Treading a tightrope: Professional perspectives on balancing the rights of patient's and relative's under the Mental Health Act in England

Involuntary detention is used internationally to detain and treat people who are deemed to have a mental disorder. In England and Wales, approved mental health professionals (AMHPs) co‐ordinate Mental Health Act assessments which allow for patients to be detained. AMHPs have legal duties to identify...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Health & social care in the community 2020-01, Vol.28 (1), p.300-308
Hauptverfasser: Dixon, Jeremy, Wilkinson‐Tough, Megan, Stone, Kevin, Laing, Judy
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 308
container_issue 1
container_start_page 300
container_title Health & social care in the community
container_volume 28
creator Dixon, Jeremy
Wilkinson‐Tough, Megan
Stone, Kevin
Laing, Judy
description Involuntary detention is used internationally to detain and treat people who are deemed to have a mental disorder. In England and Wales, approved mental health professionals (AMHPs) co‐ordinate Mental Health Act assessments which allow for patients to be detained. AMHPs have legal duties to identify, inform and consult with a patient's nearest relative (NR), who are, in turn, given powers to initiate or challenge detention. Our study takes an original approach through examining how AMHPs interpret their duties towards nearest relatives. We adopted a two‐stage design, which involved an online questionnaire with 55 AMHPs and focus group discussions with 33 AMHPs. The research was conducted in England between 2017 and 2018. Our questionnaire found that a high proportion of AMHPs reported that they had spoken to NRs for background information when assessing patients under the Mental Health Act. However, AMHPs were less likely to ask patients about their views of involving the NR prior to assessment. Focus group findings showed that AMHPs saw the NR role as offering an important ‘safeguard’ on the basis that NRs could provide information about the patient and advocate on their behalf. AMHPs identified practical difficulties in balancing their legal obligation towards NRs and patients; particularly where issues of potential abuse were raised or where patients had identified that they did not want NR involvement. While AMHPs stated that they sought to prioritise patient wishes regarding confidentiality, their accounts identified that patient consent about information sharing was sometimes implied rather than sought explicitly. Our findings reinforce conclusions by the recent Independent Review of the MHA, which states that current NR provisions are ‘outdated, variable and insufficient’. We identify that current practice could be improved using advanced choice documents and outline implications for AMHP practice.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/hsc.12864
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2299457574</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2321196882</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3884-30475682aa0e5b9d6f766cd01ff85fc71a08d90ad3ebca32a0ec2eb6463d3ff43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1u1DAURi1ERYfCghdAllgAi7T-i-N0V40KU6kIJMo6cuzrGVcZJ9gOqK_AU-N02i6Q8Mayfb6jK38IvaHklJZ1tkvmlDIlxTO0olzWFauZeI5WpJWyIoKSY_QypVtCKGekeYGOOa2lVEKs0J-bCNr6sMUaZ7_d5ThOcI6_xdFBSn4MesATxDSByf4XJDwG3OtBB7Nk8g5wXFLl3uFJZw8hv09YB4sjDHqJlOMcLMR7-Et5L8YN6CHv8IXJ2Ad8GbZFaF-hI6eHBK8f9hP049PlzXpTXX_9fLW-uK4MV0pUnIimloppTaDuWytdI6WxhDqnamcaqomyLdGWQ280ZwUzDHopJLfcOcFP0IeDd4rjzxlS7vY-GRjKDDDOqWOsbUXd1M2CvvsHvR3nWP6kUJxR2kqlWKE-HigTx5QiuG6Kfq_jXUdJtxTUlYK6-4IK-_bBOPd7sE_kYyMFODsAv_0Ad_83dZvv64PyL8PDmzs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2321196882</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Treading a tightrope: Professional perspectives on balancing the rights of patient's and relative's under the Mental Health Act in England</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Dixon, Jeremy ; Wilkinson‐Tough, Megan ; Stone, Kevin ; Laing, Judy</creator><creatorcontrib>Dixon, Jeremy ; Wilkinson‐Tough, Megan ; Stone, Kevin ; Laing, Judy</creatorcontrib><description>Involuntary detention is used internationally to detain and treat people who are deemed to have a mental disorder. In England and Wales, approved mental health professionals (AMHPs) co‐ordinate Mental Health Act assessments which allow for patients to be detained. AMHPs have legal duties to identify, inform and consult with a patient's nearest relative (NR), who are, in turn, given powers to initiate or challenge detention. Our study takes an original approach through examining how AMHPs interpret their duties towards nearest relatives. We adopted a two‐stage design, which involved an online questionnaire with 55 AMHPs and focus group discussions with 33 AMHPs. The research was conducted in England between 2017 and 2018. Our questionnaire found that a high proportion of AMHPs reported that they had spoken to NRs for background information when assessing patients under the Mental Health Act. However, AMHPs were less likely to ask patients about their views of involving the NR prior to assessment. Focus group findings showed that AMHPs saw the NR role as offering an important ‘safeguard’ on the basis that NRs could provide information about the patient and advocate on their behalf. AMHPs identified practical difficulties in balancing their legal obligation towards NRs and patients; particularly where issues of potential abuse were raised or where patients had identified that they did not want NR involvement. While AMHPs stated that they sought to prioritise patient wishes regarding confidentiality, their accounts identified that patient consent about information sharing was sometimes implied rather than sought explicitly. Our findings reinforce conclusions by the recent Independent Review of the MHA, which states that current NR provisions are ‘outdated, variable and insufficient’. We identify that current practice could be improved using advanced choice documents and outline implications for AMHP practice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0966-0410</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2524</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/hsc.12864</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31566844</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Hindawi Limited</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Advocacy ; AMHP ; carers ; Commitment of Mentally Ill - legislation & jurisprudence ; Confidentiality ; decision‐making ; Detention ; England ; Focus groups ; Humans ; Information dissemination ; Information sharing ; Internet ; Involuntary ; Medical personnel ; Mental Competency - legislation & jurisprudence ; Mental disorders ; Mental Disorders - nursing ; Mental Health ; Mental Health Act ; Mental health professionals ; Needs Assessment - legislation & jurisprudence ; Patient Advocacy - legislation & jurisprudence ; Patient communication ; Patient Discharge - legislation & jurisprudence ; Patient satisfaction ; Patients ; Questionnaires ; Risk Assessment - legislation & jurisprudence ; social work and healthcare ; Wales]]></subject><ispartof>Health &amp; social care in the community, 2020-01, Vol.28 (1), p.300-308</ispartof><rights>2019 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2019 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3884-30475682aa0e5b9d6f766cd01ff85fc71a08d90ad3ebca32a0ec2eb6463d3ff43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3884-30475682aa0e5b9d6f766cd01ff85fc71a08d90ad3ebca32a0ec2eb6463d3ff43</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0656-5646</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fhsc.12864$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fhsc.12864$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,30999,33774,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31566844$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dixon, Jeremy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilkinson‐Tough, Megan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stone, Kevin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laing, Judy</creatorcontrib><title>Treading a tightrope: Professional perspectives on balancing the rights of patient's and relative's under the Mental Health Act in England</title><title>Health &amp; social care in the community</title><addtitle>Health Soc Care Community</addtitle><description>Involuntary detention is used internationally to detain and treat people who are deemed to have a mental disorder. In England and Wales, approved mental health professionals (AMHPs) co‐ordinate Mental Health Act assessments which allow for patients to be detained. AMHPs have legal duties to identify, inform and consult with a patient's nearest relative (NR), who are, in turn, given powers to initiate or challenge detention. Our study takes an original approach through examining how AMHPs interpret their duties towards nearest relatives. We adopted a two‐stage design, which involved an online questionnaire with 55 AMHPs and focus group discussions with 33 AMHPs. The research was conducted in England between 2017 and 2018. Our questionnaire found that a high proportion of AMHPs reported that they had spoken to NRs for background information when assessing patients under the Mental Health Act. However, AMHPs were less likely to ask patients about their views of involving the NR prior to assessment. Focus group findings showed that AMHPs saw the NR role as offering an important ‘safeguard’ on the basis that NRs could provide information about the patient and advocate on their behalf. AMHPs identified practical difficulties in balancing their legal obligation towards NRs and patients; particularly where issues of potential abuse were raised or where patients had identified that they did not want NR involvement. While AMHPs stated that they sought to prioritise patient wishes regarding confidentiality, their accounts identified that patient consent about information sharing was sometimes implied rather than sought explicitly. Our findings reinforce conclusions by the recent Independent Review of the MHA, which states that current NR provisions are ‘outdated, variable and insufficient’. We identify that current practice could be improved using advanced choice documents and outline implications for AMHP practice.</description><subject>Advocacy</subject><subject>AMHP</subject><subject>carers</subject><subject>Commitment of Mentally Ill - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Confidentiality</subject><subject>decision‐making</subject><subject>Detention</subject><subject>England</subject><subject>Focus groups</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Information dissemination</subject><subject>Information sharing</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Involuntary</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Mental Competency - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Mental disorders</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - nursing</subject><subject>Mental Health</subject><subject>Mental Health Act</subject><subject>Mental health professionals</subject><subject>Needs Assessment - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Patient Advocacy - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Patient communication</subject><subject>Patient Discharge - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Patient satisfaction</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Risk Assessment - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>social work and healthcare</subject><subject>Wales</subject><issn>0966-0410</issn><issn>1365-2524</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1u1DAURi1ERYfCghdAllgAi7T-i-N0V40KU6kIJMo6cuzrGVcZJ9gOqK_AU-N02i6Q8Mayfb6jK38IvaHklJZ1tkvmlDIlxTO0olzWFauZeI5WpJWyIoKSY_QypVtCKGekeYGOOa2lVEKs0J-bCNr6sMUaZ7_d5ThOcI6_xdFBSn4MesATxDSByf4XJDwG3OtBB7Nk8g5wXFLl3uFJZw8hv09YB4sjDHqJlOMcLMR7-Et5L8YN6CHv8IXJ2Ad8GbZFaF-hI6eHBK8f9hP049PlzXpTXX_9fLW-uK4MV0pUnIimloppTaDuWytdI6WxhDqnamcaqomyLdGWQ280ZwUzDHopJLfcOcFP0IeDd4rjzxlS7vY-GRjKDDDOqWOsbUXd1M2CvvsHvR3nWP6kUJxR2kqlWKE-HigTx5QiuG6Kfq_jXUdJtxTUlYK6-4IK-_bBOPd7sE_kYyMFODsAv_0Ad_83dZvv64PyL8PDmzs</recordid><startdate>202001</startdate><enddate>202001</enddate><creator>Dixon, Jeremy</creator><creator>Wilkinson‐Tough, Megan</creator><creator>Stone, Kevin</creator><creator>Laing, Judy</creator><general>Hindawi Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0656-5646</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202001</creationdate><title>Treading a tightrope: Professional perspectives on balancing the rights of patient's and relative's under the Mental Health Act in England</title><author>Dixon, Jeremy ; Wilkinson‐Tough, Megan ; Stone, Kevin ; Laing, Judy</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3884-30475682aa0e5b9d6f766cd01ff85fc71a08d90ad3ebca32a0ec2eb6463d3ff43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Advocacy</topic><topic>AMHP</topic><topic>carers</topic><topic>Commitment of Mentally Ill - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Confidentiality</topic><topic>decision‐making</topic><topic>Detention</topic><topic>England</topic><topic>Focus groups</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Information dissemination</topic><topic>Information sharing</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Involuntary</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Mental Competency - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Mental disorders</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - nursing</topic><topic>Mental Health</topic><topic>Mental Health Act</topic><topic>Mental health professionals</topic><topic>Needs Assessment - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Patient Advocacy - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Patient communication</topic><topic>Patient Discharge - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Patient satisfaction</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Risk Assessment - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>social work and healthcare</topic><topic>Wales</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dixon, Jeremy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilkinson‐Tough, Megan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stone, Kevin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laing, Judy</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Health &amp; social care in the community</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dixon, Jeremy</au><au>Wilkinson‐Tough, Megan</au><au>Stone, Kevin</au><au>Laing, Judy</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Treading a tightrope: Professional perspectives on balancing the rights of patient's and relative's under the Mental Health Act in England</atitle><jtitle>Health &amp; social care in the community</jtitle><addtitle>Health Soc Care Community</addtitle><date>2020-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>300</spage><epage>308</epage><pages>300-308</pages><issn>0966-0410</issn><eissn>1365-2524</eissn><abstract>Involuntary detention is used internationally to detain and treat people who are deemed to have a mental disorder. In England and Wales, approved mental health professionals (AMHPs) co‐ordinate Mental Health Act assessments which allow for patients to be detained. AMHPs have legal duties to identify, inform and consult with a patient's nearest relative (NR), who are, in turn, given powers to initiate or challenge detention. Our study takes an original approach through examining how AMHPs interpret their duties towards nearest relatives. We adopted a two‐stage design, which involved an online questionnaire with 55 AMHPs and focus group discussions with 33 AMHPs. The research was conducted in England between 2017 and 2018. Our questionnaire found that a high proportion of AMHPs reported that they had spoken to NRs for background information when assessing patients under the Mental Health Act. However, AMHPs were less likely to ask patients about their views of involving the NR prior to assessment. Focus group findings showed that AMHPs saw the NR role as offering an important ‘safeguard’ on the basis that NRs could provide information about the patient and advocate on their behalf. AMHPs identified practical difficulties in balancing their legal obligation towards NRs and patients; particularly where issues of potential abuse were raised or where patients had identified that they did not want NR involvement. While AMHPs stated that they sought to prioritise patient wishes regarding confidentiality, their accounts identified that patient consent about information sharing was sometimes implied rather than sought explicitly. Our findings reinforce conclusions by the recent Independent Review of the MHA, which states that current NR provisions are ‘outdated, variable and insufficient’. We identify that current practice could be improved using advanced choice documents and outline implications for AMHP practice.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Hindawi Limited</pub><pmid>31566844</pmid><doi>10.1111/hsc.12864</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0656-5646</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0966-0410
ispartof Health & social care in the community, 2020-01, Vol.28 (1), p.300-308
issn 0966-0410
1365-2524
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2299457574
source MEDLINE; Sociological Abstracts; Access via Wiley Online Library; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)
subjects Advocacy
AMHP
carers
Commitment of Mentally Ill - legislation & jurisprudence
Confidentiality
decision‐making
Detention
England
Focus groups
Humans
Information dissemination
Information sharing
Internet
Involuntary
Medical personnel
Mental Competency - legislation & jurisprudence
Mental disorders
Mental Disorders - nursing
Mental Health
Mental Health Act
Mental health professionals
Needs Assessment - legislation & jurisprudence
Patient Advocacy - legislation & jurisprudence
Patient communication
Patient Discharge - legislation & jurisprudence
Patient satisfaction
Patients
Questionnaires
Risk Assessment - legislation & jurisprudence
social work and healthcare
Wales
title Treading a tightrope: Professional perspectives on balancing the rights of patient's and relative's under the Mental Health Act in England
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T16%3A14%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Treading%20a%20tightrope:%20Professional%20perspectives%20on%20balancing%20the%20rights%20of%20patient's%20and%20relative's%20under%20the%20Mental%20Health%20Act%20in%20England&rft.jtitle=Health%20&%20social%20care%20in%20the%20community&rft.au=Dixon,%20Jeremy&rft.date=2020-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=300&rft.epage=308&rft.pages=300-308&rft.issn=0966-0410&rft.eissn=1365-2524&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/hsc.12864&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2321196882%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2321196882&rft_id=info:pmid/31566844&rfr_iscdi=true