Why do so few patients appeal against detention under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act?

The use of Mental Health Review Tribunals

Three hundred and fifty-six patients admitted under sections of the Mental Health Act (1983) were studied. One hundred and twenty-six (35%) patients appealed against their detentions and 52 of these appeals were heard. Only 18 patients were discharged from their detentions by the Tribunal in the study period. Younger patients were more likely to appeal and no patient whose first language was not English appealed in the study period. The tribunals appear to be a fair system once the opportunity to appeal is taken up.

Empirically evaluating the impact of adjudicative tribunals in the health sector: context, challenges and opportunities

Adjudicative tribunals are an integral part of health system governance, yet their real-world impact remains largely unknown. Most assessments focus on internal accountability and use anecdotal methodologies; few, studies if any, empirically evaluate their external impact and use these data to test effectiveness, track performance, inform service improvements and ultimately strengthen health systems. Given that such assessments would yield important benefits and have been conducted successfully in similar settings (e.g. specialist courts), their absence is likely attributable to complexity in the health system, methodological difficulties and the legal environment within which tribunals operate. We suggest practical steps for potential evaluators to conduct empirical impact evaluations along with an evaluation matrix template featuring possible target outcomes and corresponding surrogate endpoints, performance indicators and empirical methodologies. Several system-level strategies for supporting such assessments have also been suggested for academics, health system institutions, health planners and research funders. Action is necessary to ensure that policymakers do not continue operating without evidence but can rather pursue data-driven strategies that are more likely to achieve their health system goals in a cost-effective way.

The mental health service crisis of neoliberalism -- an antipodean perspective

Major transformations in forms of governance of the liberal state have been wrought over the course of the last century, including the rise of neoliberalism and 'new public management.' Mental health too has witnessed change, with pharmacological treatment displacing residential care, a shift to community-based services, mainstreaming with general health care, and greater reliance on civil society institutions such as the family or markets. This article considers whether mental health law, and its court/tribunal 'gatekeepers' have kept pace with those changes. It argues that the focus of the liberal project needs to shift to measures which will better guarantee access to mental health services, and keep a more watchful eye on both 'hidden' coercion of people on community treatment orders, and passive neglect of human need.

The role of second health professionals under New Zealand mental health legislation

The development of generic statutory roles in mental health care has been the subject of discussion by New Zealand nurses for the past decade. One such role is that of second health professional in judicial reviews of civil commitment. Issues identified by New Zealand nurses have also been raised in England, where it seems that nurses are likely to assume the role of Approved Mental Health Worker under English mental health law. A survey of mental health nurses found that few had received any preparation for the role of second health professional and 45% did not feel adequately prepared for the role. Some of these issues are reflected in a New Zealand inquiry which resulted in the Ministry of Health developing a written report form for second health professionals. However, the form has the potential to reduce the mental health nursing role to a narrow legal role. Statutory roles such as that of second health professional challenge mental health nurses to critically reflect on the conceptual and ethical basis of their practice. While traditional concepts such as therapeutic relationships and advocacy need to be reviewed in light of these changes, nurses need to be vigilant in articulating the moral and clinical basis of their roles. The development of guidelines for he second health professional role is suggested as a way of supporting clinical practice in this area.

Not afraid to blame: the neglected role of blame attribution in medical consumerism and some implications for health policy

A crucial aspect of medical consumerism has been overlooked in past research and policymaking: how consumers decide whom to "blame" for bad outcomes. This study explores how, in a system increasingly dominated by managed care, these attributions affect consumers' attitudes and behavior. Using data from the experiences of people with serious mental illness, hypotheses are tested regarding the origins and consequences of blaming for medical consumerism. Blame was allocated to health plans in a manner similar, but not identical, to the way in which blame was allocated to health care professionals. Both allocations are shaped by enrollment in managed care, with blame allocation affecting consumers' subsequent willingness to talk about adverse events. Policy implications include the need for more finely tuned grievance procedures and better consumer education about managed care practices.

The family rule: a framework for obtaining ethical consent for medical interventions from children

Children's consent to treatment remains a contentious topic, with confusing legal precepts and advice. This paper proposes that informed consent in children should be regarded as shared between children and their families, the balance being determined by implicit, developmentally based negotiations between child and parent--a "family rule" for consent. Consistent, operationalized procedures for ethically obtaining consent can be derived from its application to both routine and contentious situations. Therefore, use of the "family Rule" concept can consistently define negligent procedure in obtaining consent from children, and could be used as a unifying framework in the development of new professional guidelines. A "guideline"-based approach to children's consent to treatment may offer greater individuality than a "rights"-based approach, though careful training and oversight will be needed for it to be effective.