Reports prepared for Mental Health Review Tribunals and Managers' Reviews

1997 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 364-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phil Davison ◽  
Alberto Perez de Albeniz

Little advice is offered in the literature for the novice report writer, despite the gravity of the situation, for example, a patient appealing against detention. Section 20, which renews the authority for detention after periods of 6 months or a year, is a useful reminder for clinicians, as it outlines the components that must be present in order for detention to continue.This audit established guidelines for the completion of reports for Mental Health Review Tribunals and Managers' Reviews. A structure and list of ‘features to be included’ was compiled. This was used to rate the standard of reports prepared in the Warneford Hospital between 1991–1993. Following peer consultation within the hospital, the guidelines were considered acceptable and useful. At re-audit after 8 months the standard of reports had improved in most respects.

Author(s):  
Lauren E. Kois ◽  
Jennifer Cox ◽  
Ashley T. Peck

1970 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. C. Wood
Keyword(s):  

1998 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 197-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sir John Wood

The proceedings of a mental health review tribunal involve two psychiatrists – one to be found among its members and the other (having care of the patient) who appears before the tribunal as the responsible medical officer (RMO). Both have a very important role to play and the juxtaposition of two psychiatrists guarantees a lively debate at many tribunal hearings.


Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal. This case concerned whether the language of ss 72–73 of the Mental Health Act 1983 could be read in such a way as to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), under s. 4 of that Act, or whether such an interpretation was not possible. In the latter case the court should consider making a declaration of incompatibility. This note explores s. 4 HRA declarations of incompatibility. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb


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 ...


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document