Older prisoner Health and Social Care Assessment and Plan (OHSCAP)

Senior, J; Forsyth, Kirsty; Walsh, Elizabeth Paige; O’Hara, Kate; Stevenson, Caroline; Hayes, Amanda; Short, Valerie; Webb, R; Challis, David; Fazel, Seena; Burns, Annette; Shaw, James

doi:10.1186/isrctn11841493

Cited by 3 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonetheless, care plans were documented for less than half of the OHSCAPs reviewed (43%). Moreover, no action was reportedly taken in 43% of cases where problems were identi ed (Forsyth et al, 2013;).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main explanation for the lack of difference between the TAU and OSCAP groups is that the OHSCAP was not implemented as intended (Forsyth et al, 2013;Forsyth et al, 2017). An audit of all accessible OHSCAPs was conducted (68%) to identify both the delity of implementation and the quality of the care planning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of incarcerated older adults across developed countries has increased markedly in recent times; for example, seventeen percent of the prison population in England and Wales are now aged 50 and over (13,890). This includes 3970 individuals aged 60 plus; triple the number 15 years age (Ministry of Justice, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Older Prisoner Health and Social Care Assessment and Plan (OHSCAP) versus Treatment as Usual: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Forsyth

Webb

Power³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Older adults are the fastest-growing subgroup among prisoners in England and Wales and have more health and social care needs than their younger counterparts and those the same age living in the community . We hypothesised that the Older prisoner Health and Social Care Assessment and Plan (OHSCAP) would significantly increase the proportion of met health and social care needs three months after prison entry, compared to treatment as usual (TAU).MethodsA parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted at ten prisons in the North of England. Males aged 50 and over received the OHSCAP or TAU. The allocation procedure was minimisation with a random element. The OHSCAP process involved individuals having their needs assessed, care plans being created and reviewed. TAU encompassed the standard prison health assessment. The trial was registered with the UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio (ISRCTN ID: 11841493) and was closed on 30th November 2016.ResultsData were collected between 28th January 2014 and 06th April 2016. 249 older prisoners were assigned TAU of which 32 transferred prison; 12 were released; 2 withdrew and 1 was deemed unsafe to interview. 253 prisoners were assigned the OHSCAP of which 33 transferred prison; 11 were released; 6 withdrew and 1 was deemed unsafe to interview. Consequently, data from 202 participants were analysed in each of the two groups. There were no significant differences in the number of unmet needs as measured by the Camberwell Assessment of Needs – Forensic Short Version (CANFOR-S). The mean number of unmet needs for the OHSCAP group at follow-up was 2.03 (SD=2.07) and 2.06 (SD= 2.11) for the TAU group (RR = 0.088; 95% CI -0.276 to 0.449, p = 0.621). No adverse events were reported. Conclusion Those received the OHSCAP did not experience an improvement to the meeting of the needs in comparison to the TAU g. This was largely due to the OHSCAP not being implemented as planed due to a national prison crisis.The OHSCAP was fundamentally not implemented as planned, partly due to the national prison staffing crisis that ensued during the study period. Therefore, those receiving OHSCAP did not experience improved outcomes compared to those who received TAU. Trial RegistrationISRCTN11841493 25/10/2013Protocol available at: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11841493

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Older Prisoner Health and Social Care Assessment and Plan (OHSCAP) versus Treatment as Usual: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Forsyth

Webb

Power³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…getting to meals, dropping to the floor for alarms, Munday et al, 2017). However, a rare randomised controlled trial of a prisonspecific assessment (the Older Prisoner Health and Social Care Assessment Plan, OHSCAP) identified no significant difference in the resultant number of unmet needs (Forsyth et al, 2017;Senior et al, 2013), with audit and qualitative data suggesting the care-planning element was poorly implemented (Forsyth et al, 2017;Forsyth et al, 2022). The tool was, however, praised for focusing on issues The role of parole officers in the reintegration of older prisoners relevant to release and its dynamic, interactive approach (Levy et al, 2018), qualities also extolled in previous prison assessment tools (Cooney & Braggins, 2010;House of Commons Justice Committee, 2013;Moll, 2013).…”

Section: Assessing Social Care Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As above, the review suggested that, at least in England, screening and assessment processes were insufficiently robust to identify all those people with potential social care needs on release from prison. A mix of factors were reported to contribute to this situation, including prison and prison healthcare staff's typically poor understanding of social care and the want of protected time for reception interviews (issues exacerbated by wider problems in the prison estate, including reduced staffing levels, Anderson & Cairns, 2011;Booth, 2011;Forsyth et al, 2017; House of Commons Justice Committee, 2020; Levy et al, 2018). There was also some suggestion that the available screening tools were insufficiently detailed (Tucker et al, 2018); the system particularly failed people with multiple lower level needs who fell beneath the eligibility thresholds for specific health and care services despite high overall need (Anderson & Cairns, 2011; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons & Care Quality Commission, 2018); and the nature of the prison environment, whereby assessments were conducted in people's cells or small visiting rooms, made assessment difficult, precluding, for example, the opportunity to observe their mobility (Pearmain, 2016).…”

Section: Inadequate Screening and Assessment Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting People with Social Care Needs On Release from Prison: A Scoping Review

Tucker,

Buck,

Roberts

et al. 2024

JLTC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Social care need in prisons is increasing in many countries. However, the delivery of social care in prisons has been (at best) inconsistent and there has been no previous review to inform provision for people on release. Objective: To identify and synthesise what is known about the social care needs of people on release from prison and how best to meet these. Method: A scoping review encompassing systematic searches of 26 electronic databases (January 2010–July 2021) included a wide range of literature. No exclusions were made on the basis of study design, method or quality. Findings were organised according to their contribution to the research questions. Findings: Forty-six documents met the review criteria of which 27 were from the UK. Just two focused specifically on the topic of interest and most of the extracted material was descriptive in nature. Almost no information was found on the number of people released from prison in need of social care. However, the challenges of providing care for this group appeared well understood. Although there were many examples of good practice and widespread consensus about its enablers, outcome information was lacking. Limitations: In keeping with the nature of the review, the quality of the literature was not formally assessed. Implications: The review identified several promising initiatives ranging from prison buddy schemes to pre-release training in everyday living skills and personalised pathway documents. Conclusions: Policy makers and researchers must now shift their attention to the effectiveness of particular interventions in improving social care outcomes.

show abstract

The older prisoner health and social care assessment and plan (OHSCAP) versus treatment as usual: a randomised controlled trial

Forsyth

Webb

Power³

et al. 2021

BMC Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Older people are the fastest-growing demographic group among prisoners in England and Wales and they have complex health and social care needs. Their care is frequently ad hoc and uncoordinated. No previous research has explored how to identify and appropriately address the needs of older adults in prison. We hypothesised that the Older prisoner Health and Social Care Assessment and Plan (OHSCAP) would significantly increase the proportion of met health and social care needs 3 months after prison entry, compared to treatment as usual (TAU). Methods The study was a parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT) recruiting male prisoners aged 50 and over from 10 prisons in northern England. Participants received the OHSCAP or TAU. A clinical trials unit used minimisation with a random element as the allocation procedure. Data analysis was conducted blind to allocation status. The intervention group had their needs assessed using the OHSCAP tool and care plans were devised; processes that lasted approximately 30 min in total per prisoner. TAU included the standard prison health assessment and care. The intention to treat principle was followed. The trial was registered with the UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio (ISRCTN ID: 11841493) and was closed on 30 November 2016. Results Data were collected between 28 January 2014 and 06 April 2016. Two hundred and forty nine older prisoners were assigned TAU of which 32 transferred prison; 12 were released; 2 withdrew and 1 was deemed unsafe to interview. Two hundred and fifty three 3 prisoners were assigned the OHSCAP of which 33 transferred prison; 11 were released; 6 withdrew and 1 was deemed unsafe to interview. Consequently, data from 202 participants were analysed in each of the two groups. There were no significant differences in the number of unmet needs as measured by the Camberwell Assessment of Needs – Forensic Short Version (CANFOR-S). The mean number of unmet needs for the OHSCAP group at follow-up was 2.03 (SD = 2.07) and 2.06 (SD = 2.11) for the TAU group (mean difference = 0.088; 95% CI − 0.276 to 0.449, p = 0.621). No adverse events were reported. Conclusion The OHSCAP was fundamentally not implemented as planned, partly due to the national prison staffing crisis that ensued during the study period. Therefore, those receiving the OHSCAP did not experience improved outcomes compared to those who received TAU. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN11841493, 25/10/2012.

show abstract

Older prisoner Health and Social Care Assessment and Plan (OHSCAP)

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

The Older Prisoner Health and Social Care Assessment and Plan (OHSCAP) versus Treatment as Usual: A Randomised Controlled Trial

The Older Prisoner Health and Social Care Assessment and Plan (OHSCAP) versus Treatment as Usual: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Supporting People with Social Care Needs On Release from Prison: A Scoping Review

The older prisoner health and social care assessment and plan (OHSCAP) versus treatment as usual: a randomised controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About