scholarly journals The working of the 1983 Mental Health Act: the experience of patients, relatives, psychiatrists, general practitioners and social workers involved in compulsory admission

1989 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 477-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynne Webster ◽  
Christine Dean
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Compulsory Admission ◽  
Hospital Managers ◽  
Mental Health Act

The 1983 Mental Health Act was introduced to increase the safeguards of the civil liberties of patients. One of the new provisions is that it is now the statutory responsibility of hospital managers to inform detained patients of their rights; this is done by giving them a leaflet explaining the appeal procedures. Doubt has been expressed (Dunlop, 1979) about whether this is an efficient means of conveying information to acutely ill patients.

scholarly journals Who should act as the second medical recommendation for Sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act?

1993 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 466-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. K. Ung
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
Clinical Judgement ◽  
Compulsory Admission ◽  
Medical Practitioners ◽  
Hospital Managers ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Medical Recommendations ◽  
Medical Recommendation

Since 1959, the responsibility to detain a patient in hospital compulsorily has been given to doctors, social workers and hospital managers. The 1983 Mental Health Act stipulates that medical recommendations are made by two medical practitioners (one an “approved” doctor) for compulsory admission for assessment (Section 2) and compulsory admission for treatment (Section 3). When this was debated in Parliament, the importance of the independence of the two doctors making medical recommendations was stressed. This was to avoid collusion, influence or interference with clinical judgement (Bluglass, 1983).

scholarly journals General practitioners' referrals for compulsory admission under the Mental Health Act, I: comparison with other GP mental health referrals

1992 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 138-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Sheppard
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Compulsory Admission ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Mental Health Referrals ◽  
The Law

Although the work of general practitioners (GPs) with mental illness generally, particularly in relation to minor mental illness, has been extensively examined, there has been practically no work devoted to the role of GPs in assessment for compulsory admission, either under the 1959 or 1983 Acts. The notable exception is the work of Bean (1980), who is, in some respects, highly critical, accusing them of showing little interest in patients, referring at times inappropriately, committed to the rhetoric rather than reality of care and of knowing little or nothing of the law they were supposed to be using. Bean's work is, however, a study of the 1959 Act, and no research exists on the 1983 Act which now governs section assessments. This neglect of GPs is surprising, in view of the severe consequences of compulsory admissions (sections) and research on the use of the 1983 Act already available on other participating professionals (Sheppard, 1990; Rogers, 1989). GPs are likely to be professional instigators of section assessments as well as involved in the assessment itself.

scholarly journals General practitioners' referrals for compulsory admission under the Mental Health Act, II: the process of assessment

1992 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 139-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Sheppard
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Social Worker ◽  
Emergency Admission ◽  
Compulsory Admission ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Process And Outcome ◽  
The Law ◽  
Medical Recommendations

This is the second of two articles on GP referrals for compulsory admission, and seeks to examine the process and outcome of assessment by (a) comparing GP with other section assessment referrals and (b) comparing GP referrals who were compulsorily admitted to hospital with those not compulsorily admitted or voluntarily admitted. In relation to the law the main relevant sections for this article are sections 2, 3 and 4. There are two basic grounds for admission: that the patient is suffering from a mental disorder and that admission is in the interests of his/her own health or safety or for the protection of others. Section 4 requires one and sections 2 and 3, two medical recommendations, as well as an application by an approved social worker (ASW) or nearest relative. Section 2, admission for assessment, involves admission for up to 28 days; section 4, emergency admission for assessment, involves admission for up to 72 hours; and section 3, admission for treatment, allows admission for up to six months, and is renewable.

scholarly journals Evaluation of a mental health website for teenagers

2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 175-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sukru Ercan ◽  
Andrew Kevern ◽  
Leo Kroll
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
School Nurses ◽  
The Self ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Perceived Need ◽  
Screening Questionnaires ◽  
Assessment Questionnaire

Aim and MethodRu-ok.com is a recently developed website that includes a self-assessment questionnaire. The aim of this study was to evaluate the website and compare the self-assessment questionnaire with established screening questionnaires. A total of 105 teenagers from schools completed three paper-based questionnaires and the online ru-ok.com questionnaire.ResultsThe website receives 730 visits a week. Visits to the advice section and stories about mental health and relationships account for 35% of activity. Of the returned questionnaires, 80% were positive about the website. There were modest and expected correlations between the website questionnaire (RU–OK) and the Mood and Feelings (MFQ) and Strength and Difficulties (SDQ) questionnaires.Clinical ImplicationsInternet-based self-assessment is feasible and acceptable to teenagers. Self-assessment of perceived need by teenagers may be a useful tool for tier one professionals, including teachers, general practitioners, school nurses, social workers and learning mentors.

The law

2009 ◽  
pp. 459-498
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Compulsory Admission ◽  
Sexual Offences ◽  
Disability Discrimination ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Disability Discrimination Act ◽  
Health Review

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 ...

Social workers and the Mental Health Act 1983

BMJ ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 291 (6510) ◽  
pp. 1726-1727
Author(s):  
I G Bronks
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
Mental Health Act

scholarly journals Brief Report: Decline in the Use of ECT: The York Study

1987 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 303-304
Author(s):  
Kumud Bhatnagar ◽  
Peter Kennedy ◽  
Stephen Morley
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Community Care ◽  
Antidepressant Drug ◽  
Good Deal ◽  
Mental Health Act

A national survey in 1980 drew attention to the wide variation in frequency with which electro-convulsive treatment was being used. Yorkshire Region was at the top of the league with three times the level of the Oxford Region which had the lowest rate. Since then a good deal more research has been published on the effectiveness and limitations of ECT.1–3 Other factors which might have influenced clinicians in their prescribing of this treatment include much stricter conditions in the 1983 Mental Health Act for giving ECT compulsorily, plenty of media comment which may have reduced its acceptability, the increasing confidence of general practitioners in prescribing antidepressant drug therapies, and the greater emphasis on community care.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document