scholarly journals In relative danger? The outcome of patients discharged by their nearest relative from sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act

2003 ◽  
Vol 27 (02) ◽  
pp. 50-54
Author(s):  
Philip Shaw ◽  
Matthew Hotopf ◽  
Anthony Davies
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Poor Clinical Outcome ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Health Legislation ◽  
Control Cohort Study

Aims and Method Among the proposed changes in the current review of mental health legislation in England and Wales is the abolition of the right of the nearest relative to discharge patients from assessment and treatment orders (Sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983). We aimed to determine the clinical outcome of patients whose nearest relative applies for discharge. A retrospective case–control cohort study in a south London NHS Trust of 51 patients successfully discharged by their nearest relative and 33 patients whose nearest-relative applications were blocked by the treating psychiatrist on the grounds of ‘dangerousness'. Results Patients discharged from section by their nearest relative did not differ significantly from controls in all the measures of clinical outcome examined. Clinical Implications This study suggests that discharges by the nearest relative against psychiatric advice are not associated with a poor clinical outcome.

In relative danger? The outcome of patients discharged by their nearest relative from sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act

2003 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 50-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Shaw ◽  
Matthew Hotopf ◽  
Anthony Davies
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Poor Clinical Outcome ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Health Legislation ◽  
Control Cohort Study

Aims and MethodAmong the proposed changes in the current review of mental health legislation in England and Wales is the abolition of the right of the nearest relative to discharge patients from assessment and treatment orders (Sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983). We aimed to determine the clinical outcome of patients whose nearest relative applies for discharge. A retrospective case–control cohort study in a south London NHS Trust of 51 patients successfully discharged by their nearest relative and 33 patients whose nearest-relative applications were blocked by the treating psychiatrist on the grounds of ‘dangerousness'.ResultsPatients discharged from section by their nearest relative did not differ significantly from controls in all the measures of clinical outcome examined.Clinical ImplicationsThis study suggests that discharges by the nearest relative against psychiatric advice are not associated with a poor clinical outcome.

scholarly journals Section 17 of the Mental Health Act

1998 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 415-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Milton
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Middle Aged ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Mental Health Patients ◽  
History Of ◽  
Health Legislation

From 1 April 1996 mental health legislation was expanded to include provision for “supervised discharge” under the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Act 1995. However, the use off Section 17 (s17) off the Mental Health Act has always provided an option for an extended leave. This retrospective case note study examines 10 years of practice off s17 use and focuses on characteristics off those patients recalled. Increases in s17 applications represented equivalent increases in admissions and overall sections, although numbers off patients actually recalled had fallen significantly. Patients recalled after discharge were generally middle-aged men with a long history of schizophrenia, on s3, who relapse quickly due to treatment non-compliance.

Mental Health Legislation and the Right to Appropriate Treatment

1998 ◽  
Vol 43 (8) ◽  
pp. 811-815 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard L O'Reilly
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychiatric Care ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Clinical Vignettes ◽  
Appropriate Treatment ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Health Legislation

Objective: To demonstrate how mental health legislation and its implementation can detract from a patient's “right to health.” Method: The author surveyed colleagues working at the London and St Thomas Psychiatric Hospitals about cases where the structure or implementation of the Mental Health Act in Ontario (1) impeded the provision of good psychiatric care. Results: Four clinical vignettes illustrate specific problems; possible solutions to these difficulties are suggested. Conclusion: Physicians must remain vigilant in their role as advocates for patients' right to appropriate treatment.

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.

Attitudes and experiences of nursing staff to the Mental Health Act 2001: lessons for future mental health legislation

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. M. Doherty ◽  
F. Jabbar ◽  
B. D. Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Nursing Staff ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Clinical Nursing ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Paper Work ◽  
Health Legislation ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesThe Mental Health Act 2001 was implemented in 2006 to bring Ireland into line with international practice and United Nations Conventions on Human Rights. Previous studies have reported some practical difficulties for the professionals involved. We wished to examine the experiences of nursing staff and the impact of the Act on clinical nursing practice since its implementation.MethodThis cross-sectional survey was conducted by questionnaire. It contained questions examining training in and attitudes to the Act, and any resultant changes in nursing practise.ResultsA total of 317 questionnaires were returned. Of the nurses, 92% reported having received training in the Act, and 56% of nursing staff believed that their workload had increased as a result of the change in legislation. Of those who made a comment, 76.5% were negative, with increased paper work, lack of clarity and an excessive focus on legalities being the most common difficulties reported.ConclusionsNursing staff have shown mixed attitudes to the Mental Health Act 2001, but many of the difficulties encountered are similar to those experienced by other professionals.

scholarly journals Ethnicity and outcome of appeal after detention under the Mental Health Act 1983

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 288-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramin Nilforooshan ◽  
Rizkar Amin ◽  
James Warner
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Ethnic Differences ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Black Caribbean ◽  
Chi Squared ◽  
Health Legislation ◽  
The Relationship

Aims and MethodThere is insufficient research into the relationship between ethnicity and appeals against detention under mental health legislation. We sought to identify rates and success of appeals in different ethnic groups through a retrospective analysis of all detentions under the Mental Health Act 1983 over 1 year.ResultsWe found high rates of appeals overall, with substantial differences between ethnic groups (36 (39%) White British compared with 71 (63%) Black Caribbean (P = 0.0001) and 21 (68%) White Irish (P = 0.01) individuals (Yates corrected chi-squared)). Success rates on appeal were very low in all groups.Clinical ImplicationsThere are significant ethnic differences in appeals against detention under the Mental Health Act.

scholarly journals Jurisdiction of Mental Health Tribunals to Provide Positive Remedies: Application, Challenges, and Prospects

2012 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-298
Author(s):  
Joaquin Zuckerberg
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Adequate Care ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Health Legislation ◽  
State Interference

Modern mental health legislation protects the civil rights of the mentally ill by limiting the scope of permissible state interference with an individual’s autonomy. It also generally sets up mental health tribunals in charge of reviewing compliance with parts of the legislation. However, the legislation does not generally address the right to adequate mental health care. The latter (or its lack thereof) has increasingly become a source of debate among scholars and policy makers. The right to adequate care is increasingly being seen as the sine qua non of the civil rights of the mentally ill. This article explores recent Canadian jurisprudence dealing with the power of administrative tribunals to address constitutional and quasi-constitutional claims, and questions whether such power could give rise to a claim for adequate health care before mental health tribunals. It argues that, subject to some limited circumstances where mental tribunals have been given certain discretion to factor adequate care into their decisions, the recent Canadian jurisprudence does not significantly modify the limited remedies available before mental health tribunals.

scholarly journals Australia's mental health legislation

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 38-40
Author(s):  
Kenneth C. Kirkby ◽  
Scott Henderson
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Health Law ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Mental Health Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
International Trends ◽  
Strong Emphasis ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Health Legislation

Australia has a generally progressive approach to mental health law, reflective of international trends in human rights. Responsibility for most legislation is vested in the six States and two Territories, a total of eight jurisdictions, such that at any given time several new mental health acts are in preparation. In addition there is a model mental health act that promotes common standards. Transfer of orders between jurisdictions relies on Memoranda of Understanding between them, and is patchy. State and Territory legislation is generally cognisant of international treaty obligations, which are themselves the preserve of the Federal Parliament and legislature. UK legislation has had a key influence in Australia, the 1959 Mental Health Act in particular, with its strong emphasis on voluntary hospitalisation, prefacing deinstitutionalisation.

Detention under section 136: Why is it increasing?

2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 268-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Loughran
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Access Point ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Inappropriate Use ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
History Of ◽  
Health Legislation ◽  
Socio Economic Factors

There has been a significant increase in the use of section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in England and Wales, particularly over the past 10 years, but the reasons for this increase remain unclear. This paper presents a history of English mental-health legislation and the current evidence relating to the use of section 136. It suggests that changing police attitudes, socio-economic factors and diminished resources amongst both the police and mental-health services may have contributed towards its increase. The strain placed on health services may have also resulted in a greater reliance on the police force as an access point to NHS care and could result in the inappropriate use of section 136. With the principle of the ‘least restrictive option’ at the heart of the Mental Health Act, this advocates the need for reform.

scholarly journals A new Mental Health Act for Malta

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 67-69
Author(s):  
Anthony Zahra ◽  
Miriam Camilleri ◽  
John Cachia
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Health Legislation

Until recently, the care of persons with mental disorder in Malta was regulated by mental health legislation enacted in 1976. This was closely modelled on the 1959 British Mental Health Act. Now, the Mental Health Act 2012 is being implemented in two steps, in 2013 and 2014. The paper reviews its provisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document