Psychiatric Bulletin (2002) 26: 319. doi: 10.1192/pb.26.8.319
© 2002 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Psychiatric Bulletin (2002) 26: 319
© 2002 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Assessing Forensic Mental Health Need. Policy, Theory and Research
By Andrea Cohen and Nigel Eastman
Peter Snowden, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist
Edenfield Centre, Mental Health Services of Salford NHS Trust, Bury New
Road, Manchester M25 3BL
London: Gaskell. 2000. 228 pp. £30.00 (hb). ISBN: 1-901242-42-0
Some time ago I was asked by Gaskell if I would review the outline of a
book this book in order to help them come to a view on
possible publication. I suggested that it would have a narrow (forensic)
audience, but it would be worthwhile to publish an authoritative book on needs
assessment.
I was both right and wrong. This book could almost be entitled
Everything you ever wanted to know about needs assessment, but was too
afraid to ask. I realised very early on in my reading that needs
assessment was so much more complicated than I had first thought. Rationality
in service planning is the goal, but at the same time it is also subjective,
politically driven and resource managed. The authors offer a detailed
description of needs assessment policy with an emphasis on mentally disordered
offenders (MDOs) and a theoretical framework to enable the reader to
understand the strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches (survey,
rates under treatment, social indicator, key informant and community
opinion).
The detail and thoroughness of the reviews are impressive, but the over
reliance on a historical approach makes some aspects of the book appear out of
date. I was wrong in suggesting that the book would have a narrow audience. It
may have but it should not. The breadth of many of the chapters is
such that I would commend it to the wider mental health constituency, in
particular, general psychiatry. I did not find myself agreeing with everything
in the book. In the Survey approach chapter, the authors suggest If
only high security hospitals provide the high level of occupational facilities
that some patients require, then, even if their risk to others infers that
they only require medium security, their proper placement within existing
services is high security. This confirmed for me that when one is drawn
so far down the needs path, ethical judgements, for example, locking patients
within category B prison type security, are not considered. But this is the
point of the book needs assessment is perhaps little more rational
than other methods of service planning, and as the authors suggest, as an
approach it is only as good as its assumptions and method. For MDOs the
assumptions, the politics and the fears of the community complicate the whole
process.