ABSTRACT In England and Wales, approximately 8% of prisoners aged 50 and over are likely to have dementia/MCI, but they do not receive equivalent care to their counterparts in the community. We previously designed DECISION (Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in prison), a care pathway and training/awareness package for use in prison. The aim of this article is to describe the development of an initial programme theory (IPT) and logic model for the DECISION care pathway. Development of the IPT and logic model was an iterative process involving: i) an umbrella review approach to synthesising information from seven systematic reviews of dementia in prison; ii) co‐design workshops with key stakeholders including experts by experience; and iii) reviewing our previous qualitative work. Key elements of the IPT and logic model include specialist training for and ongoing supervision of dementia care coordinators; ageing awareness training for all staff in prison; use of two cognitive screening tools; and release planning, including awareness‐raising among probation and third sector groups who work with people released from prison who have dementia/MCI. The IPT and logic model will provide stakeholders with a proposed framework for the innovation or further development of dementia care and support in prison.

Introduction Recent research indicates that around 8% of older people living in prison have signs or symptoms of dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI), yet the care they receive is not equivalent to care in the community and this means their needs may not be met. We co-developed an intervention specifically for older people living in prison with dementia/MCI (Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in prison care pathway and training package-DECISION). To date, this has not been implemented or evaluated. This paper presents our protocol for a study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of DECISION.Methods This is a non-randomised, realist-informed mixed-methods feasibility study with integrated process evaluation, which will take place in two prisons in England. The intervention was codeveloped with experts with lived experience. Participants will include older people living in prison, staff working in prison and peer supporters. We will assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention (eg, numbers eligible; rates of recruitment and retention), and the evaluation design (eg, completion rates of standardised outcome measures). Methods will include semistructured, realist-informed interviews; an audit to assess implementation fidelity; focused ethnography; training questionnaires; and collection of resource use data. We will refine the DECISION programme theory using realist-informed methods to examine and refine how contexts and mechanisms interact to produce the intervention's outcomes.Ethics and dissemination This study received a favourable ethical opinion from the Wales REC 3 Research Ethics Committee in January 2025 (reference number 24/WA/0323). HMPPS National Research Committee approval was also granted in January 2025 (reference number 2024-1451). Findings will be disseminated through a range of avenues, including stakeholder engagement events, open-access papers, conference presentations, evidence briefings for commissioners, providers and practitioners, and newsletters for service users.

The number of people aged 50 and over entering the criminal justice system (CJS) in England and Wales is growing. This raises questions as to the suitability of the CJS to equitably accommodate individuals with complex illness or impairment, who might experience difficulties in cognitive function, frailty, and/or impaired mobility. Findings from the government, the third sector, and academic literature have highlighted the difficulties experienced by older adults in the CJS and those tasked with supporting them. To inform the development of the Ministry of Justice's national strategy for older people in prison, we conducted a series of nominal focus groups with policy makers, practitioners, prison staff, representatives from the third sector, and academics, each focusing on a specific topic area that impacts older adults in prison. These were: 1) older adult trajectories; 2) long term conditions; 3) dementia; 4) mental health; 5) social care; 6) end of life care; 7) women; 8) ethnicity; and 9) COVID-19. An additional nominal group was also held with older adults currently in prison to discuss what they thought should be included in the national strategy more broadly. This paper presents the methodology of the nominal groups and subsequent analysis, as well as providing a rationale for the research. It serves as a precursor to a series of papers reporting and discussing the findings of the topic-specific nominal groups.

BACKGROUND:The number of older adults entering the criminal justice system is growing. Approximately 8% of older prisoners in England and Wales have suspected dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and experience difficulties in everyday functioning, and disruption to their daily life. At present, no specific dementia/MCI care pathway has been implemented that is applicable and appropriate for use across different prisons in England and Wales. The aim of this paper is to explore the experiences of older adults with dementia/MCI in prison, and a range of key stakeholders, around the day-to-day issues faced by people with dementia/MCI and prison, healthcare, and third sector staff regarding the delivery of support for individuals with dementia/MCI. METHODS:Thirty-two semi structured interviews were conducted with prison, local authority, and healthcare staff; peer supporters; third sector care providers; and individuals with dementia/MCI themselves, across five establishments, to provide multidimensional perspectives of dementia/MCI in criminal justice settings. The data obtained during interviews were thematically analysed. RESULTS:From the data, six key themes emerged: (I) ethical concerns around trial, sentencing and detainment for people with dementia/MCI; (II) An unforgiving prison system, providing physical and social environments incompatible with supporting individuals with dementia/MCI; (III) An unprepared workforce requiring training in dementia/MCI. (IV) A lack of collaboration leading to sub-optimum management of the support needs of people with dementia/MCI in prison; (V) Peer support 'plugging the gap'; and (VI) staff 'hands tied behind back'. CONCLUSIONS:Results point towards a pressing need to develop more appropriate support systems for individuals with dementia/MCI throughout the criminal justice system. Ethical concerns around the judicial process for individuals with diminished cognitive capacity must be considered. Prison governors should examine ways to make the living environment more appropriate for these individuals, and a joined-up collaborative approach to health and social care should be adopted. Staff must be appropriately trained to support and identify individuals with dementia/MCI. Peer support schemes require formal evaluation, and training/oversight of these schemes should be comprehensive.

Abstract 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.

Background People aged ≥ 50 years constitute the fastest-growing group in the prison population of England and Wales. This population has complex health and social care needs. There is currently no national strategy to guide the development of the many-faceted services required for this vulnerable population; therefore, prisons are responding to the issue with a range of local initiatives that are untested and often susceptible to failure if they are not fully embedded in and securely funded as part of commissioned services. Objectives The objectives were to establish the prevalence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in prisoners in England and Wales and their health and social care needs; validate the six-item cognitive impairment test for routine use in prisons to aid early and consistent identification of older prisoners with possible dementia or mild cognitive impairment; identify gaps in current service provision; understand the first-hand experiences of prisoners living with dementia and mild cognitive impairment; develop a care pathway for prisoners with dementia and mild cognitive impairment; develop dementia and mild cognitive impairment training packages for staff and prisoners; and produce health economic costings for the care pathway and training packages. Design This was a mixed-methods study. Setting The study setting was prisons in England and Wales. Participants Prisoners aged ≥ 50 years and multiagency staff working in prison discipline and health and social care services took part. Results Quantitative research estimated that the prevalence rate of suspected dementia and mild cognitive impairment in the prison population of England and Wales is 8%. This equates to 1090 individuals. Only two people (3%) in our sample had a relevant diagnosis in their health-care notes, suggesting current under-recognition of these conditions. The prevalence rate in prisons was approximately two times higher among individuals aged 60–69 years and four times higher among those aged ≥ 70 years than among those in the same age groups living in the community. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment screening test was found to be more effective than the six-item cognitive impairment test assessment in the older prisoner population. Qualitative research determined that staff and prisoners lacked training in knowledge and awareness of dementia and mild cognitive impairment, and this leads to problematic behaviour being viewed as a disciplinary issue rather than a health issue. Local initiatives to improve the lives of prisoners with dementia and mild cognitive impairment are often disadvantaged by not being part of commissioned services, making them difficult to sustain. Multidisciplinary working is hampered by agencies continuing to work in silos, with inadequate communication across professional boundaries. A step-by-step care pathway for prisoners with dementia and mild cognitive impairment was developed, and two tiers of training materials were produced for staff and prisoners. Limitations Our prevalence rate was based on the results of a standardised assessment tool, rather than on clinical diagnosis by a mental health professional, and therefore it may represent an overestimation. Furthermore, we were unable to distinguish subcategories of dementia. We were also unable to distinguish between a likely diagnosis of dementia and other conditions presenting with mild cognitive impairment, including learning disability, severe depression and hearing impairment. Questionnaires regarding current service provision were collected over an extended period of time, so they do not reflect a ‘snapshot’ of service provision at a particular point. Conclusions We hypothesise that implementing the step-by-step care pathway and the training resources developed in this study will improve the care of older prisoners with dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Future work The care pathway and training materials should be evaluated in situ. Alternatives to prison for those with dementia or mild cognitive impairment should be developed and evaluated. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Older people are the fastest-growing group in prisons in England and Wales and have complex health and social care needs that often remain unmet. Objectives (1) Evaluate the efficacy of the Older prisoner Health and Social Care Assessment and Plan (OHSCAP) in improving (i) the ability to meet older male prisoners’ health and social care needs, (ii) health-related quality of life (HRQoL), (iii) depressive symptoms and (iv) functional health and well-being and activities of daily living; (2) assess the quality of care plans produced; (3) explore the experiences of older prisoners receiving, and staff conducting, the OHSCAP; and (4) evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the OHSCAP compared with treatment as usual (TAU). Design Multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) with follow-up at 3 months, with a nested qualitative study and quality audit of care plans (n = 150, 68%). Setting Ten English prisons. Participants Four hundred and ninety-seven newly arrived male prisoners aged ≥ 50 years with a discharge date at least 3 months from recruitment. A total of 14 prisoners and 11 staff participated in qualitative interviews. Intervention Randomisation to OHSCAP or TAU. The OHSCAP group had health and social needs assessed by a trained health-care worker or prison officer. Care plans were devised and subsequent actions included professional support and appropriate referrals. Main outcome measures Primary outcome measure – mean number of unmet health and social care needs as measured by the Camberwell Assessment of Need – Short Forensic Version. Secondary outcome measures – measures of functional health and well-being, depressive symptoms and HRQoL. A health economic evaluation was undertaken using service contact between baseline and follow-up and appropriate unit cost information. Results A total of 497 prisoners were recruited (248 to OHSCAP and 249 to TAU). The 404 completed follow-ups were split evenly between the trial arms. No significant differences were observed between the intervention and TAU groups in relation to the primary outcome measure. The OHSCAP did not demonstrate convincing benefits in HRQoL over TAU, and there were no significant differences in relation to costs. Audit and qualitative data suggest that the intervention was not implemented as planned. Limitations As a result of the limited follow-up period, potential long-term gains of the intervention were not measured. Some of the standardised tools had limited applicability in prison settings. Cost-effectiveness data were limited by unavailability of relevant unit cost data. Conclusions The OHSCAP failed in its primary objective but, fundamentally, was not implemented as planned. This appears to have been attributable, in some part, to wider difficulties currently affecting the prison landscape, including reduced levels of staffing, the loss of specialist support roles for such initiatives and increased prevalence of regime disruption. Future work Partnership working and information sharing across disciplines within prison settings require improvement. Research should explore the potential involvement of other prisoners and third-sector organisations in identifying and addressing older prisoners’ health and social care needs to better match community provision. Further examination should be undertaken of how the prison regime and system affects the well-being of older prisoners. Future prison-based RCTs should carefully balance the fidelity of initiatives being evaluated and testing in a ‘real-life’ setting. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11841493. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 5, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Prisons are 'closed' institutions and, as such, access by the general public is controlled and restricted. Historically, the separate care needs of older people have not been recognised and they have been treated as part of the whole prison population. Until recently, the Prison Service in the UK could claim Crown immunity from health and social care legislation that would apply to the general population. This has had to change as the over 60s have become the fastest-growing age group in the prison population. EU treaty obligations and High Court actions on human rights issues have led the UK Government to remove prison immunity. An example of this change may be found in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 that now applies to prisons. However, despite this dramatic rise in the older prisoner population and new legislation, there is currently no mandatory requirement or national strategy for the care of older prisoners, although this is under consideration. With the transfer of prison healthcare from the Prison Service to the NHS and primary care trusts in 2006, a range of actions have been put in place to identify and fill gaps in current care services, including the lack of social care. This paper attempts to examine these recent developments.