To describe similarities and differences in mental health legislation between five jurisdictions: the Republic of Ireland, England and Wales, Scotland, Ontario (Canada), and Victoria (Australia).

An in-depth examination was undertaken focussing on the process of involuntary admission, review of Admission Orders and the legal processes in relation to treatment in the absence of patient consent in each of the five jurisdictions of interest.

All jurisdictions permit the detention of a patient if they have a mental disorder although the definition of mental disorder varies between jurisdictions. Several additional differences exist between the five jurisdictions, including the duration of admission prior to independent review of involuntary detention and the role of supported decision making.

Across the five jurisdictions examined, largely similar procedures for admission, detention and treatment of involuntary patients are employed, reflecting adherence with international standards and incorporation of human rights-based principles. Differences exist in relation to the criteria to define mental disorder, the occurrence of automatic review hearings in a timely fashion after a patient is involuntarily admitted and the role for supported decision making under mental health legislation.

To evaluate and compare the opinions of key stakeholders involved in the involuntary admission and treatment of patients under the Mental Health Act (MHA) 2001 regarding their views towards the operation of the legislation.

We employed a descriptive survey design. A questionnaire was distributed to stakeholders involved in the operation of the MHA 2001 (except service users, whose views were explored in a separate qualitative study) via paper or online versions evaluating their opinions regarding the operation of the MHA 2001 in relation to assessment, care, rights, transfer and information available.

Stakeholders agreed that in their opinion that patients generally benefit from the care they receive (79%) and that the MHA 2001 ensures an independent and fair review of the person’s detention (65%). However, only 23% of stakeholders were satisfied with the process of transferring patients to hospital and with the clinical assessment procedures therein (37%), with the greatest levels of dissatisfaction amongst Gardai (Police), general practitioners (GPs) and family members.

While the introduction of the MHA 2001 has assisted delivery of care to patients with improved adherence to international human rights frameworks applicable at the time of its enactment, substantial dissatisfaction with the implementation of the MHA 2001 in practice is experienced by stakeholders particularly at the distressing phase of clinical assessment and transfer to hospital.