Perceptions of Diagnostic Labels in Forensic Psychiatric Practice: A Survey of Differences Between Nurses and Other Disciplines

Mason, Tom; Caulfield, Mike; Hall, Rebecca; Melling, Kat

Abstract

This paper reports on a study of nurses’ and non-nurses’ perceptions of labels of mental illness and personality disorder in forensic services in the UK. The objectives of the study were to establish if differences in perceptions existed within, and between, the two groups of professionals. The research method was a survey design with 1,200 questionnaires distributed to nurses and 300 to other professionals in disciplines on forensic units in the UK, with response rates of 34.6% and 43%, respectively. The target population included clinical health care staff who had patient contact, including nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and occupational therapists. The results indicate that there are statistically significant differences within both nursing and non-nursing groups and also between the groups in relation to a “management” perspective for individuals labelled with a personality disorder and a “clinical” focus for individuals who are labelled as mentally ill. This paper adds research into the arena of forensic mental health in relation to the diagnostic labels of mental illness and personality disorders. It also adds evidence of a clinical response or a management response to such diagnostic labels which may impact on the practice of forensic psychiatry.

Citation

Mason, T., Caulfield, M., Hall, R., & Melling, K. (2010). Perceptions of Diagnostic Labels in Forensic Psychiatric Practice: A Survey of Differences Between Nurses and Other Disciplines. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 31(5), 336-344. https://doi.org/10.3109/01612840903398727

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Online Publication Date: Apr 15, 2010
• Publication Date: 2010-04
• Deposit Date: Jun 19, 2024
• Journal: Issues in Mental Health Nursing
• Print ISSN: 0161-2840
• Electronic ISSN: 1096-4673
• Publisher: Informa Healthcare
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 31
• Issue: 5
• Pages: 336-344
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/01612840903398727