Application and implications of Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) certificate use in acute generalist settings

Abstract

Objective This retrospective study aimed to explore the appropriate application and implications of Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) (MHA) certificate use in a metropolitan generalist hospital in New South Wales. Methods A de-identified MHA certificate review was undertaken within acute generalist medical and surgical specialties between June 2012 and May 2013. To assess differences, data were separated into two categories according to whether certificates were completed by psychiatry trainees or generalist medical officers. Analysis of indications for detention was also undertaken and qualitatively matched against legislative criteria. Results A total of 43 MHA certificates were included in the review, which highlighted missing elements in most certificates. Differences were found when professional consensus by the researchers was used to match documentation to legislative criteria. The researchers disagreed with nine of the 16 indications (mental illness/mental disorder) by the generalist medical officers and only one indication by a psychiatry trainee. Six of the certificates appeared to be related to lack of capacity and need for treatment of medical conditions, thus more related to Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) applications. Conclusion This study highlights inconsistencies in legislative knowledge and requirements between professional groups. Education and training opportunities have been identified to ensure greater consistency in application of the MHA, preservation of patient rights and avoidance of stigma. MHA use in this setting should be exercised with caution and by appropriately trained individuals. What is known about the topic? The MHA and its state and territory counterparts provide for the treatment, care and support of people who have a mental illness and the protection of a person’s rights therein. Despite not being intended for application in generalist facilities, mental health legislation is widely used in generalist facilities and certificates are completed by generalist health professionals with limited training in this area of practice. What does this paper add? This study adds to the limited body of knowledge in relation to MHA detention in acute generalist facilities. Disparate preparation of medical officers in the use of this legislation has been identified, which has potential wider implications for patients beyond immediate care. What are the implications for practitioners? Inadequate attention to correct completion of MHA certificates and associated documentation could potentially invalidate detention, leaving healthcare professionals and institutions open to litigious claims that restrictive or coercive practices subsequent to the certificate’s completion were technically unlawful. Further, detention under the MHA, albeit temporarily, has potential human rights issues attached and wrongful detention could lead to longstanding issues relating to stigma.