Use of the Mental Health Act and common law in the general hospital

Psychiatry ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 107-109
Author(s):  
Eleanor Feldman
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
General Hospital ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Mental Health Act

scholarly journals The Mental Health Act 1983 and incapacity: what general hospital doctors know

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 176-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felicity Richards ◽  
Jenny Dale
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
General Hospital ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Training Intervention ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Training Interventions ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Incapacitated Patients ◽  
Hospital Doctors

Aims and MethodA questionnaire survey of general hospital doctors was conducted before and after a 1h training intervention. Baseline levels of knowledge and confidence regarding the use of section 5(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 and assessment and management of incapacitated patients were determined. Following a training intervention, improvements in these areas were established.ResultsEighteen doctors participated. Confidence in assessing capacity and the knowledge of treatment under common law and section 5(2) were low at baseline. Improvements were seen following the training intervention, with four knowledge items relating to section 5(2) achieving statistically significant improvements.Clinical ImplicationsSimple training interventions delivered by psychiatrists may be an effective way of improving the knowledge and confidence of general hospital doctors.

scholarly journals A survey of general hospital in-patients detained under Section 5(2) of the 1983 Mental Health Act

1996 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 733-735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Buller ◽  
David Storer ◽  
Rachel Bennett
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
General Hospital ◽  
Conversion Rate ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Rare Occurrence ◽  
General Hospitals ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Mental Health Act

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.

scholarly journals The common law defence of automatism: a quagmire for the psychiatrist

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 242-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith J. B. Rix
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychiatric Disorder ◽  
Psychotropic Drugs ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

SummaryThis article sets out the complicated and confused law on automatism and identifies the role of the psychiatrist, including paradoxically a role in cases of non-psychiatric disorder where the law requires evidence from a doctor approved under section 12 of the Mental Health Act. Legal definitions of automatism are introduced. The internal/external distinction, evidential burden, burden of proof, standard of proof, prior fault, intoxication and the degree of impairment illustrate how the courts limit the defence. Detailed accounts are given of cases in which the defence of automatism has been based on psychiatric disorder and on the effects of psychotropic drugs. Suggestions are made for approaches to assessment and medicolegal reporting.

scholarly journals Masterman-Lister and the Capacity to Manage One’s Property and Affairs

2014 ◽  
pp. 203
Author(s):  
Denzil Lush
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Important Decision ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
English Law

<p>The judgment of Mr. Justice Wright in Masterman-Lister v Jewell and Home Counties Dairies and Masterman-Lister v Brutton &amp; Co., [2002] EWHC 417 (QB), which was handed down on 15 March 2002, is the most important decision so far in English law on the meaning of the term ‘patient’. This, of course, is one of the two disabilities recognized in CPR Part 21. It is also the cornerstone of the Court of Protection’s jurisdiction under the Mental Health Act 1983.<br /><br />Section 94(2) of that Act defines a ‘patient’ as someone who is ‘incapable, by reason of mental disorder, of managing and administering his property and affairs.’ There are two prerequisites. A person must (a) have a mental disorder, and (b) as a consequence, be incapable of managing and administering his property and affairs.<br /><br />‘Mental disorder’ is defined in the legislation, but the incapacity to manage one’s property and affairs is not, and this is where Sir Michael Wright’s decision has filled a void, and possibly opened a debate. In fact, he said nothing startlingly new, but the significance of his judgment is that it will be widely reported, whereas previous decisions on the meaning of incapacity to manage one’s property and affairs have been inaccessible, either because they were unreported, or because they emanated from other common law jurisdictions, whose reports are only available in a few very specialist libraries.</p>

scholarly journals Section 136: the ‘grey zone’ after the 24-h validity period lapses

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-64
Author(s):  
Yathooshan Ramesh ◽  
Mukesh Kripalani
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Clinical Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Grey Zone ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
Legal Grounds

SUMMARYIf a Mental Health Act section 136 lapses at 24 h because no in-patient bed is available, the legal grounds to continue holding an individual in the place of safety are dubious. Duty of candour and a senior clinical review are essential. The use of common law and the Mental Capacity Act have limitations, the latter also raising a question about whether deprivation of liberty safeguards would also apply. Clarity of this dilemma is needed through legislation.

scholarly journals Holding powers in A&E departments

1997 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 615-617
Author(s):  
K. R. Nicholls
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Community Care ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Common

The Mental Health Act as an instrument of statute law is unable to address practicalities of caring for mentally disturbed persons who are awaiting formal detention. The common law relevant to this area is ill-defined and depends on interpretation of precedent. The resulting confusion and consequent problems will become more apparent with the advancement of community care, and is a matter which warrants urgent review.

Detaining patients in the general hospital – current practice and pitfalls

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 91-96
Author(s):  
Murray Smith ◽  
Rian O’Regan ◽  
Rainer Goldbeck
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
General Hospital ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Electronic System ◽  
Royal Infirmary ◽  
General Hospitals ◽  
Out Of Hours ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Written Information ◽  
Psychiatric Staff

Aims Much has been written about the use of the Mental Health Act in psychiatric settings. There is, however, little written on its use to detain patients with mental disorder in general hospitals. Method and results We therefore carried out a survey of the use of the Mental Health Act in general hospital settings in Aberdeen, and also posted a questionnaire to Scottish Liaison Psychiatrists, asking about their experience of the use of the Mental Health Act in general hospitals. Over a six-month period in Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, we identified 39 detentions. Out of hours, the use of Emergency Detention Certificates was more common than use of Short Term Detention Certificates – the latter is recommended by the Mental Welfare Commission, as patients are afforded more rights. When psychiatric staff were not directly involved, procedural and administrative errors were more likely to occur. Liaison psychiatrists elsewhere in Scotland reported similar observations. Conclusion General hospital clinicians are unfamiliar with the Mental Health Act and its use. Errors in its application therefore arise, and are more common when psychiatric staff is not involved. Better education, including the provision of written information and consideration of an electronic system, may improve current practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document