The Review Process

The diagram below outlines the stages of the review cycle undertaken by the Quality Network for Prison Mental Health Services.

Stage 1: Agree Standards

The first edition of the standards for prison mental health services were devised between 2013 - 2015 via a process of extensive consultation with a variety of stakeholders. A third edition was published in October 2017, acknowledging member feedback and recent developments in prison mental health.

Stage 2: Self Review
October - April

The self-review process is an opportunity for services to score themselves and provide commentary against each of the standards for prison mental health services, outlining whether they have met, partly met or unmet each criteria.

Stage 3: Peer Review
December- June

The peer-review visit is a supportive process, encouraging services to reflect on their areas of both achievement and challenge, whilst also considering improvements for the future.

Stage 4: Local Reports
January - July

Draft Report- Sent to the host service and peer-review team within four weeks of the peer-review date for their comments.

Final Report - Issued only to the host service within eight weeks of the peer-review date.

Stage 5 : Action Planning
February - July

The report will outline the key areas of achievement and challenge and suggest a number of action points for improvement for the following Cycle.

Six weeks after receiving the final report we will expect to receive a copy of the action plan from the service and this will be used in the following Cycle to identify any areas of change or improvement. View the template for action planning.

Stage 6: Annual Forum and Report
July

At the end of the Cycle, an Annual Forum is held for members and those interested in the Quality Network. The day focuses on key trends from the past Cycle and there are presentations on specific areas relevant to prison mental health.

The Annual Report explores each section of the published standards, drawing on key achievements, areas for improvements and also solutions to common problems. Member services can benchmark their practices against others and gain ideas for service development from the presented examples of good practice.