scholarly journals Training for approval under Section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983

2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Brown ◽  
Martin Humphreys
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Clinical Governance ◽  
Educational Aims ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Fit For Purpose ◽  
Factual Content ◽  
Event Based ◽  
Continual Learning

The history and meaning of doctors' approval by the Secretary of State under Section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 is discussed. The definition for approval is examined with relevant rulings on interpretation. Training requisites of such doctors are examined, outlining a framework of educational aims and objectives, with suggestions for delivery. The aims must include direct factual content and also the skills, values and attitudes required for humane and consistent practice. The particular needs of some specific groups and individuals are highlighted. The continual learning for updating skills and knowledge, including event-based learning, audit and reflection, is placed in the context of clinical governance wherein doctors must ensure that they continue to be ‘fit for purpose’. The case is made for ‘nationalisation’ of the syllabus and standards.

A structured process for reviewing the operation of the Mental Health Act 2001 in an Irish mental health service

2013 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-134
Author(s):  
M. Mulligan ◽  
T. Maher ◽  
J. V. Lucey
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Clinical Governance ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Monitoring Tools ◽  
Monitoring Process ◽  
Governance Committee ◽  
Key Events

This paper provides a description of a structured template which allows review of the operation of the Mental Health Act 2001 at St Patrick's Mental Health Services (incorporating St Patrick's University Hospital, St Edmundsbury Hospital and Willow Grove Adolescent Unit). These structured processes were implemented to ensure rigorous monitoring of all clinical governance activities associated with adherence to the Mental Health Act (MHA) 2001. The paper describes in detail the information contained in the St Patrick's Mental Health Services dashboard for 2012. The dashboard displays the key performance indicators that are monitored and the paper describes how these were reviewed by the Hospital's Clinical Governance Committee on a weekly basis for the three approved centres. The dashboard has also been used by the Clinical Governance Committee to provide ongoing education and engagement with staff in order to improve the operation of the MHA 2001. The use of this structured monitoring process has allowed the hospital to measure adherence to the MHA 2001 and also to measure activities that impact directly on the care and treatment of patients detained under the Act. The use of structured monitoring tools (i.e. the dashboard) to review the operation of the MHA 2001 allows for coherent observation of key events and issues which can cause concern in terms of the operation of the Act.

Section 48: an underused provision?

1992 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Exworthy ◽  
Janet M. Parrott ◽  
Paul K. Bridges
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Mental Impairment ◽  
The Past ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Secretary Of State

Section 48 of the Mental Health Act, 1983 (MHA) permits the Secretary of State to authorise the removal to hospital of an unsentenced prisoner who is ‘suffering from mental illness or severe mental impairment of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment and that he is in urgent need of such treatment’. (Mental Health Act, 1983). Its common usage in the past has been in transfers of unsentenced prisoners from prison to hospital.

scholarly journals Section 12 approval: fit for purpose?

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 251-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Rigby ◽  
Lynsey McAlpine
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Royal College ◽  
Summative Assessment ◽  
Learning Objectives ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Knowledge And Skills ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Fit For Purpose ◽  
Educational Perspective ◽  
The Uk

SummaryIn light of the increasing numbers of detentions of mentally unwell patients in the UK and the recent review of the Mental Health Act, this editorial seeks to analyse the process of Section 12 approval of doctors from a medical educational perspective. We compare the approval mechanisms with assessments in other specialities and suggest evidence-based improvements. We believe that a rethinking of the Royal College of Psychiatrists' learning objectives for Section 12 approval and the introduction of a summative assessment would improve the knowledge and skills of clinicians performing an important and scrutinised role within our society.

scholarly journals Section 75(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 is compliant with Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights…just

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (17) ◽  
pp. 88
Author(s):  
Roger Pezzani ◽  
Stephen Simblet
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Article 5

<p>R (Daniel Rayner) v Secretary of State for Justice</p><p>[2008] EWCA Civ 176</p>

scholarly journals Mental Health Act Commission

1989 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 309-310
Author(s):  
Louis Blom-Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
The Third ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Natural Outcome ◽  
And Function ◽  
Role And Function

A review of the role and function of the Mental Health Act Commission is a natural outcome of the first five years experience of its workings. By the Autumn, when the third Biennial Report will be published, the new direction and operation of the Commission will be determined by the Secretary of State for Health on the basis of the recommendations of the review. It is too early to indicate the changes that are likely to be wrought by this development. It is possible, however, to reflect on the activities to date.

scholarly journals Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983: Squandering an Opportunity?

2014 ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Jill Peay
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Time Scale ◽  
Expert Advice ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Expert Committee ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Secretary Of State

<p align="LEFT">This article compares and contrasts two recently published documents: the Report of the Expert Committee (chaired by Professor Genevra Richardson) entitled ‘Review of the Mental Health Act 1983’, and ‘Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 - Proposals for Consultation’.</p><p align="LEFT">Whilst both documents were published in November 1999 under the remit of the Department of Health, the Richardson Report preceded the Green Paper. It was delivered in July 1999 to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health, John Hutton. The Richardson Committee had been established in September 1998 by the DoH in order to provide them with expert advice. The Committee was serviced by the DoH. Accordingly, the contents of the final report would have come as no surprise to them, since they had themselves been fully exposed to the developing reasoning of Richardson. In publishing their own Green Paper some four months later, the DoH had had an opportunity to reflect upon the final Richardson Report. Nonetheless, some might argue that, given the time-scale involved in the production of other similar documents in the field, this rush to a Green Paper was unseemly and unwise. Moreover, since it departs markedly from the recommendations of Richardson, one might argue that the pressure to produce has been, and will prove, counter-productive.</p>

scholarly journals A Successor Body to the Mental Health Act Commission

2014 ◽  
pp. 157
Author(s):  
Margaret Clayton
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
Second Opinion ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Health Improvement ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Patient Advocate ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Local Quality

<p>“The Mental Health Act Commission (MHAC) has a major role in protecting the interests of patients<br />who are subject to the provisions of the 1983 Act. Its principal functions are to:<br />• appoint Second Opinion Appointed Doctors<br />• review treatments given under sections 57(2) or 58(3)(b) of the Act, ie treatment that requires a second opinion<br />• visit detained patients and investigate complaints<br />• keep under review the exercise of statutory powers relating to detained patients<br />• submit proposals for a code of practice<br />• look into matters relating to informal patients, when directed to do so by the Secretary of State,<br />and<br />• report to the Secretary of State every two years on the operation of the Act.”</p><p>This is the summary of the functions of the MHAC contained in the Green Paper on Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983. In this brave new world of the Modern NHS, with much enhanced arrangements for local quality assurance and clinical governance, the Commission for Health Improvement, the Commission for Care Standards, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the establishment of Patient Advocate and Liaison Services, and the numerous other ways of increasing patient participation which are outlined in the National Plan for England, is a successor body to the Mental Health Act Commission really necessary ?</p>

scholarly journals Judicial recognition of the status of the Code of Practice

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (10) ◽  
pp. 66
Author(s):  
Anna Harding
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The Status ◽  
Appeal Decision ◽  
Judicial Recognition ◽  
Court Of Appeal

<p><em>R (on the application of Colonel Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust; S v Airedale NHS Trust</em></p><p><em>Interested Parties: 1) Secretary of State for Health; 2) Mind</em></p><p><em>[2003] EWCA Civ 1036 Court of Appeal (16th July 2003) Lord Phillips MR, Hale LJ, and Latham LJ</em></p><p>This is the Court of Appeal decision in two cases which raised questions about the status of the Mental Health Act Code of Practice. Although both cases concerned the use of seclusion, the judgment is likely to have a significant impact on any matter covered by the Code. At first instance Stanley Burnton J and Sullivan J had each held that the Code was merely guidance to which Trusts should have regard but from which they could depart. Such departure would only be unlawful if it was Wednesbury unreasonable.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document