Appeals against Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983

What happens to patients discharged by Mental Health Review Tribunals?

Under the Mental Health Act (1983) Mental Hospital Review Tribunals act as a safeguard against unwarranted detention of patients in psychiatric hospitals. Detention, other than in special hospitals, is most commonly under section 2 (assessment order) or section 3 (treatment order) of the 1983 Act. Patients thus detained have the right to appeal to a Review Tribunal, which has the power to order their discharge.

Ethnicity and outcome of appeal after detention under the Mental Health Act 1983

Aims and Method

There is insufficient research into the relationship between ethnicity and appeals against detention under mental health legislation. We sought to identify rates and success of appeals in different ethnic groups through a retrospective analysis of all detentions under the Mental Health Act 1983 over 1 year.

Results

We found high rates of appeals overall, with substantial differences between ethnic groups (36 (39%) White British compared with 71 (63%) Black Caribbean (P = 0.0001) and 21 (68%) White Irish (P = 0.01) individuals (Yates corrected chi-squared)). Success rates on appeal were very low in all groups.

Clinical Implications

There are significant ethnic differences in appeals against detention under the Mental Health Act.

Predictors of Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) outcome in a forensic inpatient population: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have investigated factors associated with outcome at Mental Health Review Tribunals (MHRTs) in forensic psychiatric patients; however, dynamic variables such as treatment compliance and substance misuse have scarcely been examined, particularly in UK samples. We aimed to determine whether dynamic factors related to behaviour, cooperation with treatment, and activities on the ward were prospectively associated with outcome at MHRT.

METHODS

At baseline, demographic, clinical, behavioural, and treatment-related factors were ascertained via electronic medical records and census forms completed by the patient's clinical team. Data on MHRTs (i.e., number attended, responsible clinician's recommendation, and outcome) were collected at a 2-year follow-up. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with outcome among those who attended a MHRT within the follow-up period. Of the 135 forensic inpatients examined at baseline, 79 patients (59%) attended a MHRT during the 2-year follow-up period and therefore comprised the study sample. Of these 79 patients included in the current study, 28 (35%) were subsequently discharged.

RESULTS

In univariable analyses, unescorted community leave, responsible clinician's recommendation of discharge, and restricted Mental Health Act section were associated with a greater likelihood of discharge at MHRT; whilst inpatient aggression, a recent episode of acute illness, higher total score on the Historical Clinical Risk - 20 (HCR-20), higher HCR-20 clinical and risk scores, and agitated behaviour were negatively associated with discharge (p < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, HCR-20 clinical scale scores and physical violence independently predicted outcome at tribunal after controlling for other dynamic variables.

CONCLUSION

By identifying dynamic factors associated with discharge at tribunal, the results have important implications for forensic psychiatric patients and their clinical teams. Our findings suggest that by reducing levels of agitated behaviour, verbal aggression, and physical violence on the ward, achieving unescorted community leave, and targeting specific items on the HCR-20 risk assessment tool, patients may be able to improve their changes of discharge at a MHRT.

A one year analysis of appeals made to mental health review tribunals in New Zealand

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the paper is to present data on the first year of all appeals lodged with a Mental Health Review Tribunal against compulsory treatment orders of psychiatric inpatients.

METHOD

Two tribunals have been in operation in New Zealand since the introduction of a new Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act in 1992. The case records of all patients who had appeals heard by either the Northern or Southern regional tribunal from 16/12/92 to 7/12/93 inclusive were examined.

RESULTS

145 appeals were heard by the tribunals: 14.5% of appeal hearings resulted in the discharge of a patient from their compulsory treatment status. Discharge rates for the Southern Tribunal were found to be significantly higher at 22%, compared with 10% for the Northern Tribunal (p < 0.05). Application for appeal was initiated by the patient in 72% of cases; District Inspectors initiated the remaining cases. District Inspectors were found to initiate significantly more female review applications (47%) than male applications (22%) (p < 0.05). Of the appeals heard, 126 were lodged under s.79 of the Mental Health Act. The remaining cases were s.80 (special) cases: in no case was discharge from compulsory treatment recommended. Overall, 69% of appellants were represented by a lawyer. It was found however that engaging legal representation did not significantly increase patients' chances of successful discharge but did delay the hearings. Also considered in the study were the presence or absence of witnesses at hearings and the relationship this had to the outcome of the tribunal hearing.

CONCLUSIONS

Ambiguities within the Act need to be addressed in order that criteria used to judge a patient's fitness for discharge may be standardised. In addition, the Act stipulates a maximum delay of 14 days in reviewing a patient's case; however in practice a mean of 22 days elapses, indicating that this stipulation requires review.