Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:42:52.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-consultant psychiatrists' knowledge of emergency detention procedures in Scotland

A national survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Martin S. Humphreys
Martin S. Humphreys*
Affiliation:
Reaside Clinic, Birmingham Great Park, Rubery, Birmingham B45 9BE
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.

There is growing concern with psychiatrists' knowledge of mental health law, in particular with the introduction of new legislation and more complex statutory arrangements for after care. Despite this, little systematic research has been undertaken in the UK. This study was designed to determine the knowledge of a sample of doctors in psychiatry in Scotland, of part of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 which provides for urgent involuntary admission to hospital. A one in three sample of all non-consultant grade psychiatrists throughout Scotland was interviewed on the aspects of the Act considered essential to lawful detention. Knowledge of even this restricted part of the Act was poor regardless of experience. Evidence emerged which suggested that at times civil liberties might be compromised or the right to treatment denied. The findings clearly point to the need for increased emphasis on training in mental health law.

Type
Original Papers
Information
Psychiatric Bulletin , Volume 21 , Issue 10 , October 1997 , pp. 631 - 635
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 © 1997 The Royal College of Psychiatrists

References

Affleck, G. G., Peske, M. A. & Wintrob, R. M. (1978) Psychiatrists' familiarity with legal statutes governing emergency involuntary hospitalisation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 205–209.Google Scholar
Caldicott, F. & Mann, S. (1994) Mental health law. British Medical Journal, 308, 408–409.Google Scholar
Deering, A. (1994) Consent to emergency detention in Edinburgh. Psychiatric Bulletin, 18, 282–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastman, N. (1994) Mental health law: civil liberties and the principle of reciprocity. British Medical Journal, 308, 43–45.Google Scholar
Humphreys, M. S. (1992) Persuasion, coercion, medical paternalism or the Mental Health Act: the dilemma of detention in a general hospital. Scottish Medical Journal, 37, 146–148.Google Scholar
Humphreys, M. S. (1994) Junior psychiatrists and emergency compulsory detention in Scotland. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 17, 421–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humphreys, M. S. & Geddes, J. (1994) Mental health law. British Medical Journal, 308, 857.Google Scholar
Humphreys, M. S. & Ryman, A. (1996) Knowledge of emergency compulsory detention procedures among general practitioners in Edinburgh. British Medical Journal, 312, 1462–1463.Google Scholar
Peske, M. A. & Wintrob, R. M. (1974) Emergency commitment – a transcultural study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, H. I., Appelbaum, P. S. & Kaplan, R. D. (1984) Clinical judgements in the decision to commit. Psychiatric discretion and the law. Archives of General Psychiatry, 41, 811–815.Google Scholar
Soothill, K., Kupituksa, P. & MacMillan, J. F. (1990) Compulsory hospital admissions: dangerous decisions? Medicine, Science and the Law, 30, 17–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.