Use of the Mental Health Act Criteria in the Decision-Making Process for Compulsory Admissions: A Study of Psychiatrists in South London

Author:

Bhugra Dinesh1,Dazzan Paola1

Affiliation:

1. Institute of Pyschiatry, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF

Abstract

This study investigates the decision-making process for admitting patients compulsorily under the Mental Health Act 1983 of England and Wales. We used three case-vignettes describing different clinical situations: 1) a man with depression and psychotic symptoms; 2) a woman with a possible first episode of psychosis; and 3) a man with a history of substance abuse and bipolar disorder. The vignettes were administered to a group of psychiatrists working at the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals in South London. The psychiatrists were asked to rate 11 factors from the most to the least important in their decision to admit the individual compulsorily. Three factors resembled the criteria considered in the Mental Health Act 1983 for compulsory admission: current mental state; severity of the disease; and dangerousness to self or others. Three were other clinical features of the patient: diagnosis; psychiatric history; and likely response of the mental state to the medical treatment. The remaining five were sociodemographic features of the patient: age and gender; owning a home; occupational status; and social support available. The psychiatrists were not given the option that the patient would accept a voluntary admission to hospital. We obtained responses from 42 psychiatrists (25 males and 17 females). The most important factor for deciding to detain a patient compulsorily was perceived dangerousness to self and others. The current mental state of the patient and the severity of the illness were the next two important factors. Our results confirm that the criteria recommended by the Mental Health Act 1983 of England and Wales were applied consistently in three different hypothetical situations. The need for protection of the patient or others may take precedence over the current mental state of the patient or the severity of the illness, a finding that warrants further investigation in view of the current debate on the responsibility of psychiatrists in deciding to detain subjects affected by personality disorder.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Law,Health Policy,Issues, ethics and legal aspects

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3