scholarly journals General practitioners' referrals for compulsory admission under the Mental Health Act, II: the process of assessment

1992 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 139-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Sheppard
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Social Worker ◽  
Emergency Admission ◽  
Compulsory Admission ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Process And Outcome ◽  
The Law ◽  
Medical Recommendations

This is the second of two articles on GP referrals for compulsory admission, and seeks to examine the process and outcome of assessment by (a) comparing GP with other section assessment referrals and (b) comparing GP referrals who were compulsorily admitted to hospital with those not compulsorily admitted or voluntarily admitted. In relation to the law the main relevant sections for this article are sections 2, 3 and 4. There are two basic grounds for admission: that the patient is suffering from a mental disorder and that admission is in the interests of his/her own health or safety or for the protection of others. Section 4 requires one and sections 2 and 3, two medical recommendations, as well as an application by an approved social worker (ASW) or nearest relative. Section 2, admission for assessment, involves admission for up to 28 days; section 4, emergency admission for assessment, involves admission for up to 72 hours; and section 3, admission for treatment, allows admission for up to six months, and is renewable.

scholarly journals General practitioners' referrals for compulsory admission under the Mental Health Act, I: comparison with other GP mental health referrals

1992 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 138-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Sheppard
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Compulsory Admission ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Mental Health Referrals ◽  
The Law

Although the work of general practitioners (GPs) with mental illness generally, particularly in relation to minor mental illness, has been extensively examined, there has been practically no work devoted to the role of GPs in assessment for compulsory admission, either under the 1959 or 1983 Acts. The notable exception is the work of Bean (1980), who is, in some respects, highly critical, accusing them of showing little interest in patients, referring at times inappropriately, committed to the rhetoric rather than reality of care and of knowing little or nothing of the law they were supposed to be using. Bean's work is, however, a study of the 1959 Act, and no research exists on the 1983 Act which now governs section assessments. This neglect of GPs is surprising, in view of the severe consequences of compulsory admissions (sections) and research on the use of the 1983 Act already available on other participating professionals (Sheppard, 1990; Rogers, 1989). GPs are likely to be professional instigators of section assessments as well as involved in the assessment itself.

scholarly journals The Law Society’s Response to the Draft Mental Health Bill

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (12) ◽  
pp. 70
Author(s):  
Law Society
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Law

<p>The Law Society has long campaigned for reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 (‘the 1983 Act’), which is widely recognised as out of date and not fully compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. However the Law Society believes that the proposals contained in the Draft Mental Health Bill 2004 (‘the Bill’) are misconceived and fail to provide adequate safeguards to protect the rights of people with a mental disorder.</p>

scholarly journals The working of the 1983 Mental Health Act: the experience of patients, relatives, psychiatrists, general practitioners and social workers involved in compulsory admission

1989 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 477-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynne Webster ◽  
Christine Dean
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Compulsory Admission ◽  
Hospital Managers ◽  
Mental Health Act

The 1983 Mental Health Act was introduced to increase the safeguards of the civil liberties of patients. One of the new provisions is that it is now the statutory responsibility of hospital managers to inform detained patients of their rights; this is done by giving them a leaflet explaining the appeal procedures. Doubt has been expressed (Dunlop, 1979) about whether this is an efficient means of conveying information to acutely ill patients.

Mental Health Act 1983

2021 ◽  
pp. 339-348
Author(s):  
Anna Smajdor ◽  
Jonathan Herring ◽  
Robert Wheeler
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Brain Tissue ◽  
Emergency Admission ◽  
Convulsive Therapy ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Electro Convulsive Therapy

This chapter covers the Mental Health Act 1983 and includes topics on The definition of mental disorder under the Mental Health Act, Criteria for admission under s.2 Mental Health Act, Criteria for Admission under section 3, Criteria for Emergency Admission under section 4 Mental Health Act, Brain Tissue Treatment under Mental Health Act, Electro-convulsive Therapy.

scholarly journals Time to amend Section 135

1997 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 640-641 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Cutajar ◽  
Michele Hampson
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Social Worker ◽  
Living Alone ◽  
List Type ◽  
Type Number ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Justice Of The Peace

Section 135 of the Mental Health Act (1983) allows a Justice of the Peace, on information provided on oath by an approved social worker, to issue a warrant allowing any constable named in the warrant to enter, if need be by force, any premises in which there is reasonable cause to suspect that a person believed to be suffering from a mental disorder: (a)has been, or is being, ill-treated, neglected or kept otherwise than under proper control: or(b)being unable to care for himself, is living alone in any such place, and, if thought fit, to remove him to a place of safety.

Compulsory treatment of physical illness under MHA 1983

2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2021-107438
Author(s):  
Robert Wheeler ◽  
Alexander Ruck Keene
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Daily Basis ◽  
Physical Illness ◽  
Compulsory Treatment ◽  
Clinical Question ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
The Law ◽  
Symptom Manifestation

Taken together, Sections 145 and 63 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) provide for treatment without consent of physical illness ancillary to the mental disorder with which a patient presents. On a daily basis, clinicians make both the decision that the Act’s authority can be applied to their patient’s case, and that it should be applied. But in the unusual circumstances where there is uncertainty as to the applicability of the MHA to the ancillary treatment of physical illness, the assistance of a court may be sought. In so doing, the law (and thence the courts) may justify compulsion but never prescribes it; the clinician is presented with authority that he or she could use but is left to decide whether it should be employed. This paper explores how the clinical question is set before the court, and whether the distinction between symptom, manifestation and consequence is sufficiently understood. This has important consequences in the context of self-neglect and its close cousin self-harm: the question whether the relevant ailment was attributable to or exacerbated by neglect or self- inflicted harm will determine whether compulsion under the MHA is applicable; and furthermore, whether or not compulsion is clinically acceptable.

scholarly journals Who should act as the second medical recommendation for Sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act?

1993 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 466-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. K. Ung
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
Clinical Judgement ◽  
Compulsory Admission ◽  
Medical Practitioners ◽  
Hospital Managers ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Medical Recommendations ◽  
Medical Recommendation

Since 1959, the responsibility to detain a patient in hospital compulsorily has been given to doctors, social workers and hospital managers. The 1983 Mental Health Act stipulates that medical recommendations are made by two medical practitioners (one an “approved” doctor) for compulsory admission for assessment (Section 2) and compulsory admission for treatment (Section 3). When this was debated in Parliament, the importance of the independence of the two doctors making medical recommendations was stressed. This was to avoid collusion, influence or interference with clinical judgement (Bluglass, 1983).

scholarly journals Rise in the use of section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in England and Wales: A viewpoint on Loughran (2018)

2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Cresswell
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Recent Work ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Causal Analysis ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Law

This article provides a critical viewpoint on Loughran’s recent work in Medicine, Science and the Law on the causes of the rise in the police’s use of section 136 (s136) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Loughran M. Detention under section 136: why is it increasing? Med Sci Law 2018; 58: 268–274). The rate of this rise seems significant: by 2014, it was five times more likely that a person in England would be detained in a hospital under s136 than it was in 2000, and the trend has continued to the present day. This viewpoint considers the significance of the s136 rise from the theoretical perspective of causal analysis.

Prescribing stigma in mental disorders: A comparative study of Portuguese psychiatrists and general practitioners

2021 ◽  
pp. 002076402110025
Author(s):  
Bárbara Almeida ◽  
Ana Samouco ◽  
Filipe Grilo ◽  
Sónia Pimenta ◽  
Ana Maria Moreira
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Speciality ◽  
Diagnostic Overshadowing ◽  
Related Stigma ◽  
Health Related

Background: Physicians, including psychiatrists and general practitioners (GPs), have been reported as essential sources of stigma towards people diagnosed with a mental disorder (PDMDs), which constitutes an important barrier to recovery and is associated with poorer clinical outcomes. Therefore, psychiatrists and GPs are key populations where it is crucial to examine stigma, improve attitudes and reduce discrimination towards psychiatric patients. Aims: This study is the first to explore mental health-related stigma among Portuguese psychiatrists and GPs, examining the differences between these two specialities and assessing whether sociodemographic and professional variables are associated with stigma. Method: A cross-sectional study was performed between June 2018 and August 2019. A consecutive sample of 55 Psychiatrists and 67 GPs working in Porto (Portugal) filled a 25-item self-report questionnaire to assess their attitudes towards PDMDs in clinical practice. The instrument was designed by the authors, based on previous mental health-related stigma studies and validated scales. The questionnaire includes 12 stigma dimensions ( Autonomy, Coercion, Incompetence, Dangerousness, Permanence, Pity, Responsibility, Segregation, Labelling, Diagnostic Overshadowing, Shame and Parental Incompetence), and its total score was used to measure Overall Stigma (OS). Sample characteristics were examined using descriptive statistics, and the factors affecting stigma were assessed through regression analysis. Results: GPs exhibit significantly higher OS levels than psychiatrists, and present higher scores in the dimensions of dangerousness, parental incompetence, diagnostic overshadowing and responsibility. Besides medical speciality, several other sociodemographic variables were associated with sigma, including age, gender, having a friend with a mental disorder, professional category, agreement that Psychiatry diverges from core medicine and physician’s interest in mental health topics. Conclusions: Our data suggest that both psychiatrists and GPs hold some degree of stigmatizing attitudes towards PDMDs. Overall, these results bring new light to stigma research, and provide information to tailor anti-stigma interventions to Portuguese psychiatrists and GPs.

The Use of Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in a Family of Rural English Police Forces

2003 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Greenberg ◽  
Niki Haines
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Rural Setting ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Act Assessment ◽  
Police Forces

Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is used by police officers to detain persons who they feel might be suffering with mental disorder until a formal Mental Health Act assessment can be undertaken. Previous studies have shown that the outcomes of these assessments result in remarkably different rates of subsequent hospital admissions. Within a rural setting it has also been shown that the rate of use of Section 136 varies considerably. This study examines the use of Section 136 within a family of eight police forces that have been matched to ensure that they cover similar populations. The results show that there are considerable variations in the use of Section 136, with the Devon and Cornwall region using the section over two and a half times the mean for the group. Possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document