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.

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.

Comparison of accredited person and medical officer discharge decisions under the Mental Health Act of NSW: A cohort study of deliberate self-poisoning patients

2021 ◽  
pp. 000486742110096
Author(s):  
Katie McGill ◽  
Matthew J Spittal ◽  
Jennifer Bryant ◽  
Terry J Lewin ◽  
Ian M Whyte ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
General Hospital ◽  
Psychiatric Hospital ◽  
Propensity Score Analysis ◽  
Medical Officer ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Risk Difference ◽  
Discharge Destination ◽  
Mental Health Act

Background: The Accredited Persons Programme was introduced in 2003. The relevant Mental Health Acts (NSW) authorised reviews by appropriately credentialed non-medical health professionals as part of the process of detaining and treating a person without consent: an authority previously held by medical officers. Evaluations of the Programme are needed. Objective: To compare discharge decisions for hospital-treated deliberate self-poisoning patients made by an Accredited Person and Medical Officers. Methods: For a 10-year cohort (2003–2012) of index hospital-treated deliberate self-poisoning admissions at the Calvary Mater Newcastle, we compared Accredited Person and Medical Officer discharge decisions from the general hospital. We specifically examined discharges to the psychiatric hospital under a Mental Health Act certificate (used as an index of the Accredited Person’s use of the authority under the Accredited Persons Programme) compared to any other discharge destination. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models and a propensity score analysis were used to explore the relationship between clinician type and discharge destination. Results: There were 2237 index assessments (Accredited Person = 884; Medical Officer = 1443). One-quarter (27%) were referred for assessment under the Act at the psychiatric hospital, with the Accredited Person significantly more likely (32%) to require this compared to the Medical Officers (24%); Risk Difference: 8.3% (4.5 to 12.1). However, after adjusting for patient characteristics; Risk Difference: −3.0% (−5.9 to −0.1) and for propensity score, Risk Difference: −3.3% (−6.7 to 0.1), the Accredited Person and Medical Officer likelihood of discharging for an assessment under the Act was similar. Conclusions: The Accredited Person assessed more clinically complex patients than the Medical Officers. After adjusting for clinical complexity and propensity score, the likelihood of referral for involuntary psychiatric hospital care was similar for Accredited Person and Medical Officers. Our evaluation of the Accredited Person programme in the general hospital was favourable, and wider implementation and evaluation is warranted.

scholarly journals The Mental Health Act 1983 Draft Code of Practice: Mental Health Act Commission's Discussion Paper on Consent to Treatment

1986 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 220-222
Author(s):  
Lord Colville
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Medical Journal ◽  
British Medical Journal ◽  
Discussion Paper ◽  
Draft Code ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Consent To Treatment ◽  
And Function

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.

scholarly journals The Mental Health Act 1983 Draft Code of Practice

1987 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-67
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Medical Association ◽  
British Medical Association ◽  
Draft Code ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Medical Defence

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.

scholarly journals Mental health legislation in Egypt

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 64-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nasser Loza ◽  
Mohamed El Nawawi
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychiatric Services ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
History Of ◽  
Health Legislation

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document