Placements within high secure forensic hospitals consist of wards providing various different levels of relational security. They should form a coherent pathway through secure care, based on individual patient risks and needs. Moves to less secure wards within high secure forensic hospitals and moves on to lower secure hospital settings have rarely been systematically studied.

The aim of this study was to ascertain if placements within Broadmoor High Secure Hospital and moves from Broadmoor to medium secure hospitals corresponded to measures of violence risk, programme completion and recovery.

A 13-month prospective cohort study was completed. Patients (n = 142) were rated at baseline for violence risk (Historical, Clinical and Risk – 20), therapeutic programme completion and recovery (DUNDRUM tool) and overall functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning). Placements on the care pathway and moves on to medium secure hospitals were observed.

Placements on the care pathway within the high secure hospital were associated with dynamic violence risk (F = 16.324, P<0.001), therapeutic programme completion (F = 4.167, P = 0.003), recovery (F = 2.440, P = 0.050) with better scores on these measures being found in the rehabilitation wards and the poorest scores on the highest levels of dependency. Moves to medium secure hospitals were associated with better scores on dynamic risk of violence (F = 33.199, P<0.001), therapeutic programme completion (F = 9.237 P<0.001), recovery (F = 6.863, P = 0.001).

Placements within Broadmoor Hospital formed a coherent pathway through high secure care. Moves to less secure places were influenced by more than reduction in violence risk. Therapeutic programme completion and recovery in a broad sense were also important.

UK clinical guidelines recommend treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults by suitably qualified clinical teams. However, young people with ADHD attempting the transition from children's to adults’ services experience considerable difficulties in accessing care.

To map the mental health services in the UK for adults who have ADHD and compare the reports of key stakeholders (people with ADHD and their carers, health workers, service commissioners).

A survey about the existence and extent of service provision for adults with ADHD was distributed online and via national organisations (e.g. Royal College of Psychiatrists, the ADHD Foundation). Freedom of information requests were sent to commissioners. Descriptive analysis was used to compare reports from the different stakeholders.

A total of 294 unique services were identified by 2686 respondents. Of these, 44 (15%) were dedicated adult ADHD services and 99 (34%) were generic adult mental health services. Only 12 dedicated services (27%) provided the full range of treatments recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Only half of the dedicated services (55%) and a minority of other services (7%) were reported by all stakeholder groups (P < 0.001, Fisher's exact test).

There is geographical variation in the provision of NHS services for adults with ADHD across the UK, as well as limited availability of treatments in the available services. Differences between stakeholder reports raise questions about equitable access. With increasing numbers of young people with ADHD graduating from children's services, developing evidence-based accessible models of care for adults with ADHD remains an urgent policy and commissioning priority.

The PRogramme for Improving Mental Health carE (PRIME) evaluated the process and outcomes of the implementation of a mental healthcare plan (MHCP) in Chitwan, Nepal.

To describe the process of implementation, the barriers and facilitating factors, and to evaluate the process indicators of the MHCP.

A case study design that combined qualitative and quantitative methods based on a programme theory of change (ToC) was used and included: (a) district-, community- and health-facility profiles; (b) monthly implementation logs; (c) pre- and post-training evaluation; (d) out-patient clinical data and (e) qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers.

The MHCP was able to achieve most of the indicators outlined by the ToC. Of the total 32 indicators, 21 (66%) were fully achieved, 10 (31%) partially achieved and 1 (3%) were not achieved at all. The proportion of primary care patients that received mental health services increased by 1200% over the 3-year implementation period. Major barriers included frequent transfer of trained health workers, lack of confidential space for consultation, no mental health supervision in the existing system, and stigma. Involvement of Ministry of Health, procurement of new psychotropic medicines through PRIME, motivation of health workers and the development of a new supervision system were key facilitating factors.

Effective implementation of mental health services in primary care settings require interventions to increase demand for services and to ensure there is clinical supervision for health workers, private rooms for consultations, a separate cadre of psychosocial workers and a regular supply of psychotropic medicines.