This page was translated automatically from Turkish. Read the original

This page is an AI-assisted Turkish summary of the study presented at the 26th World Congress of Psychiatry. The study belongs to the presenting authors; please refer to the original source when citing it.

EV0612

Subjective and objective analysis of the needs of forensic psychiatric inpatients

SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NEEDS OF INTERNED PATIENTS

Forensic psychiatric patients in a high-security ward reported more unmet needs and more total needs than those in basic-security wards.

The aim of the study was to assess the needs of forensic psychiatric patients hospitalized under court-ordered security measures from both the patients’ and staff’s perspectives; the rationale was the trend in European Union countries toward a transition from restrictive and protective care to semi-open and open models of care. At the Provincial Hospital for Neurological and Psychiatric Diseases in Lubiaz, Poland, 93 male patients who had been hospitalized in forensic psychiatric care for at least three months were divided into two groups: 50 men in basic-security wards (Group I) and 43 men in a high-security ward with 60 beds (Group II). Needs were measured using the Camberwell Assessment of Need Forensic Version (CANFOR-R, research version), completed by both patients and ward staff, and the numbers of met and unmet needs and the ratio of met needs to total needs were calculated. In patient self-assessments, Group II had more unmet needs than Group I (1.51 +/- 1.52 versus 0.80 +/- 1.03; p = 0.009), as well as more total needs (3.86 +/- 2.40 versus 2.96 +/- 1.69; p = 0.037). There was no difference between the groups in met needs (2.35 +/- 1.25 versus 2.16 +/- 1.27; p = 0.473). The ratio of met needs to total needs was higher in Group I (0.78 +/- 0.26 versus 0.67 +/- 0.22; p = 0.026), and the ratio of met to unmet needs was 2.700 in Group I and 1.554 in Group II (p = 0.031). When patient and staff assessments were compared, there was no difference in met needs in Group I, whereas staff reported significantly more unmet needs than patients did (M = 0.94 versus M = 0.80; p < 0.05), and total needs were higher according to staff (M = 3.10 versus M = 2.96). In Group II, no difference was found in total needs, but staff reported significantly more met needs than patients did (M = 2.53 versus M = 2.35). In the table based on staff assessments, between-group differences were not significant (met needs p = 0.185; unmet needs p = 0.109; total needs p = 0.072; ratio p = 0.190). In conclusion, the needs of patients hospitalized in wards with different security levels differ quantitatively, and there are discrepancies between staff and patient assessments; this indicates that patients’ own perspectives must also be sought when designing treatment systems.

All WCP 2026 summaries