Impact of introducing capacity-based mental health legislation on the use of community treatment orders in Norway: case registry study

Background In 2017, a capacity-based criterion was added to the Norwegian Mental Health Act, stating that those with capacity to consent to treatment cannot be subjected to involuntary care unless there is risk to themselves or others. This was expected to reduce incidence and prevalence rates, and the duration of episodes of involuntary care, in particular regarding community treatment orders (CTOs). Aims The aim was to investigate whether the capacity-based criterion had the expected impact on the use of CTOs. Method This retrospective case register study included two catchment areas serving 16% of the Norwegian population (aged ≥18). In total, 760 patients subject to 921 CTOs between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019 were included to compare the use of CTOs 2 years before and 2 years after the legal reform. Results CTO incidence rates and duration did not change after the reform, whereas prevalence rates were significantly reduced. This was explained by a sharp increase in termination of CTOs in the year of the reform, after which it reduced and settled on a slightly higher leven than before the reform. We found an unexpected significant increase in the use of involuntary treatment orders for patients on CTOs after the reform. Conclusions The expected impact on CTO use of introducing a capacity-based criterion in the Norwegian Mental Health Act was not confirmed by our study. Given the existing challenges related to defining and assessing decision-making capacity, studies examining the validity of capacity assessments and their impact on the use of coercion in clinical practice are urgently needed.

Focus group findings on clinicians’ perceived barriers and facilitators to giving rights information to involuntary psychiatrics patients in British Columbia, Canada

Background In British Columbia, Canada, clinicians are responsible for giving information about rights to patients involuntarily hospitalized under the Mental Health Act. But a survey commissioned by the Ministry of Health and an investigation by the BC Office of the Ombudsperson found that patients were not consistently receiving rights information. Methods Focus groups were used to probe clinicians’ perceived barriers and facilitators to giving patients rights information. Focus group transcripts were thematically analyzed, and the themes were coded using the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify interventions that could encourage clinicians to consistently give patients complete rights information. Results Eighty-one psychiatric clinicians participated. Analysis identified these barriers: (a) clinicians receive inadequate training on the Mental Health Act and rights notification; (b) newly admitted patients might not be receptive to new information; (c) the tool used to communicate rights to patients is inadequate; (d) many patients don’t speak English; (e) clinicians have competing priorities during the admission process; (f) clinicians face pressure from other staff to give incomplete information; (g) the clinical workflow doesn’t facilitate follow-up and accountability; and (h) staff don’t receive enough support from their employer. The following facilitators were identified: (a) a team approach allows clinicians to share knowledge about the Mental Health Act and rights notification, (b) having one person take responsibility for rights information clarifies roles and increases accountability, (c) accreditation reminds clinicians of the importance of giving patients rights information, and (d) checklists remind clinicians of their rights-notification responsibilities. Conclusions These interventions may help clinicians give rights information more consistently: (a) training about the Mental Health Act and rights notification, (b) an accessible legal resource for clinicians and patients, (c) regular group sessions about rights for patients, (d) an improved rights-communication tool, in multiple languages, and (e) checklists, reminders, and accountability and feedback systems.

Mental Health Act White Paper: potential implications for children and young people

Reforms to the Mental Health Act will affect children and young people detained in hospitals. Susan Walker, Bernadka Dubicka, and David Kingsley discuss recent proposals for reform and consider their implications for children and young people.

A retrospective cohort study describing characteristics of those repeatedly detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act over a 5-year period and the association with past abuse

Individuals repeatedly detained under Section 136 (S136) of the Mental Health Act account for a significant proportion of all detentions. This study provides a detailed analysis of those repeatedly detained (‘repeat attenders’) to a London Mental Health Trust, identifying key demographic profiles when compared to non-repeat attenders, describing core clinical characteristics and determining to what degree a past history of abuse might be associated with these. All detentions to the S136 suite at South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust over a 5-year period (2015–2020) were examined. Data were collected retrospectively from electronic records. A total of 1767 patients had been detained, with 81 patients identified as being a ‘repeat attenders’ (having had > = 3 detentions to the S136 suite during the study period). Repeat attenders accounted for 400 detentions, 17.7% of all detentions. Repeat attenders included a higher proportion of females (49.4%, p = 0.0001), compared to non-repeat attenders, and a higher proportion of them were of white ethnicity (85.2%, p = 0.001). 52 (64%) patients reported being a victim of past abuse or trauma. Of repeat attenders who reported past abuse or trauma, a high proportion had diagnoses of personality disorders, with deliberate self-harm as the most common reason for detention. They were more commonly discharged home with community support, rather than considered for hospital admission. In light of these findings, this paper discusses support potential strategies for those most vulnerable to repeated S136 detention, thereby minimising the ever-growing number of S136 detentions in the UK.

Mental Health Act 1983

This chapter covers the Mental Health Act 1983 and includes topics on The definition of mental disorder under the Mental Health Act, Criteria for admission under s.2 Mental Health Act, Criteria for Admission under section 3, Criteria for Emergency Admission under section 4 Mental Health Act, Brain Tissue Treatment under Mental Health Act, Electro-convulsive Therapy.