Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:06:55.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mental health review tribunal medical reports

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Khalida Ismail ,
Shubulade Smith  and
Tony Maden
Khalida Ismail*
Affiliation:
Maudsley Hospital, London SE5 8AF
Shubulade Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Tony Maden
Affiliation:
Department of Forensic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, London
*
∗Correspondence
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims and method

Medical reports submitted to mental health review tribunals should be of a clinically acceptable standard. We examined 100 medical reports to assess whether they stated the four criteria for detention under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. We compared the standard of reports according to the seniority, qualifications and speciality of the doctor, and with the outcome from the tribunal.

Results

The majority of the reports were written by junior doctors and did not fulfil the criteria laid down by the Mental Health Act 1983. Consultant and forensic psychiatry status were associated with completed reports.

Clinical implications

This study was performed in one hospital only but highlights the ongoing need to review and improve the workings of the Mental Health Act before reform is considered.

Type
Original Papers
Information
Psychiatric Bulletin , Volume 22 , Issue 10 , October 1998 , pp. 615 - 618
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 The Royal College of Psychiatrists

References

Blom-Cooper, L., Halley, H. & Murphy, E. (1995) The Falling Shadow: One Patient's Mental Health Care 1978–1993. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Blom-Cooper, L., Grounds, A., Guinana, P., et al (1996) The Case of Jason Mitchell: Report of the Independent Panel of Inquiry. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, S. & Wessely, S. (1994) Patterns of Delay in Mental Health Review Tribunals. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Brockman, B. (1993) Preparing for Mental Health Review Tribunals: reports and dilemmas. Psychiatric Bulletin, 17, 544–547.Google Scholar
Crimlisk, H. & Phelan, M. (1996) Mental Health Review Tribunals. British Journal of Psychiatry, 169, 678–681.Google Scholar
Davison, P. & Perez de Albeniz, P. (1997) Reports prepared for the mental health review tribunal and managers' reviews. Psychiatric Bulletin, 21, 364–366.Google Scholar
North East and South East Thames Regional Health Authority (1994) The Report of the Inquiry into the Care and Treatment of Christopher Clunis. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Peay, J. (1989) Tribunals on Trial: Study of Decision Making under the MHA 1983. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.