scholarly journals Rules, indications and documentation for applying physical coercion by emergency medical services

2015 ◽  
Vol 125 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-86
Author(s):  
Tomasz Kucmin ◽  
Adriana Kucmin ◽  
Małgorzata Płowaś-Goral ◽  
Adam Nogalski
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Emergency Services ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Medical Emergency ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Legal Foundations ◽  
Apply Physical ◽  
The Right ◽  
Medical Emergency Services

Abstract Helping people with mental disorders poses a challenge to the members of medical emergency services (EMS). Psychiatric patients are often unpredictable and applying physical coercion is necessary in some cases. The aim of this paper was to present and comment on legal foundations of application of different forms of physical coercion by EMS members and describe how to fill out medical records required every time physical coercion was used. According to the amendments of Polish Mental Health Act made in 2010, the EMS members were granted the right to apply physical coercion. Further amendments to the Mental Health Act and the introduction of appropriate Ministry of Health decree define forms of physical coercion, indications to apply physical coercion and include a sample of proper medical records which are required in all cases of application of physical coercion. Application of physical coercion should always be treated as last-line treatment option while helping patients suffering from mental disturbances. Obeying the law every time a decision regarding physical coercion is made protects patients’ right to receive dignified care and treatment as well as the rights of medical professionals

scholarly journals A new appraisal of Mental Health Review Tribunals

1989 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 299-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. T. Grounds
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Home Office ◽  
The Public ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Prime Function ◽  
Health Review

Mental Health Review Tribunals were introduced in the Mental Health Act (1959) to safeguard psychiatric patients against unjustified detention in hospital. The powers of tribunals form “an important part of the fabric of civil liberties” (Wood, 1974). However, in exercising their prime function of preventing unjust detention, tribunals in practice also have to take into account patients' clinical needs and the protection of the public. Further weight was added to this complex burden of decision making following a judgement by the European Court of Human Rights in 1981 which upheld the right of all detained patients to a periodic judicial review of their detention. As a result of this judgement the Mental Health Act (1983) extended tribunal powers to include the release of offender patients sentenced by Crown courts and given hospital orders with restrictions on discharge. Such individuals may have been convicted of grave criminal offences, and their discharge or transfer from hospital would otherwise require the consent of the Home Office.

scholarly journals Emergency department junior medical staff's knowledge, skills and confidence with psychiatric patients: a survey

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 186-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Therese Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Emergency Services ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Medical Emergency ◽  
Junior Doctors ◽  
Mental Health Training ◽  
Liaison Psychiatry ◽  
Health Training ◽  
Mental Health Patients

Aims and methodTo determine knowledge, skills and confidence of junior medical emergency department staff in managing mental health patients. Over a 2-year period new emergency department junior doctors were given a questionnaire to complete early on in their post and prior to any mental health training. The questionnaire asked about knowledge, confidence, concerns and skills in the management of mental health patients in accident and emergency services.ResultsMore than half of the 32 doctors surveyed said they lacked knowledge, skills and confidence when assessing mental health patients.Clinical implicationsThe survey has demonstrated a need for mental health training of new doctors working in the emergency department. Effective training for such doctors can be offered by a liaison psychiatry service. This should be embedded in their teaching programme and be continually responsive to their perceived training needs.

Reasons for Involuntary Commitment in Manitoba and Ontario

1983 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 358-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. A. Richert ◽  
A. H. Moyes
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitalization ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Civil Commitment ◽  
Involuntary Commitment ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Explicit Reference ◽  
Self Harm

This paper concerns itself with the question of involuntary commitment of psychiatric patients in southwestern Manitoba. The purpose was to survey the reasons given for involuntary psychiatric hospitalization by a group of Manitoba physicians in 1979, and to compare these reasons with those given by their Ontario counterparts, as described in the Page and Yates (1) and Page and Firth (2) studies. Particularly, the aim was to compare the relative emphasis given to dangerousness / self-harm reasons, in view of the fact that Manitoba's Mental Health Act makes no explicit reference to the dangerousness criterion, while Ontario's legislation has increasingly specified this factor as a necessary condition for civil commitment.

scholarly journals Effect of the 1983 Mental Health Act on the management of psychiatric patients.

BMJ ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 295 (6612) ◽  
pp. 1529-1532 ◽  
Author(s):  
L Webster ◽  
C Dean ◽  
N Kessel
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Mental Health Act

scholarly journals Detained patients and the right to refuse treatment

2014 ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
Paul Bowen
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Interested Party ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Right To Refuse Treatment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Right To Refuse

<p>R (Wilkinson) v. Broadmoor RMO (1) Mental Health Act Commission (2) Secretary of State for Health (Interested party) [2001] EWCA Civ 1545<br />Court of Appeal (22nd October 2001) Simon Brown LJ, Brooke LJ and Hale LJ</p><p>A detained patient’s right to refuse treatment to which he or she objects has been greatly strengthened by a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, applying the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, although in reaching its decision the Court of Appeal has posed as many questions for the future of the law in this area as it has answered.</p>

scholarly journals Self-harm following release from incarceration: Patterns and measurement issues

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Borschmann ◽  
Jesse Young ◽  
Stuart Kinner ◽  
Matthew Spittal
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Services ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Medical Emergency ◽  
Measurement Issues ◽  
Lifetime History ◽  
History Of ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
Medical Emergency Services ◽  
Release From Prison

IntroductionDespite an elevated prevalence of self-harm in the incarcerated adult population, little is known about patterns of self-harm following release from prison. Objectives and ApproachBaseline self-report interviews with 1315 adults immediately prior to release from prison in Queensland, Australia, combined with interrogation of linked health data from >3750 post-release emergency department presentations, >2000 ambulance attendances, and corrections data during periods of re-incarceration. ResultsApproximately 5% of all contacts with medical emergency services following release from prison resulted from self-harm. These were associated with being Indigenous, having a lifetime history of a mental disorder and having been identified by prison staff as being at risk of self-harm. Agreement between self-reported self-harm and medically-verified episodes of self-harm was poor. Conclusion/ImplicationsEmergency services contacts resulting from self-harm following release from prison are common and represent an opportunity for tertiary intervention for self-harm. Our findings suggest that a self-reported history of self-harm should not be considered a reliable indicator of prior self-harm, or of future self-harm risk, in incarcerated adults.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document