scholarly journals Pattern of hospital admission before and following the Mental Health Act 1983

1989 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 182-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. K. Durani ◽  
R. Ford
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychiatric Practice ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Mental Impairment ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Holding Power ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Age Limits ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Psychopathic Disorder

The Mental Health Act brought a number of signficant changes to psychiatric practice. Among the most important were changes in the process of compulsory admissions. Other notable alterations have been a change in the definition of the nearest relative; a reduction in duration of treatment section by a half; a right to appeal against their detention by all patients; the observation section becoming an assessment and treatment section; the introduction of nurses holding power; the removal of age limits for admission of patients with psychopathic disorder and mental impairment, and the introduction of the treatability clause. These and other important differences could be expected to interact with social work and psychiatric practice to influence the number of compulsory admissions. Previous correspondence has examined this question, to which we add our findings.

The use of guardianship in mental handicap services

1995 ◽  
Vol 19 (12) ◽  
pp. 725-727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Whitworth ◽  
Shashi Singhal
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Mentally Handicapped ◽  
Mental Impairment ◽  
Mental Handicap ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Health Districts

There has been little published on the use of Guardianship Orders in mental handicap (the term ‘mental handicap’ is used rather than ‘people with learning disability’ to avoid ambiguity). Its use in the mental handicap services in four health districts in the Mersey region was surveyed. The study was retrospective, covering a five year period ending August 1994. Guardianship was used on ten occasions. Health professionals have been divided over the interpretation of the definition of “mental impairment” in the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983. They have tended to exclude many mentally handicapped adults who do not, in their opinion, exhibit “abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct”. It is clearly shown by our study that some health professionals are willing to classify self-neglect and vulnerability as “seriously irresponsible conduct”, thererefore allowing wider usage of the order.

Psychosurgery and the Mental Health Act Commission

1984 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 146-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul K. Bridges
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Special Interest ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Assessment And Treatment

It was fully anticipated that the Mental Health Act Commission would take special interest in psychosurgery, and Section 57 is clearly intended to supervise this form of therapy. The Chairman of the Commission, Lord Colville, considerately arranged a visit to our Unit shortly after the implementation of the Act, and this proved to be a most useful meeting. Obviously we were ready to give any help or advice needed, based on our experience of over 1,100 operations carried out over about 20 years. Our world-unique unit has eight beds specifically for the assessment and treatment of patients referred for psychosurgery, although intensive antidepressant medication is sometimes used successfully in order to avoid psychosurgery.

The law

2009 ◽  
pp. 459-498
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Compulsory Admission ◽  
Sexual Offences ◽  
Disability Discrimination ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Disability Discrimination Act ◽  
Health Review

Mental Health Act 1983 460 Mental Health Act 2007 462 Compulsory admission to hospital for assessment and treatment 464 Emergency holding powers 466 Mental Health Review Tribunals 468 The Mental Health Act Commission 470 Sexual Offences Act 472 Disability Discrimination Act 2005 474 Human Rights Act ...

scholarly journals The case for removing intellectual disability and autism from the Mental Health Act

2019 ◽  
Vol 215 (5) ◽  
pp. 633-635
Author(s):  
Sheila Hollins ◽  
Keri-Michèle Lodge ◽  
Paul Lomax
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Serious Mental Illnesses

SummaryIntellectual disability (also known as learning disability in UK health services) and autism are distinct from the serious mental illnesses for which the Mental Health Act is designed to be used. Their inclusion in the definition of mental disorder is discriminatory, resulting in unjust deprivations of liberty. Intellectual disability and autism should be excluded from the Mental Health Act.Declaration of interestNone.

Doctors' Holding Power in Practice: Section 5(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983

1995 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
A D Hall ◽  
B K Puri ◽  
T Stewart ◽  
P S Grahame
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychotic Disorder ◽  
Psychiatric Service ◽  
Patient Admission ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Affective Psychosis ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Holding Power ◽  
Large Catchment

Section 5(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (England and Wales) is a commonly used short term power of detention often implemented by junior medical staff, which has no statutory right of appeal. There is little published analysis of its use in clinical practice. A detailed case note study of its use in a psychiatric service with a large catchment area is presented. Fifty-seven per cent of the patients detained under s.5(2) were female. Affective psychosis was over-represented in detained females, while schizophrenia and paranoid states were over-represented in males. Eight per cent of s.5(2) detentions were initiated via the nurses' holding power, s.5(4). None of these patients were subsequently regraded to s.2 or 3, which may be accounted for by the finding that personality disorder and alcohol dependence were more commonly diagnosed in this subgroup. Of s.5(2) detainees, none of those with a non-psychotic disorder were regraded to s.2 or 3. Three patients had not accepted in-patient admission prior to implementation of s.5(2). Moreover, 38 per cent of all s.5(2) detentions took place within 24 hours of admission. Patients with a psychotic disorder were more likely to be detained within 24 hours of admission. Doubts regarding the validity of consent to voluntary admission in these patients are raised.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document