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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Health & social care in the community 2020-01, Vol.28 (1), p.300-308 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 & 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 & social care in the community, 2020-01, Vol.28 (1), p.300-308</ispartof><rights>2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 John Wiley & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Patient Advocacy - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Patient communication</subject><subject>Patient Discharge - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Patient satisfaction</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Risk Assessment - legislation & 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 & 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 & 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 & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Patient Advocacy - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Patient communication</topic><topic>Patient Discharge - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Patient satisfaction</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Risk Assessment - legislation & 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 & 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 & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Health & 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 & 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 |