Search

An aging prison population means more people who are incarcerated will experience dementia and related symptoms (eg, cognitive impairment, behavioral outbursts, poor impulse control). This article canvasses clinical and ethical complexities of caring for people with dementia who are incarcerated and examines how to adapt carceral settings to better meet the needs of people with dementia. This article also recommends policy reforms, such as treatment-based diversion programs, early parole, and medical release, to decrease numbers of individuals with dementia who are incarcerated whenever possible.

PurposeThis study aims to characterize the June 2020 COVID-19 outbreak at San Quentin California State Prison and to describe what made San Quentin so vulnerable to uncontrolled transmission.Design/methodology/approachSince its onset, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and exacerbated the profound health harms of carceral settings, such that nearly half of state prisons reported COVID-19 infection rates that were four or more times (and up to 15 times) the rate found in the state's general population. Thus, addressing the public health crises and inequities of carceral settings during a respiratory pandemic requires analyzing the myriad factors shaping them. In this study, we reported observations and findings from environmental risk assessments during visits to San Quentin California State Prison. We complemented our assessments with analyses of administrative data.FindingsFor future respiratory pathogens that cannot be prevented with effective vaccines, this study argues that outbreaks will no doubt occur again without robust implementation of additional levels of preparedness - improved ventilation, air filtration, decarceration with emergency evacuation planning - alongside addressing the vulnerabilities of carceral settings themselves.Originality/valueThis study addresses two critical aspects that are insufficiently covered in the literature: how to prepare processes to safely implement emergency epidemic measures when needed, such as potential evacuation, and how to address unique challenges throughout an evolving pandemic for each carceral setting.

Solitary confinement is a harrowing human rights and public health problem that is currently inflicted as a routine punishment for a litany of prison rule violations, a reactionary tactic to quell resistance to prison conditions, and as a destination of last resort for people serious mental illnesses (SMI) who are especially vulnerable to its harms. An extensive body of research has documented clusters of psychiatric symptoms-emotional distress, cognitive deficits, social withdrawal, anxiety, paranoia, sleeplessness, and hallucinations-linked to solitary confinement that often manifest in decompensating behaviors, which include self-injury and suicide. This study summarizes the historical evolution of solitary confinement, recaps its linkages to self-injury and suicidality, and offers a theoretical framework grounded in ecosocial theory, and supplemented with concepts from theories of dehumanization and carceral geography. Findings bolster extant evidence on the harms of solitary confinement by focusing on whether and how exertions of power by prison staff to deploy mechanisms of dehumanization-as a pathway between SMI and self-injury among a cross section of adult men (n = 517) exposed to solitary confinement in Louisiana prisons in 2017. Findings reinforce the need for structural interventions that diffuse forms of carceral power and practices that continue to subject people to isolation, dehumanization, and violence.

Mass incarceration is a sociostructural driver of profound health inequalities in the United States. The political and economic forces underpinning mass incarceration are deeply rooted in centuries of the enslavement of people of African descent and the genocide and displacement of Indigenous people and is inextricably connected to labor exploitation, racial discrimination, the criminalization of immigration, and behavioral health problems such as mental illness and substance use disorders. This article focuses on major public health crises and advances in state and federal prisons and discusses a range of practical strategies for health scholars, practitioners, and activists to promote the health and dignity of incarcerated people. It begins by summarizing the historical and sociostructural factors that have led to mass incarceration in the United States. It then describes the ways in which prison conditions create or worsen chronic, communicable, and behavioral health conditions, while highlighting priority areas for public health research and intervention to improve the health of incarcerated people, including decarceral solutions that can profoundly minimize-and perhaps one day help abolish-the use of prisons.

PurposeVaccinating adults who are involved with the carceral system, particularly those aged 55 or older, is crucial to containing the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA, particularly as variants continue to emerge and spread. In this Viewpoint, the authors discuss the reasons why improving access to COVID-19 vaccine and boosters among community supervised adults, especially the aging population, is critical to mitigating the public health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study concludes by providing recommendations to enhance vaccine and booster uptake in this population, as the pandemic continues.Design/methodology/approachThis is a Viewpoint paper regarding mitigating the spread of COVID-19 by improving access to vaccine and boosters among community supervised adults, especially the aging population.FindingsA key population that has been overlooked in vaccination efforts are older adults involved in the carceral system who are living in the community (i.e. "community supervised" or people on probation or parole). Older adults on probation and parole are at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 transmission and severe disease due to numerous factors at the individual, community, social and structural levels.Originality/valueImplementation of recommendations presented in this Viewpoint will mitigate COVID-19 risk among a population that has been marginalized and overlooked, yet has been the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

PurposeCompassionate release is a process that allows for the early release or parole of some incarcerated people of advanced age, with life-limiting illness, complex medical care needs or significant functional decline. Despite the expansion of State and Federal compassionate release programs, this mechanism for release remains underutilized. Health-care professionals are central to the process of recommending compassionate release, but few resources exist to support these efforts. The purpose of this paper is to provide a guide for health-care professionals requesting compassionate release for patients who are incarcerated.Design/methodology/approachThis study is stepwise guide for health-care professionals requesting compassionate release for patients who are incarcerated.FindingsThis study describes the role of the health-care professional in requesting compassionate release and offers guidance to help them navigate the process of preparing a medical declaration or request for compassionate release.Originality/valueNo prior publications have created a step-wise guide of this nature to aid health-care professionals through the compassionate release process.

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 ORTs 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.

BackgroundPeople incarcerated in US prisons have been disproportionately harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic. That prisons are such efficient superspreading environments can be attributed to several known factors: small, communal facilities where people are confined for prolonged periods of time; poor ventilation; a lack of non-punitive areas for quarantine/medical isolation; and staggeringly high numbers of people experiencing incarceration, among others. While health organizations have issued guidance on preventing and mitigating COVID-19 infection in carceral settings, little is known about if, when, and how recommendations have been implemented. We examined factors contributing to containment of one of the first California prison COVID-19 outbreaks and remaining vulnerabilities using an adapted multi-level determinants framework to systematically assess infectious disease risk in carceral settings.MethodsCase study employing administrative data; observation; and informal discussions with: people incarcerated at the prison, staff, and county public health officials.ResultsOutbreak mitigation efforts were characterized by pre-planning (e.g., designation of ventilated, single-occupancy quarantine) and a quickly mobilized inter-institutional response that facilitated systematic, voluntary rapid testing. However, several systemic- and institutional-level vulnerabilities were unaddressed hindering efforts and posing significant risk for future outbreaks, including insufficient decarceration, continued inter-facility transfers, incomplete staff cohorting, and incompatibility between built environment features (e.g., dense living conditions) and public health recommendations.ConclusionsOur adapted framework facilitates systematically assessing prison-based infectious disease outbreaks and multi-level interventions. We find implementing some recommended public health strategies may have contributed to outbreak containment. However, even with a rapidly mobilized, inter-institutional response, failure to decarcerate created an overreliance on chance conditions. This left the facility vulnerable to future catastrophic outbreaks and may render standard public health strategies - including the introduction of effective vaccines - insufficient to prevent or contain those outbreaks.

The number of older adults (age fifty-five or older) incarcerated in US prisons reached an all-time high just as COVID-19 entered correctional facilities in 2020. However, little is known about COVID-19's impact on incarcerated older adults. We compared COVID-19 outcomes between older and younger adults in California state prisons from March 1, 2020, to October 9, 2021. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) revealed an increasing risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes among older age groups (ages 55-64, 65-74, and 75 or older) compared with younger adults, including for documented infection (aOR, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.4, respectively) and hospitalization with COVID-19 (aOR, 4.6, 8.7, and 15.1, respectively). Moreover, although accounting for 17.3 percent of the California state prison population, older adults represented 85.8 percent of this population's COVID-19-related deaths. Yet a smaller percentage of older adults than younger adults were released from prison during the pandemic. The differential rates of morbidity and mortality experienced by incarcerated older adults should be considered in future pandemic response strategies regarding prisons.

PurposeWith a rapidly growing population of older adults with chronic illness in US prisons, the number of people who die while incarcerated is increasing. Support for patients' medical decision-making is a cornerstone of quality care for people at the end of life (EOL). This study aims to identify, describe, and analyze existing policies regarding EOL decision-making in U.S. Departments of Corrections.Design/methodology/approachThis study performed an iterative content analysis on all available EOL decision-making policies in US state departments of corrections and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.FindingsThis study collected and reviewed available policies from 37 of 51 prison systems (73%). Some areas of commonality included the importance of establishing health-care proxies and how to transfer EOL decision documents, although policies differed in terms of which patients can complete advance care planning documents, and who can serve as their surrogate decision-makers.Practical implicationsMany prison systems have an opportunity to enhance their patient medical decision-making policies to bring them in line with community standard quality of care. In addition, this study was unable to locate policies regarding patient decision-making at the EOL in one quarter of US prison systems, suggesting there may be quality-of-care challenges around formalized approaches to documenting patient medical wishes in some of those prison systems.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first content analysis of EOL decision-making policies in US prison systems.

BackgroundAccumulating evidence indicates that behaviors in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias could result in incarceration. Yet, the proportion of persons diagnosed with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) before they were incarcerated is largely unknown. By leveraging a national sample of mid- to late-life adults who were incarcerated, we determined the prevalence of dementia and MCI before their incarceration.MethodsIn this current study, participants were Medicare-eligible U.S. veterans who transitioned from incarceration to the community in mid- to late-life from October 1, 2012, to September 30, 2018, after having been incarcerated for ≤10 consecutive years (N = 17,962). Medical claims data were used to determine clinical diagnoses of dementia and MCI up to three years before incarceration. Demographics, comorbidities, and duration of incarceration among those with dementia and MCI were compared to those with neither diagnosis.ResultsParticipants were >97% male, 65% non-Hispanic white, 30% non-Hispanic black, and 3.3% had a diagnosis of either dementia (2.5%) or MCI (0.8%) before their most recent incarceration. Individuals with MCI or dementia diagnoses were older, were more likely to be non-Hispanic white, had more medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and experienced homelessness and traumatic brain injury at higher rates than those with neither diagnosis. Average duration of incarceration was significantly shorter among those with MCI (201.8 [±248.0] days) or dementia (312.8 [±548.3] days), as compared to those with neither diagnosis (497.0 [±692.7] days) (p

This study describes physical and mental health of incarcerated males aged ≥50 years who spent at least 20 consecutive years in prison, comparing those with life sentences ("lifers") with those expected to be released/paroled. Data included demographics, chronic medical conditions, self-reported and objective disabilities, depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation (SI), and social support. The 65 participants (Mage = 56.9, SD = 6.6) were racially diverse (40% White, 51% Black, 9% Hispanic/Other), incarcerated for M = 26.6 (SD = 4.5) years, and 34 (52%) were lifers. Among the 39 (60%) of participants with visitors, lifers had lower social support scores (p = .005). After controlling for age, race, and chronic conditions, lifers reported disability in a higher number of activities (p < .001), and had higher depressive symptoms (p = .08) and SI scores (p = .04). Health-related differences between lifers and those expected to be released have implications for prison systems including staff training, advance care planning, and need for expanding prison-based hospice programs.

Distinct challenges exist in the delivery of medical services in correctional facilities, yet little is known about the sources of health information incarcerated patients rely upon to understand and manage their health. Using a nationally representative sample of U.S. incarcerated adults (N = 1,319) from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, we examine patterns in health information seeking behavior. We find incarcerated persons report television (72.9%) and social contacts (61.8%) as their most common sources of health information and use of magazines and books/brochures is significantly related to better health. We argue that asking incarcerated patients how they get health information and using this knowledge to provide them with health information in formats they will use are important steps toward reducing incarcerated individuals' health disparities.

Hospitalized incarcerated patients are commonly shackled throughout their duration of treatment in community medical centers to prevent escape or harm to others. In the absence of overarching policies guiding the shackling of non-pregnant, incarcerated patients, clinicians rarely unshackle patients during routine care. We provide a medical-legal lens through which to examine inpatient shackling, review the limited evidence supporting the practice, and highlight harms associated with shackling in the hospital. We conclude by offering guidance to advance evidence-based shackling practices that prevent physical harm, reduce prejudice towards incarcerated patients, and relinquish reliance on shackles in favor of tailored security measures.

BackgroundIn the US, the median age of adults experiencing homelessness and incarceration is increasing. Little is known about risk factors for incarceration among older adults experiencing homelessness. To develop targeted interventions, there is a need to understand their risk factors for incarceration.ObjectiveTo examine the prevalence and risk factors associated with incarceration in a cohort of older adults experiencing homelessness.DesignProspective, longitudinal cohort study with interviews every 6 months for a median of 5.8 years.ParticipantsWe recruited adults ≥50 years old and homeless at baseline (n=433) via population-based sampling.Main measuresOur dependent variable was incident incarceration, defined as one night in jail or prison per 6-month follow-up period after study enrollment. Independent variables included socioeconomic status, social, health, housing, and prior criminal justice involvement.Key resultsParticipants had a median age of 58 years and were predominantly men (75%) and Black (80%). Seventy percent had at least one chronic medical condition, 12% reported heavy drinking, and 38% endorsed moderate-severe use of cocaine, 8% of amphetamines, and 7% of opioids. At baseline, 84% reported a lifetime history of jail stays; 37% reported prior prison stays. During follow-up, 23% spent time in jail or prison. In multivariable models, factors associated with a higher risk of incarceration included the following: having 6 or more confidants (HR=2.13, 95% CI=1.2-3.7, p=0.007), remaining homeless (HR=1.72, 95% CI=1.1-2.8, p=0.02), heavy drinking (HR=2.05, 95% CI=1.4-3.0, p

Solitary confinement is a widespread practice in US correctional facilities. Long-standing concerns about the physical and mental health effects of solitary confinement have led to litigation, legislation, and community activism resulting in many prison systems introducing policies or implementing legal mandates to reduce or eliminate its use. Yet little is known about the nature and effectiveness of policies that states have adopted to reduce their use of solitary confinement and exactly how various reforms have actually impacted the lives of people living and working in the prisons where these reforms have taken place.MethodsWe conducted an embedded case study, analyzing changes in policies and procedures, administrative data, and focus groups and interviews with incarcerated persons and staff, to describe the circumstances that led to changes in solitary confinement policies and practices in the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (ND DOCR) and the perceived impact of these changes on incarcerated persons and prison staff. .ResultsNorth Dakota's correctional officials and staff members attributed the impetus to change their solitary confinement policies to their participation in a program that directly exposed them to the Norwegian Correctional Service's philosophy, policies, and practices in 2015. The ensuing policy changes made by North Dakota officials were swift and resulted in a 74.28% reduction in the use of solitary confinement between 2016 and 2020. Additionally, placements in any form of restrictive housing decreased markedly for incarcerated persons with serious mental illness. In the two prisons that had solitary confinement units, rule infractions involving violence decreased at one prison overall and it decreased within the units at both prisons that were previously used for solitary confinement. Although fights and assaults between incarcerated people increased in one of the prison's general population units, during the initial months of reforms, these events continued to decline compared to years before reform. Moreover, incarcerated people and staff attributed the rise to a concomitant worsening of conditions in the general population due to overcrowding, idleness, and double bunking. Both incarcerated persons and staff members reported improvements in their health and well-being, enhanced interactions with one another, and less exposure to violence following the reforms.ConclusionsImmersing correctional leaders in the Norwegian Correctional Service' public health and human rights principles motivated and guided the ND DOCR to pursue policy changes to decrease the use of solitary confinement in their prisons. Ensuing reductions in solitary confinement were experienced as beneficial to the health and wellness of incarcerated persons and staff alike. This case-study describes these policy changes and the perspectives of staff and incarcerated persons about the reforms that were undertaken. Findings have implications for stakeholders seeking to reduce their use of solitary confinement and limit its harmful consequences and underscore the need for research to describe and assess the impact of solitary confinement reforms.

The article (Cloud et al., 2021), Cloud, D. H., Augustine, D., Ahalt, C., et al. (2021). “We just needed to open the door”: a case study of the quest to end solitary confinement in North Dakota. Health & Justice, 9(1), 1–25, was published on October 18th, 2021, before authors had received or approved a finalized proof. As a result, the original version had multiple typographical and formatting errors throughout the paper that have since been corrected. The original article (Cloud et al., 2021) has been updated.

BackgroundIn the US, the median age of adults experiencing homelessness and incarceration is increasing. Little is known about risk factors for incarceration among older adults experiencing homelessness. To develop targeted interventions, there is a need to understand their risk factors for incarceration.ObjectiveTo examine the prevalence and risk factors associated with incarceration in a cohort of older adults experiencing homelessness.DesignProspective, longitudinal cohort study with interviews every 6 months for a median of 5.8 years.ParticipantsWe recruited adults ≥50 years old and homeless at baseline (n=433) via population-based sampling.Main measuresOur dependent variable was incident incarceration, defined as one night in jail or prison per 6-month follow-up period after study enrollment. Independent variables included socioeconomic status, social, health, housing, and prior criminal justice involvement.Key resultsParticipants had a median age of 58 years and were predominantly men (75%) and Black (80%). Seventy percent had at least one chronic medical condition, 12% reported heavy drinking, and 38% endorsed moderate-severe use of cocaine, 8% of amphetamines, and 7% of opioids. At baseline, 84% reported a lifetime history of jail stays; 37% reported prior prison stays. During follow-up, 23% spent time in jail or prison. In multivariable models, factors associated with a higher risk of incarceration included the following: having 6 or more confidants (HR=2.13, 95% CI=1.2-3.7, p=0.007), remaining homeless (HR=1.72, 95% CI=1.1-2.8, p=0.02), heavy drinking (HR=2.05, 95% CI=1.4-3.0, p

COVID-19 is ravaging US prisons. Prison residents and staff must be prioritized for vaccination, but a rapidly mutating virus and high rates of continued spread require an urgent, coordinated public health response.Based on knowledge accumulated from the pandemic thus far, we have identified 10 pressing public health priorities for responding to COVID-19 in prisons: (1) accelerate population reduction coupled with community reentry support, (2) improve prison ventilation systems, (3) ensure appropriate mask use, (4) limit transfers between facilities, (5) strengthen partnerships between public health departments and prison leadership, (6) introduce or maintain effective occupational health programs, (7) ensure access to advance care planning processes for incarcerated patients and delineation of patient health care rights, (8) strengthen partnerships between prison leadership and incarcerated people, (9) provide emergency mental health support for prison residents and staff, and (10) commit to public accountability and transparency.Dedicated prison leaders cannot accomplish these public health priorities alone. We must mobilize prison leaders, staff, and residents; public health departments; community advocates; and policymakers to work together to address the pandemic's outsized impact in US prisons.

The COVID-19 pandemic is devastating the health of hundreds of thousands of people who live and work in U.S. jails and prisons. Due to dozens of large outbreaks in correctional facilities, tens of thousands of seriously ill incarcerated people are receiving medical care in the community hospital setting. Yet community clinicians often have little knowledge of the basic rights and ethical principles governing care of seriously ill incarcerated patients. Such patients are legally entitled to make their own medical decisions just like non-incarcerated patients, and retain rights to appoint surrogate decision makers and make advance care plans. Wardens, correctional officers, and prison health care professionals should not make medical decisions for incarcerated patients and should not be asked to do so. Dying incarcerated patients should be offered goodbye visits with their loved ones, and patients from federal prisons are legally entitled to them. Community health care professionals may need to advocate for this medically vulnerable hospitalized patient population to receive ethically appropriate, humane care when under their care in community hospitals. If ethical care is being obstructed, community health care professionals should contact the prison's warden and medical director to explain their concerns and ask questions. If necessary, community clinicians should involve a hospital's ethics committee, leadership, and legal counsel. Correctional medicine experts and legal advocates for incarcerated people can also help community clinicians safeguard the rights of incarcerated patients.

BackgroundAdults age ≥ 50 are among the fastest growing populations in correctional supervision and are medically underserved while experiencing unique health disparities. Community-living older adults, referred to as "justice-involved," are people who have been recently arrested, or are on probation or parole. Although medical complexity is common among incarcerated older adults, the occurrence of medical morbidity, substance use disorder (SUD), and mental illness among justice-involved older adults living in US communities is poorly understood.ObjectiveTo estimate the prevalence of medical multimorbidity (≥ 2 chronic medical diseases), SUDs, and mental illness among justice-involved adults age ≥ 50, and the co-occurrence of these conditions.DesignCross-sectional analysis.ParticipantsA total of 34,898 adults age ≥ 50 from the 2015 to 2018 administrations of the US National Survey on Drug Use and Health.Main measuresDemographic characteristics of justice-involved adults age ≥ 50 were compared with those not justice-involved. We estimated prevalence of mental illness, chronic medical diseases, and SUD among adults age ≥ 50 reporting past-year criminal justice system involvement. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of these conditions and co-occurrence of conditions, comparing justice-involved to non-justice-involved adults.Key resultsAn estimated 1.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1-1.3) of adults age > 50 experienced criminal justice involvement in the past year. Compared with non-justice-involved adults, justice-involved adults were at increased odds for mental illness (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.04, 95% CI = 2.09-4.41) and SUD (aOR = 8.10, 95% CI = 6.12-10.73), but not medical multimorbidity (aOR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.85-1.56). Justice-involved adults were also at increased odds for all combinations of the three outcomes, including having all three simultaneously (aOR = 8.56, 95% CI = 4.10-17.86).ConclusionsCommunity-based middle-aged and older adults involved in the criminal justice system are at high risk for experiencing co-occurring medical multimorbidity, mental illness, and SUD. Interventions that address all three social and medical risk factors are needed for this population.

The large and continued growth of the older adult population within U.S. prisons affects not only criminal justice policy and correctional health practice, but also gerontology. Amidst the unfolding COVID-19 crisis, associated knowledge and skills surrounding older adulthood will be critical to assuring the needs of older adults incarcerated in prisons are met during their detention, while undergoing off-site intervention in community settings, and when preparing for release. We outline several key areas for which gerontologists and associated practitioners are especially well suited in the effort to curtail morbidity and mortality driven by the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. Critical gerontological knowledge and skills needed in prison health care include awareness regarding the unusual clinical presentations of COVID-19 among older adults, deconditioning among older adults due to immobility, challenges in prognostication, and advance care planning with older adults. Specific, targeted opportunities for gerontologists are identified to reduce growing risks for older adults incarcerated in prisons.

This editorial describes why surge planning in the community must account for potential infection outbreaks in jails and prisons, and why incarcerated people and those in contact with them, including over 450,000 correctional officers and thousands of healthcare staff working in prisons, are at significant risk of COVID-19 exposure. We then explain how our nation's jails and prisons will continue to serve as breeding grounds for devastating COVID-19 outcomes and offer specific guidance and a call to action for the immediate development of correctional healthcare strategies designed to protect the health and safety of patients and correctional and healthcare staff and the communities in which they are situated. Correctional officers and correctional healthcare professionals need the nation's reassurance during this dire time that they will not be abandoned and further stigmatized for responding to the needs of incarcerated people. Our collective health depends on it.

In the face of the continually worsening COVID-19 pandemic, jails and prisons have become the greatest vectors of community transmission and are a point of heightened crisis and fear within the global crisis. Critical public health tools to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 are medical isolation and quarantine, but use of these tools is complicated in prisons and jails where decades of overuse of punitive solitary confinement is the norm. This has resulted in advocates denouncing the use of any form of isolation and attorneys litigating to end its use. It is essential to clarify the critical differences between punitive solitary confinement and the ethical use of medical isolation and quarantine during a pandemic. By doing so, then all those invested in stopping the spread of COVID-19 in prisons can work together to integrate medically sound, humane forms of medical isolation and quarantine that follow community standards of care rather than punitive forms of solitary confinement to manage COVID-19.

BACKGROUND:The number of older adults on parole and probation is growing at an unprecedented rate, yet little is known about the mental health needs and treatment utilization patterns among this group. The objective of this study is to compare the prevalence of serious or moderate mental illness (SMMI), and the proportion of those with SMMI who receive mental health treatment, among community-dwelling older adults on correctional supervision (parole or probation) vs. not on correctional supervision. METHODS:Design: Cross-sectional analysis of data from the 2008-2014 National Surveys for Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). SETTING:Population-based national survey data. PARTICIPANTS:Older adults (age ≥ 50) who participated in the NSDUH between 2008 and 2014 (n = 44,624). Participants were categorized according to whether they were on parole or probation during the 12 months prior to survey completion (n = 379) vs. not (n = 44,245). MEASUREMENTS:Probable SMMI was defined using a validated measure in the NSDUH. Mental health treatment included any outpatient mental health services or prescriptions over the 12 months prior to survey completion. We compared the prevalence of SMMI, and the proportion of those with SMMI who received any treatment, by correctional status. RESULTS:Overall, 7% (N = 3266) of participants had SMMI; the prevalence was disproportionately higher among those on parole or probation (21% vs. 7%, p

ImportanceDifficulty performing daily activities such as bathing and dressing ("functional impairment") affects nearly 15% of middle-aged adults. Older adults who develop such difficulties, often because of frailty and other age-related conditions, are at increased risk of acute care use, nursing home admission, and death. However, it is unknown if functional impairments that develop among middle-aged people, which may have different antecedents, have similar prognostic significance.ObjectiveTo determine whether middle-aged individuals who develop functional impairment are at increased risk for hospitalization, nursing home admission, and death.Design, setting, and participantsThis matched cohort study analyzed longitudinal data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative prospective cohort study of US adults. The study population included 5540 adults aged 50 to 56 years who did not have functional impairment at study entry in 1992, 1998, or 2004. Participants were followed biennially through 2014. Individuals who developed functional impairment between 50 and 64 years were matched by age, sex, and survey wave with individuals without impairment as of that age and survey wave. Statistical analysis was conducted from March 15, 2017, to December 11, 2018.ExposuresImpairment in activities of daily living (ADLs), defined as self-reported difficulty performing 1 or more ADLs, and impairment in instrumental ADLs (IADLs), defined similarly.Main outcomes and measuresThe 3 primary outcomes were time from the first episode of functional impairment (or matched survey wave, in controls) to hospitalization, nursing home admission, and death. Follow-up assessments occurred every 2 years until 2014. Competing risks survival analysis was used to assess the association of functional impairment with hospitalization and nursing home admission and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to assess the association with death.ResultsOf the 5540 study participants (2739 women and 2801 men; median age, 53.7 years [interquartile range, 52.3-55.2 years]), 1097 (19.8%) developed ADL impairment between 50 and 64 years, and 857 (15.5%) developed IADL impairment. Individuals with ADL impairment had an increased risk of each adverse outcome compared with those without impairment, including hospitalization (subhazard ratio, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.77-2.19), nursing home admission (subhazard ratio, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.99-3.45), and death (hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.74-2.45). After multivariable adjustment, the risks of hospitalization (subhazard ratio, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.36-1.75) and nursing home admission (subhazard ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.24-2.43) remained significantly higher among individuals with ADL impairment, but the risk of death was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.32). Individuals with IADL impairment had an increased risk of all 3 outcomes in adjusted and unadjusted analyses.Conclusions and relevanceSimilar to older adults, middle-aged adults who develop functional impairment appear to be at increased risk for adverse outcomes. Even among relatively young people, functional impairment has important clinical implications.

ContextDeaths among incarcerated individuals have steadily increased in the U.S., exceeding 5000 in 2014. Nearly every state has a policy to allow patients with serious life-limiting illness to apply for release from prison or jail to die in the community ("early medical release"). Although studies show these policies are rarely used, patient-level barriers to their use are unknown.ObjectivesTo assess incarcerated patients' knowledge of early medical release policies and to identify patient-level barriers to accessing these policies.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of 46 male patients in two state prisons and one large urban jail who had visited a primary care provider at least three times within three months was conducted.ResultsParticipants' average age was 64 years, and 89% had more than one chronic illness. Fewer than half (43%) demonstrated the knowledge needed to apply for early medical release and 22% demonstrated no relevant knowledge. Participants with sufficient knowledge were significantly more likely to endorse anxiety (35% vs. 0%, P = .003) and loneliness (65% vs. 30%, P = .017).ConclusionMany medically complex incarcerated patients in this study did not demonstrate sufficient knowledge to apply for early medical release suggesting that patient education may help expand access to these policies. Moreover, seriously ill patients with knowledge of early medical release may benefit from enhanced psychosocial support given their disproportionate burdens of anxiety and loneliness. Our findings highlight the pressing need for larger studies to assess whether improved patient education and support can expand access to early medical release.

Background/objectivesTo optimize health and well-being for all older people, we must collectively develop leaders to pioneer models of care, educate the healthcare workforce, advance research, and engage the community.MethodsThe Emerging Leaders in Aging (ELIA) program was created to train a multiprofessional cadre of leaders focused on the health and well-being of older people. ELIA uses the social change curricular framework and addresses knowledge of self, community, and engagement with change. Program impact measured included scholar satisfaction, confidence related to curricular domains before and after the program, project progress, and scholar productivity.ResultsFour cohorts of 65 scholars in seven health professions from 24 states were selected for the year-long 55-hour program. Overall satisfaction from members of the first three cohorts who have completed the program (n = 46) was 4.86 (scale = 1-5), and scholar confidence increased from 5.8 to 8.0 (scale = 1-9) (p < .001). These scholars reported 85 presentations, 63 publications, and 21 awards subsequent to training. All scholars described the importance of a program focused on early and mid-career leaders in health and aging.DiscussionThe ELIA program leverages longitudinal, distance mentor communities, and project-based learning strategies. It has improved confidence and skills in emerging leaders who commit their efforts toward the care of older persons. Programs like ELIA are critical to preparing a healthcare workforce to optimize care for all as our health needs and expectations change with age. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:437-442, 2019.

ObjectivesTo investigate correctional healthcare providers' knowledge of and experience with advance care planning (ACP), their perspectives on barriers to ACP in correctional settings, and how to overcome those barriers.DesignQualitative.SettingFour prisons in 2 states and 1 large city jail in a third state.ParticipantsCorrectional healthcare providers (e.g., physicians, nurses, social workers; N=24).ResultsParticipants demonstrated low baseline ACP knowledge; 85% reported familiarity with ACP, but only 42% provided accurate definitions. Fundamental misconceptions included the belief that providers provided ACP without soliciting inmate input. Multiple ACP barriers were identified, many of which are unique to prison and jail facilities, including provider uncertainty about the legal validity of ACP documents in prison or jail, inmate mistrust of the correctional healthcare system, inmates' isolation from family and friends, and institutional policies that restrict use of ACP. Clinicians' suggestions for overcoming those barriers included ACP training for clinicians, creating psychosocial support opportunities for inmates, revising policies that limit ACP, and systematically integrating ACP into healthcare practice.ConclusionDespite an increasing number of older and seriously ill individuals in prisons and jails, many correctional healthcare providers lack knowledge about ACP. In addition to ACP barriers found in the community, there are unique barriers to ACP in prisons and jails. Future research and policy innovation are needed to develop clinical training programs and identify ACP implementation strategies for use in correctional settings. J Am Geriatr Soc 66:2382-2388, 2018.

BackgroundWords matter when describing people involved in the criminal justice system because language can have a significant impact upon health, wellbeing, and access to health information and services. However, terminology used in policies, programs, and research publications is often derogatory, stigmatizing, and dehumanizing.DiscussionIn response, health experts from Europe, the United States, and Australia recommend that healthcare professionals, researchers, and policy makers working with people in detention follow key principles that foster constructive and humanizing language. These principles include: engage people and respect their preferences; use stigma-free and accurate language; prioritize individuals over their characteristics; and cultivate self-awareness. The article offers examples of problematic terms to be avoided because they do not convey respect for incarcerated people and propose preferred wording which requires contextualization to local language, culture, and environment.ConclusionThe use of respectful and appropriate language is a cornerstone of reducing harm and suffering when working with people involved in the criminal justice system; the use of stigmatizing and dehumanizing language must therefore come to an end.

BACKGROUND:The number of older adults in the criminal justice system is rapidly increasing. While this population is thought to experience an early onset of aging-related health conditions ("accelerated aging"), studies have not directly compared rates of geriatric conditions in this population to those found in the general population. The aims of this study were to compare the burden of geriatric conditions among older adults in jail to rates found in an age-matched nationally representative sample of community dwelling older adults. METHODS:This cross sectional study compared 238 older jail inmates age 55 or older to 6871 older adults in the national Health and Retirement Study (HRS). We used an age-adjusted analysis, accounting for the difference in age distributions between the two groups, to compare sociodemographics, chronic conditions, and geriatric conditions (functional, sensory, and mobility impairment). A second age-adjusted analysis compared those in jail to HRS participants in the lowest quintile of wealth. RESULTS:All geriatric conditions were significantly more common in jail-based participants than in HRS participants overall and HRS participants in the lowest quintile of net worth. Jail-based participants (average age of 59) experienced four out of six geriatric conditions at rates similar to those found in HRS participants age 75 or older. CONCLUSIONS:Geriatric conditions are prevalent in older adults in jail at significantly younger ages than non-incarcerated older adults suggesting that geriatric assessment and geriatric-focused care are needed for older adults cycling through jail in their 50s and that correctional clinicians require knowledge about geriatric assessment and care.

ObjectivesTo determine prevalence of, and outcomes associated with, a positive screen for cognitive impairment in older adults in jail.DesignCombined data from cross-sectional (n=185 participants) and longitudinal (n=125 participants) studies.SettingUrban county jail.ParticipantsIndividuals in jail aged 55 and older (N = 310; mean age 59, range 55-80). Inclusion of individuals aged 55 and older is justified because the criminal justice system defines "geriatric prisoners" as those aged 55 and older.MeasurementsBaseline and follow-up assessments of health, psychosocial factors, and cognitive status (using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)); 6-month acute care use and repeat arrest assessed in those followed longitudinally.ResultsParticipants were of low socioeconomic status (85% annual income

BackgroundOlder black and Latino Americans are more likely than white Americans to die in the hospital. Whether ethnic differences in expectation of death account for this disparity is unknown.ObjectivesTo determine whether surviving family members' expectation of death has a differential association with site of death according to race or ethnicity.MethodsWe conducted an analysis of decedents from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative study of US older adults. Telephone surveys were conducted with family members for 5979 decedents (decedents were 55% were women, 85% white, 9% black, and 6% Latino). The outcome of interest was death in the hospital; the predictor variable was race/ethnicity, and the intervening variable was expectation of death. Covariates included sociodemographics (gender, age, household net worth, educational attainment level, religion) and health factors (chronic conditions, symptoms, health-care utilization).ResultsDecedents' race/ethnicity was statistically related to the expectation of death and death in the hospital. When death was not expected, whites and Latinos were more likely to die in the hospital than when death was expected (49% vs 29% for whites and 55% vs 37% for Latinos; P < .001). There was no difference in site of death according to family's expectation of death among blacks.ConclusionExpectation of death did not fully account for site of death and played a greater role among whites and Latinos than among black Americans. Discussing prognosis by itself is unlikely to address ethnic disparities. Other factors appear to play an important role as well.

Although the number of older adults who are arrested and subject to incarceration in jail is rising dramatically, little is known about their emergency department (ED) use or the factors associated with that use. This lack of knowledge impairs the ability to design evidence-based approaches to care that would meet the needs of this population. This 6-month longitudinal study aimed to determine the frequency of 6-month ED use among 101 adults aged 55 or older enrolled while in jail and to identify factors associated with that use. The primary outcome was self-reported emergency department use within 6 months from baseline. Additional measures included baseline socio-demographics, physical and mental health conditions, geriatric factors (e.g., recent falls, incontinence, functional impairment, concern about post-release safety), symptoms (pain and other symptoms), and behavioral and social health risk factors (e.g., substance use disorders, recent homelessness). Chi-square tests were used to identify baseline factors associated with ED use over 6 months. Participants (average age 60) reported high rates of multimorbidity (61%), functional impairment (57%), pain (52%), serious mental illness (44%), recent homelessness (54%), and/or substance use disorders (69%). At 6 months, 46% had visited the ED at least once; 21% visited multiple times. Factors associated with ED use included multimorbidity (p = 0.01), functional impairment (p = 0.02), hepatitis C infection (p = 0.01), a recent fall (p = 0.03), pain (p

Incarcerated individuals, over 95% of whom are eventually released, experience high burdens of chronic disease and behavioral health and social risk factors. Understanding the health needs of this population is critical to ensuring that general medicine physicians in prisons and in the community are adequately prepared to meet those needs. However, people in prison are significantly underrepresented in health research. In response to historical exploitation of prisoners in medical experimentation, federal guidelines appropriately require additional oversight for, and limit the scope of, research in prisons. Yet, according to a 2006 Institute of Medicine report, these requirements have produced inconsistent local regulations that often limit opportunities for incarcerated individuals to participate in research, and can slow the development of innovative medical interventions to improve their health. In this article, we describe the historical context surrounding regulations on research involving individuals in prison, the harms that can arise from excessive limitations to research in such settings, and the benefits of greater access to ethically conducted research in prison. We conclude with recommended actions that can be taken by general medicine researchers, correctional leaders, and policymakers to achieve consistent access to health research for incarcerated populations.

ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness of patient navigation-enhanced case management in supporting engagement in HIV care upon release from jail relative to existing services.MethodsWe randomized 270 HIV-infected individuals to receive navigation-enhanced case management for 12 months or standard case management for 90 days following release from jail between 2010 and 2013. Participants were interviewed at 2, 6, and 12 months after release. We abstracted medical data from jail and city health records.ResultsPatient navigation-enhanced case management resulted in greater linkage to care within 30 days of release (odds ratio [OR] = 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23, 3.75) and consistent retention over 12 months (OR = 1.95; 95% CI = 1.11, 3.46). Receipt of treatment for substance use disorders in jail also resulted in early linkage (OR = 4.06; 95% CI = 1.93, 8.53) and retention (OR = 2.52; 95% CI = 1.21, 5.23). Latinos were less likely to be linked to (OR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.14, 0.91) or retained in (OR = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.09, 0.82) HIV care.ConclusionsPatient navigation supports maintaining engagement in care and can mitigate health disparities, and should become the standard of care for HIV-infected individuals leaving jail.