scholarly journals A haven for an extremely disturbed young person

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S116-S117
Author(s):  
Rummana Khan

ObjectiveThe reason to share this case is to high light the lack of resources in mental health services which can delay the provision of appropriate care and this can have negative impact on child health outcomes.BackgroundA 10-year-old boy was referred to CAMHS. He presented with extremely challenging behaviours. After first appointment with CAMHS he attacked his father and nurses. He had to be restrained multiple times. He started to use wooden chair as a weapon, threatened to harm others and threatened to urinate on staff. He tried to kill him-self by ligature. Mental health act assessment was completed and when a decision was reached that detention under the mental health act was appropriate, no appropriate bed was available. He was admitted under Section II of MHA to paediatric ward where he remained for one week (with 2:1 CAMHS support). Then he was transferred to an inpatient CAMHS unit which was commissioned for children over 12 years of age. At a later date mental health tribunal panel upheld the section. After few days he was transferred to an age appropriate in-patient mental health bed. He stayed there for roughly 6 months and was discharged with a diagnosis of ADHD and Autistic Spectrum Disorder. There was a long delay in discharge, until appropriate specialist residential placement could be identified and he was transferred there. He is well settled now in the placement.Case reportLegal advice was later taken on this case. MHA 1983, Human Rights Act, Children Act 1989, Criminal Law Act 1967 and Code of Practice 2015 were considered and it was agreed that it was appropriate to use MHA 1983. There was discussion whether the Children Act could be relied on instead, but in view of the fact that repeated restrain was required, he was in seclusion and possibility of need for rapid tranquilization post admission the decision was made to use the mental health act.ConclusionThis case has highlighted a significant problem and calls for an urgent action to increase the number of inpatient age appropriate mental health beds and number of appropriate residential placements nationally. It has also been identified that application of legal frame work in children and adolescents can be a challenge and there is a need for targeted educational programmes for professionals on the use of legal frame work in children and adolescents.

1986 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 220-222
Author(s):  
Lord Colville

Professor Bluglass has recently written in the Bulletin on this subject. Articles have also appeared in the British Medical Journal by Dr Hamilton and Professor Kendell. Comments were invited on both documents: to the DHSS on the Code and to MHAC on their paper. To judge by the articles referred to, clarification of the background to and function of both documents is urgently needed.


1987 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-67

It was felt that Members of the College would be interested to see the comments of the British Medical Association and the Joint Co-ordinating Committee (The Medical Protection Society, The Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland and the Medical Defence Union) on the Mental Health Act 1983 Draft Code of Practice. The comments of the College were published in the Bulletin, August 1986, 10, 194–195.


1996 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 733-735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Buller ◽  
David Storer ◽  
Rachel Bennett

Detention of general hospital in-patients under Section 5(2) is a rare occurrence. This study of the use of Section 5(2) in general hospitals uncovered a frequent neglect in following the guidelines of The Mental Health Act and The Code of Practice. Surprisingly the conversion rate of Section 5(2) to Section 2 or 3 was similar to that seen in a number of other studies conducted in the quite different setting of large psychiatric hospitals. A number of patient characteristics were identified that appeared to influence whether 5(2)s were converted to an admission Section. Each general hospital needs to develop guidelines to be followed when staff feel that a patient should be detained under Section 5(2) – an example of such a policy is included.


2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 64-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nasser Loza ◽  
Mohamed El Nawawi

This paper first briefly reviews the history of psychiatric services in Egypt. It then details the legislation in place during the last years of the Mubarak regime and goes on to set out recent developments, in particular the Code of Practice introduced for the Mental Health Act of 2009.


BMJ ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 292 (6537) ◽  
pp. 1742-1742
Author(s):  
T J Crow

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Branton ◽  
Guy Brookes

SummaryThis article deals with the provisions for the lawful detention and compulsory treatment of patients in England and Wales. The 2007 amendments to the Mental Health Act 1983 redefine ‘mental disorder’ and ‘medical treatment’ and remove the classifications required for longer-term detention, abolishing the so-called ‘treatability test’ and introducing a new appropriate-treatment test. ‘Learning disability’ is brought within the definition of mental disorder but only if ‘associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct’. The exclusion for promiscuity, other immoral conduct or sexual deviancy is repealed; the exclusion for dependence on alcohol and drugs is retained. The revised definition of ‘medical treatment’ includes psychological treatment and removes the requirement that treatment is under medical supervision. The basic structure of the 1983 Act is retained. Use of the powers is discretionary. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are imported into the decision-making framework through the wording of the Mental Health ActCode of Practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document