MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0288187

Медицинская библиотека · PloS one · 2023

The resource team: A case study of a solitary confinement reform in Oregon.

Cloud David H, Haney Craig, Augustine Dallas, Ahalt Cyrus, Williams Brie

СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

The continued use of solitary confinement has sparked international public health and human rights criticisms and concerns. This carceral practice has been linked repeatedly to a range of serious psychological harms among incarcerated persons. Vulnerabilities to harm are especially dire for persons with preexisting serious mental illness ("SMI"), a group that is overrepresented in solitary confinement units. Although there have been numerous calls for the practice to be significantly reformed, curtailed, and ended altogether, few strategies exist to minimize its use for people with SMI and histories of violence against themselves or others. This case study describes the "Oregon Resource Team" (ORT), a pilot project adapted from a Norwegian officer-led, interdisciplinary team-based approach to reduce isolation and improve outcomes for incarcerated persons with SMI and histories of trauma, self-injury, and violence against others. We describe the ORT's innovative approach, the characteristics and experiences of incarcerated people who participated in it, its reported impact on the behavior, health, and well-being of incarcerated persons and correctional staff, and ways to optimize its effectiveness and expand its use.

Для цитирования: Cloud David H, Haney Craig, Augustine Dallas, Ahalt Cyrus, Williams Brie. The resource team: A case study of a solitary confinement reform in Oregon.. PloS one. 2023. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288187.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.