Little is known about factors that influence discharge decision-making for people admitted to medium-secure services from prison, particularly for those who are returned to prison following treatment.

To explore the organisational influences on care pathways through medium-secure services for those admitted from prison.

We recruited 24 clinicians via purposive and snowball sampling; 13 shared their experiences via a focus group, and 11 shared their experiences via individual semi-structured interviews. A thematic analysis was conducted, producing three overarching themes: maintenance of throughput and service provision, class of two systems, and desirable and undesirable patients.

Data indicated external factors that direct and, at times, limit clinicians’ pathway decisions, including commissioning criteria and legal status under the Mental Health Act 1983 and within the criminal courts system (i.e. whether on remand or sentenced). These factors also influence how clinicians view the role and function of medium-secure services within the wider forensic mental health system, and therefore the types of patients that are deemed ‘appropriate’ for continued treatment when making discretionary pathway decisions.

There remains a deficit in adequate resources to meet the mental health needs of prisoners who are admitted to medium-secure services. To meet the clinical need of all admissions, criteria for prolonged treatment in medium-secure services needs to be reconsidered, and it is likely that provision for the medium-secure hospital estate will need to increase substantially if effective rehabilitation of those who transfer from prison is to take place.

Little is known internationally about return to prison from in-patient psychiatric services, including: circumstances leading to return, aftercare services and subsequent patient outcomes.

To examine and describe: (a) circumstances leading to return to prison from medium secure services; (b) available aftercare and early outcomes of returned persons; and (c) implications for policy development.

Prospective cohort design with all patients (n = 96) returned to prisons from 33 National Health Service (NHS) medium secure services over a 6-month period in England and Wales. Follow-up was conducted for 1 year post-remittal, across 60 prisons.

Less than 20% of patients with legal entitlement to section 117 aftercare under the Mental Health Act 1983 were receiving care managed/delivered via the care programme approach. Subsequent pathways included: inter-prison transfer (30%), use of the Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork process (49%), referral to secure services (21%) and community release (30%). Less than half of community releases were referred to a community mental health team.

Findings suggest that persons returned to prison are a vulnerable group of patients, many of whom require intervention (e.g. enhanced monitoring, admission to a healthcare wing, readmission to secure mental health services) on return to prison in the absence of targeted aftercare services. More robust guidance for discharge and aftercare planning procedures for persons remitted to prison should be developed to ensure that the benefits of in-patient admission are maintained and that individuals’ legal rights to ongoing aftercare are upheld.