Advertisement

Multi-agency Working

  • Lindsay Thomson
  • Kris Goethals
  • Joachim Nitschke
  • Norbert Nedopil
Chapter

Abstract

Multi-agency working in forensic mental health is defined as the coming together of people from different professional backgrounds, organisations and services, sometimes with varying primary purposes but with the common aim of improving public safety and decreasing an individual’s risk of harm to others. This chapter examines multi-agency working and describes systems in place for this in Germany (the round table), the United Kingdom (multi-agency public protection arrangements), the Netherlands (safety houses) and Denmark (police, social services and psychiatry cooperation). The potential advantages of multi-agency working include a sharing of the burden of responsibility, clarity on responsibilities, engagement with difficult people that might otherwise be rejected by mental health services, a reduction in recidivism, encouragement of informal collaboration and development of relationships, case review and broadening the perspective from a particular professional standpoint alone, improvement in continuity of care, promotion of sharing of information on a proportional basis and shared educational opportunities. Potential disadvantages include breach of confidentiality, continued intrusion into an individual’s life and cost of multi-agency working both in terms of infrastructure financing and opportunity costs.

Notes

Acknowledgement

Thank you to the members of the Ghent Group who gave information on multi-agency working within their countries.

References

  1. 1.
    Department of Health. New ways of working for psychiatrists: enhancing effective, person-centred services through new ways of working in multidisciplinary and multiagency contexts. Appendices of the final report “But not the End of the Story”. Department of Health, London; 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hill-Smith A, Taverner R, Greensmith H, Parsons D. Staff relationships in multidisciplinary teams. Ment Health Pract. 2012;15(8):14–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thomson LDG, Nedopil N, Goethals K. Multi Agency Work in forensic psychiatry: examples of theory and practice in Europe. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health; 2016. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bouman YHA, Schene AH, De Ruiter C. Subjective well-being and recidivism in forensic psychiatric outpatients. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2009;8:225–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Müller-Isberner R, Freese R, Jöckel D, Gonzales Cabeza S. Forensic psychiatric assessment and treatment in Germany. Legal framework, recent developments, and current practice. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2000;23:467–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nedopil N, Banzer K. Outpatient treatment of forensic patients in Germany: current structure and future developments. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1996;19:75–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stübner S, Nedopil N. Ambulante Sicherungsnachsorge.(transl. outpatient aftercare as a security measure). Psychiatr Prax. 2009;36:317–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jockusch U, Keller F. Praxis des Maßregelvollzugs nach § 63 StGB Unterbringungsdauer und strafrechtliche Rückfälligkeit. (transl:The practice of forensic hospitalisation according to Art. 63: length of stay and criminal relapse). Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform. 2001;84(6):453–65.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seifert D, Schiffer B, Leygraf N. Plädoyer für die forensische Nachsorge Ergebnisse einer Evaluation forensischer Ambulanzen im Rheinland. (transl: Plea for forensic aftercare—results from an evalutation of forensic outpatient clinics in the Rhineland). Psychiatr Prax. 2003;30:235–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horn A, Nedopil N. Zusammenarbeit zwischen Fallanalyse und forensischer Psychiatrie. (transl. Cooperation between investigative psychology and forensic psychiatry) In Musloff & Hoffmann (Hrsg.), (Band. 2. Auflage, S. 1–19): SMART Books; 2006.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nitschke J, Schinke D, Ottermann B, Thomas J, Osterheider M. Forensische Psychiatrie und operative Fallanalyse. (transl. Forensic psychiatry and psychological investigation). Nervenarzt. 2011;82(7):827–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nedopil N. Prognosen in der forensischen Psychiatrie—ein Handbuch für die Praxis. (transl: risk assessment in forensic psychiatry—a textbook for the practitioner). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publisher; 2005.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Müller-Isberner R, Eucker S. Therapie im Maßregelvollzug (transl: Treatment in forensic psychiatry 2 Aufl.. Ed.). Berlin: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft; 2012.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tippelt S, Stübner S, Nedopil N. Die psychotherapeutischen Fachambulanzen für Sexualstraftäter in München und Nürnberg—Ergebnisse der wissenschaftlichen Begleituntersuchung (transl: Special psychotherapeutic outpatient clinics for sexual offenders in Munich and Nuremberg. Results from a scientific evaluation.). Forum Strafvollzug Zeitschrift für Strafvollzug und Straffälligenhilfe. 2012;61:95–8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nedopil N. Forschungsstand, Forschungsbedarf und Forschungsmöglichkeiten in der forensischen Psychiatrie. (transl: state, need and possibilities of research in forensic psychiatry). In: Müller JL, editor. Neurobiologie forensisch relevanter Störungen (transl: Neurobiology of disorders relevant to forensic psychiatry). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer; 2010. p. 59–70.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Home Office. Multi-agency public protection arrangements guidance. London: Crown; 2003.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Criminal Justice and Court Services Act. 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ministry of Justice. Multi agency public protection arrangements annual report 2014/15. London: Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin; 2015.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    PPANI. Public Protection Arrangement Northern Ireland Annual Report 2014–15, Carrickfergus. 2015. www.publicprotectionni.com/
  20. 20.
    The Management of Offenders etc. (Scotland) Act. 2005.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scottish Government. Multiagency Public Protection Arrangements: Extension of Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005 to Restricted Patients, CEL 19. 2008.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scottish Government. Multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) in Scotland: National Overview Report 2014/5, Scottish Government, Edinburgh; 2015.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. Landelijk kader Veiligheidshuizen. Voor en door partners [National framework Safety houses. For and by partners.]. Den Haag; 2013.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schermer BW, Wubben M, Falot N. Privacy Governance Handreiking Veiligheidshuizen [Privacy Governance Guide Safety Houses]. Amsterdam: Considerati; 2014. eISBN978 1 78256 873 5.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sestoft D, Rasmussen MF, Vitus K, Kongsrud L. The police, social services and psychiatry cooperation in Denmark—a new model of working practice between governmental sectors. A description of the concept, process, practice and experience. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2014;37:370–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nedopil N, Taylor P, Gunn J. Forensic psychiatry in Europe: the perspective of the Ghent Group. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2015;19(2):80–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lindqvist P. Mental disorder, substance misuse and violent behavior: the Swedish experience of caring for the triply troubled. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2007;17:242–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scottish Government. Multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) in Scotland: National Overview Report 2012/13 Health Section 7 ISBN: 9781782568735, Edinburgh; 2013.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Royal College of Psychiatrists. Good psychiatric practice: confidentiality and information sharing. College Report CR 160, London; 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsay Thomson
    • 1
  • Kris Goethals
    • 2
  • Joachim Nitschke
    • 3
  • Norbert Nedopil
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of PsychiatryUniversity of Edinburgh, Kennedy TowerEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Collaborative Antwerp Psychiatric Research Institute (CAPRI), Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesAntwerp University Hospital, University Forensic Centre (UFC) and University of AntwerpEdegem/WilrijkBelgium
  3. 3.Klinik für forensische PsychiatrieBezirksklinikum AnsbachAnsbachGermany
  4. 4.Department of Forensic PsychiatryPsychiatric Hospital of the University (LMU) of MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations