The purpose of this paper is to “read across” a sample of domestic homicide reviews (DHRs), mental health homicide reviews (MHHRs) and adult practice reviews (APR) to identify the cross-cutting themes.
The study involved a qualitative comparative analysis of 20 Welsh reviews: 10 DHRs, 6 APRs and 4 MHHRs. Each review was triple coded by a multi-disciplinary team of researchers (representing criminology, social work and law).
Five overarching themes were identified from this diverse sample of cases: crossing boundaries, including transitions between services and geographical boundaries; hoodwinking, where there was manipulation of the presentation of self; faulty assessment, which was not always holistic and only based on certain aspects of behaviour; tunnel vision, resulting from the initial underpinning narrative rarely being challenged; and knowledge, with certain types being privileged over others, especially professional over that of families and para-professionals.
Further research into death reviews should adopt a comparative, multi-disciplinary approach.
The research highlights the possibility for duplication across the different types of reviews. Further, it suggests that review processes could be streamlined.
Five cross-cutting themes have been developed through the very first study “reading across” three types of reviews (DHRs, APRs and MHHRs). Findings suggest the need for streamlining review processes and highlight the importance of adopting a multi-disciplinary perspective when researching death reviews.
