time they have been clinically assessed.

Determine factors associated with a first diagnosis of psychosis in prison and describe time to diagnosis from entry into prison.

This retrospective cohort study describes individuals identified for the first time with psychosis in New South Wales (NSW) prisons (2006–2012). Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with a first diagnosis of psychosis. Cox regression was used to describe time to diagnosis from entry into prison.

Of the 38 489 diagnosed with psychosis for the first time, 1.7% (n = 659) occurred in prison. Factors associated with an increased likelihood of being diagnosed in prison (versus community) were: male gender (odds ratio (OR) = 2.27, 95% CI 1.79–2.89), Aboriginality (OR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.49–2.19), older age (OR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.37–2.11 for 25–34 years and OR = 1.63, 95% CI 1.29–2.06 for 35–44 years) and disadvantaged socioeconomic area (OR = 4.41, 95% CI 3.42–5.69). Eight out of ten were diagnosed within 3 months of reception.

Among those diagnosed with psychosis for the first time, only a small number were identified during incarceration with most identified in the first 3 months following imprisonment. This suggests good screening processes are in place in NSW prisons for detecting those with serious mental illness. It is important these individuals receive appropriate care in prison, have the opportunity to have matters reheard and possibly diverted into treatment, and are subsequently connected to community mental health services on release.

None.

Pediatric trauma is one of the leading causes of child mortality and morbidity and is a major challenge for healthcare systems worldwide. Treatment of pediatric trauma requires special attention according to the unique needs of children, especially in children affected by severe trauma who require life-saving treatments. It is essential to examine the preparedness of Emergency Departments (EDs) for admitting and treating pediatric casualties.

To develop a model for admitting and treating pediatric trauma casualties in EDs.

Seventeen health professionals were interviewed using a semi-structured qualitative tool. A quantitative questionnaire was distributed among general and pediatric EDs’ medical and nursing staff. Following the qualitative and quantitative findings, another round of interviews was performed to identify constraints, to construct a “Current Reality Tree,” and develop a model for admission and management of pediatric casualties in EDs. The model was validated by the National Council for Trauma and Emergency Medicine.

Lack of uniformity was found regarding age limit and levels of injury of pediatric patients. Most study participants believe that severe pediatric casualties should be concentrated in designated medical centers and that minor and major pediatric casualties should be treated in pediatric rather that general EDs. Pediatric emergency medicine specialists are preferred as case managers for pediatric casualties. Significant diversity in pediatric-care training was found. Based on qualitative and quantitative findings, a model for the optimal admitting and managing of pediatric casualties was designed.

To provide the best care for pediatric casualties and regulate its key aspects, clear statutory guidelines should be formulated at national and local levels. The model developed in this study considers EDs’ medical teams and policy leaders’ perceptions, and hence its significant contribution. Implementation of the findings and their integration in pediatric trauma care in EDs can significantly improve pediatric emergency medical services.

This study examined the effectiveness of a formal postdoctoral education program designed to teach skills in clinical and translational science, using scholar publication rates as a measure of research productivity.

Participants included 70 clinical fellows who were admitted to a master’s or certificate training program in clinical and translational science from 1999 to 2015 and 70 matched control peers. The primary outcomes were the number of publications 5 years post-fellowship matriculation and time to publishing 15 peer-reviewed manuscripts post-matriculation.

Clinical and translational science program graduates published significantly more peer-reviewed manuscripts at 5 years post-matriculation (median 8 vs 5, p=0.041) and had a faster time to publication of 15 peer-reviewed manuscripts (matched hazard ratio = 2.91, p=0.002). Additionally, program graduates’ publications yielded a significantly higher average H-index (11 vs. 7, p=0.013).

These findings support the effectiveness of formal training programs in clinical and translational science by increasing academic productivity.

With significant numbers of individuals in the criminal justice system having mental health problems, court-based diversion programmes and liaison services have been established to address this problem.

To examine the effectiveness of the New South Wales (Australia) court diversion programme in reducing re-offending among those diagnosed with psychosis by comparing the treatment order group with a comparison group who received a punitive sanction.

Those with psychoses were identified from New South Wales Ministry of Health records between 2001 and 2012 and linked to offending records. Cox regression models were used to identify factors associated with re-offending.

A total of 7743 individuals were identified as diagnosed with a psychotic disorder prior to their court finalisation date for their first principal offence. Overall, 26% of the cohort received a treatment order and 74% received a punitive sanction. The re-offending rate in the treatment order group was 12% lower than the punitive sanction group. ‘Acts intended to cause injury’ was the most common type of the first principal offence for the treatment order group compared with the punitive sanction group (48% v. 27%). Drug-related offences were more likely to be punished with a punitive sanction than a treatment order (12% v. 2%).

Among those with a serious mental illness (i.e. psychosis), receiving a treatment order by the court rather than a punitive sanction was associated with reduced risk for subsequent offending. We further examined actual mental health treatment received and found that receiving no treatment following the first offence was associated with an increased risk of re-offending and, so, highlighting the importance of treatment for those with serious mental illness in the criminal justice system.

Little is known about the prevalence of mental health outcomes in UK personnel at the end of the British involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.

We examined the prevalence of mental disorders and alcohol misuse, whether this differed between serving and ex-serving regular personnel and by deployment status.

This is the third phase of a military cohort study (2014–2016; n = 8093). The sample was based on participants from previous phases (2004–2006 and 2007–2009) and a new randomly selected sample of those who had joined the UK armed forces since 2009.

The prevalence was 6.2% for probable post-traumatic stress disorder, 21.9% for common mental disorders and 10.0% for alcohol misuse. Deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan and a combat role during deployment were associated with significantly worse mental health outcomes and alcohol misuse in ex-serving regular personnel but not in currently serving regular personnel.

The findings highlight an increasing prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder and a lowering prevalence of alcohol misuse compared with our previous findings and stresses the importance of continued surveillance during service and beyond.

All authors are based at King's College London which, for the purpose of this study and other military-related studies, receives funding from the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD). S.A.M.S., M.J., L.H., D.P., S.M. and R.J.R. salaries were totally or partially paid by the UK MoD. The UK MoD provides support to the Academic Department of Military Mental Health, and the salaries of N.J., N.G. and N.T.F. are covered totally or partly by this contribution. D.Mu. is employed by Combat Stress, a national UK charity that provides clinical mental health services to veterans. D.MacM. is the lead consultant for an NHS Veteran Mental Health Service. N.G. is the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Lead for Military and Veterans’ Health, a trustee of Walking with the Wounded, and an independent director at the Forces in Mind Trust; however, he was not directed by these organisations in any way in relation to his contribution to this paper. N.J. is a full-time member of the armed forces seconded to King's College London. N.T.F. reports grants from the US Department of Defense and the UK MoD, is a trustee (unpaid) of The Warrior Programme and an independent advisor to the Independent Group Advising on the Release of Data (IGARD). S.W. is a trustee (unpaid) of Combat Stress and Honorary Civilian Consultant Advisor in Psychiatry for the British Army (unpaid). S.W. is affiliated to the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London in partnership with Public Health England, in collaboration with the University of East Anglia and Newcastle University. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, the Department of Health, Public Health England or the UK MoD.