Forensic mental health nursing (FMHN) is a subspeciality of psychiatric nursing. An area of mental health nursing care that is situated at the intersection of health, social and criminal justice systems. Over the past two decades, FMHN has evolved beyond custodial and containment practice. Contemporary FMHN has an emphasis on therapeutic interventions, identifying patients as partners in care and nursed through a trauma-informed, recovery-orientated lens. Numerous scholars have examined the role of the FMHN and its inherent complexities. However, much of the existing literature is outdated and is limited in scope, describing the role and responsibilities of an FMHN relevant to contemporary practice. This paper maps the literature over the last 20 years to establish what explicitly defines the modern FMHN, specifically examining factors that have shaped the role and influenced patient outcomes and care delivery; including areas of good practice.

In line with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance on scoping reviews, including Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) five-step framework, we will conduct a search within MEDLINE (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (Ovid) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library. The first author conducted a preliminary search in October 2024 to identify literature in this area and a review of keywords to develop the foundation search strategy. The search strategy was constructed in the MEDLINE (EBSCO) database May 2025 by the lead author and an information specialist/librarian. Eligibility criteria of publications written in English, with a date range of 2004–2024, including the first quarter of 2025, forensic mental health nurse population and secure inpatient settings. All extracted literature will be exported into EndNote V.21 in order to support the removal of duplicates and assist in the screening and selection process. A two-step data selection process will include stage one, where two authors independently conduct a preliminary title and abstract screen of all extracted data using a data extraction instrument developed per JBI scoping review guidance. Each paper will be categorised as ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘maybe’. Step two: All documents categorised as ‘yes’ or ‘maybe’ will undergo a full-text screening. Narrative summaries and tables will present the results in full.

This scoping review will analyse existing published data; therefore, ethical approval is not required. The findings of this review will be presented at local and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. The formal search will commence in June 2025, with an aim to submit in full for peer-review publication by October 2025.

A consensus study to establish a Core Outcome Set for dysarthria after stroke identified four key outcome domains that should be measured in research and clinical practice: (1) intelligibility of speech, (2) ability to participate in conversations, (3) living well with dysarthria and (4) communication partners skills and knowledge (where relevant). This review aimed to systematically identify corresponding measurement instruments and to examine their clinical utility and psychometric properties.

Systematic review conducted in alignment with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycInfo and Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, Linguistics and Language Behavioral Abstracts (LLBA). Major trials registers: WHO ICTRP, ISRCTN registry and ClinicalTrials.gov searched March 2024.

We included trials that developed or used measurement instruments for poststroke dysarthria. We identified studies that could be included in an update of the Cochrane systematic review of interventions for non-progressive dysarthria to identify what measurement instruments were used in therapy trials for poststroke dysarthria.

Records were screened independently by three authors. Psychometric data were extracted, by two authors, from included studies and methodological quality was evaluated using Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) and Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) guidance. Assessment of clinical utility followed Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) guidance.

Following screening, 19 publications reporting 12 measurement instruments were identified. According to COSMIN standards, all 19 publications were rated as having low, very low or unknown quality of evidence. Three measurement instruments were identified as having the most relevant clinical utility to the population, the highest quality of evidence and had the potential to measure some specific aspects from three of the four agreed domains, intelligibility, conversations and living well with dysarthria from the patient and clinician perspective. These were the Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment II, the Communication Outcomes After Stroke Scale and the Therapy Outcome Measures for Dysarthria.

This review provides a comprehensive overview and appraisal of dysarthria measurement instruments to align with a Core Outcome Set. We only included English language-based measurement instruments. Many dysarthria measurement instruments were developed for non-stroke populations, including progressive dysarthria, with limited psychometric data for stroke. Measurement instruments with uncertain quality of evidence can still be considered for inclusion with a Core Outcome Set and three have been suggested. There is a need for further psychometric testing of these and the development of new measurement instruments to cover all aspects of intelligibility, conversations, living well with dysarthria and communication partner skills.

CRD42022302998.