The authors grapple with the conflict between the social
work role of empowerment and the AMHP powers that can lead to coercion and the
imposition of social and medical control, and this book provides an excellent
examination of the tensions existing in the role of the approved mental health
practitioner, allowing the student and practitioner to reflect on the role in
the context of the wider social perspective.
As the book is directed at an examination of practice
under all the UK’s mental health legislation, they generally describe the
professional as an “approved mental health practitioner”, so I will continue to
use this terminology in this review, and the abbreviation of “AMHP” should be
read in this way.
Sarah Matthews starts by posing the question, “Do social
workers as approved mental health practitioners struggle to promote a model
that views the manifestations of mental health in any way other than the
dominant and, some argue, pathological one?” She goes on to outline the
fundamental aspects of approved mental health practice. These include the
social perspective as being central, as well as the independent nature of the
role. She also stresses the importance of emotional engagement, containment and
the concept of “dirty work” as contributing to the unique role of the AMHP. She
states: “The mother, it is suggested, contains others’ distress without
appearing to be affected by it herself and it is this which an approved mental
health practitioner might also accomplish.”
I was particularly intrigued by her discussion of work
under the MHA as being “dirty work”. Dirty work “describes the notion that
people are compelled to play a role in work about which they ought to be a
little ashamed, morally… A profession embraces unpleasant tasks as a means of
establishing its credibility or undertakes such tasks as a necessary, albeit
difficult, element.”
Tim Spencer-Lane provides an analysis of the legal and
political factors in England and Wales that led to the revision of the 1983 Act
and the creation of Approved Mental Health Professionals. Having practiced
under Mental Health Acts since 1981, I have lived through these changes, and
have been professionally associated with the issues which eventually led to the
2007 Act. He makes the interesting point that the MHA 2007 “was the result of a
long and embittered battle between the Government and the major stakeholders
about the fundamental purpose of mental health law”, whereas the Mental
Capacity Act 2005 was developed in broad consensus and was the culmination of a
long consultation process.
Jean Gordon and Roger Davis go on to compare and contrast
mental health law in Scotland and Northern Ireland (although omits the Isle of
Man Mental health Act 1998, which, like Northern Ireland, retains the Approved
Social Worker).
David Pilgrim makes interesting points about the way in
which mental health professionals can make basic assumptions about mental health
practice which may be at odds with reality. He makes the point that
"third-party interests constantly shape professional decision making and
action. Indeed, at its most coercive, mental health work considers the needs of
the identified patients only after others are protected from their prospective
presence and actions... It is soon evident that public safety and institutional
order can dominate staff decision making."
He argues, with some justification, that the MHA in
England and Wales is more concerned with controlling mental disorder than with
the promotion of mental health. This makes the AMHP role innately coercive, and
he poses some challenging questions about the validity of enforcing compulsory
treatment with drugs which are at best only moderately effective, and at worst
can cause serious harm or even death.
Helen Spandler tackles problems around psychiatric
diagnosis, wishing to "equip approved mental health practitioners with the
knowledge to question, challenge and understand the broader meaning of mental
disorder and diagnosis," in order for us to be "more cautious and
thoughtful about the language we use to describe mental health crises."
She reviews the different approaches to diagnosis, from
psychiatric, psychological and service user perspectives, often using as
examples the ways in which the long term effects of childhood trauma can be
interpreted as either normal reactions to extreme life events, or pathology
indicating mental illness or disorder.
She suggests that a more useful, and service user centred
approach for an AMHP to take is to assess levels of impairment and functioning,
rather than diagnosis, to determine access to services and using mental health
legislation. While expressing scepticism about the use of diagnosis, she states
that "it is important not to let the endorsement or criticism of diagnosis
get in the way of decision-making." Any alternative to conventional
diagnosis "must result in better consequences for people in terms of
gaining the more appropriate support and assistance."
Daisy Bogg examines ethics and values in the context of
approved mental health practice, tackling in the process some of the ethical
dilemmas inherent in the use of Community Treatment Orders, observing that
"approved mental health practitioners serve as a counterbalance to a
single dominant medical perspective and are required to provide a more holistic
view, and account for the whole circumstances of an individual's situation
before making a decision to apply for compulsory admission."
Amanda Taylor and Jill Hemmington's chapter on Diversity
in Mental Health sets out to "challenge notions of diversity being simply
and solely located within traditional, fixed dimensions and to alternatively
view it as being unique to the individual, group and community." They warn
that approved mental health practitioners need to be aware that they
"belong to a 'dominant social group' that 'maintain systems of privilege
and oppression'".
They give as an illustration an in depth analysis of
Deafness, including specific case studies, using these to show that "it is
vital that as practitioners we can seek that which is outside of the self and
consider not only the diversity relating to the other but go some way to
working within their 'internal frame of reference' to understand the layers
that exist."
They conclude: "Empathy, 'tuning in' and constantly
asking oneself questions are the starting points to a thorough, effective
assessment that has honesty and collaborative work at its core."
I was particularly intrigued by Anthea Murr and Tamsin
Waterhouse's chapter on "The Impact of Time and Place", as it focused
on assessments in rural areas. Readers of this blog will be aware that I work
predominantly in a rural area; even the towns in my area have populations of
less than 30,000. They outline the special factors that can impact on the
mental health of people living in rural areas, such as physical, social,
cultural, psychological and geographical isolation, as well as the problems of
rural poverty, and conclude that practitioners working in rural areas need to
have special training and acclimatisation to prepare them for these particular
challenges.
Julie Ridley outlines a study of service users’
experiences of mental health legislation in Scotland. Although specific to
Scotland, this study is also of relevance to professionals working throughout
the UK.
Experiences of compulsion varied from the positive to the
negative, perhaps not unexpectedly. Some service users welcomed having “‘responsibility
taken away’ and a structure to daily life imposed”, while others described it
as a “nightmare” experience.
Philip O’Hare and Gavin Davidson devote a chapter to the
role of the Nearest Relative, tracing the history of this role in mental health
legislation going back to the 18th century, and its evolution in
more recent Mental Health Acts. They make the point that improvements in social
work training and the changes to practice brought about by the Seebohm in the
1970’s added to pressure to replace the 1959 Mental Health Act with legislation
that recognised the professional competence of social workers. This led to the
1983 Act, where the Approved Social Worker became the preferred applicant in
applications for detention.
I was intrigued by the statistic that in the early years
following the introduction of the 1983 Act only 1.6% of application were made
by Nearest Relatives. I suspect that this figure is now even lower.
Practicing exclusively in England, I did not realise that
legislation in Scotland had ended the Nearest Relative role as applicant for
detention. I was interested to read that the other parts of this role have been
replaced by a “named person”, who is nominated by the patient. Although this
seems like an admirable idea, and would obviate the current difficulties that
AMHP’s can find in identifying and consulting with the Nearest Relative, this
idea was unfortunately not taken up when drafting the 2007 Act.
Philip O’Hare discusses to what extent evidence-based
practice can inform approved mental health practice. There is a paucity of
evidence on which to base evidence-based practice within mental health
legislation,; evidence-based practice is essentially based on the medical
model, which can be hard to replicate in a social care context.
O’Hare asks the question “How to AMHP’s make sense of
their legal roles being informed by practice, and looks at making decisions
based on least restrictive concepts, applying this in particular to the AMHP
role in Community Treatment Orders: “how does an AMHP make a distinction
between justified and unjustified CTO’s?”
Unfortunately, despite rather sketchy research into the
efficacy of CTO’s, it is very difficult to assess the likely beneficial impact
of a CTO on any particular individual, other than anecdotal evidence relating
to length of time without a hospital admission. How can you test whether the
conditions of a CTO have positively influenced a specific patient?
Jill Hemmington examines how AMHP’s have to manage
uncertainty, and how one can develop practice wisdom. She makes the point that
approved mental health practice “has been described as ‘crisis, mess and
muddle’ where Mental Health Act assessments often arise from and within
situations where there is ‘panic and confusion’”. She makes an interesting
attempt to apply crisis theory to AMHP work, and also points out that “because
something is lawful, it is not automatically ethical”.
She poses a number of pertinent questions for an AMHP to
consider relating to their practice, for example, “How did I influence the
situation through: my presence, my actions, my preconceptions or assumptions,
other people’s perceptions of me, my physical well-being on the day?”
The editors conclude that “for an AMHP the focus is on
how to interpret and analyse appropriately and avoid any illusion that there
can be certainty.”
Each chapter contains reflective questions, which are
designed to provoke stimulating discussions in student seminars, and which
would also be useful for AMHP’s who are preparing reapproval portfolios to
evidence reflective practice and to elicit learning points from professional
experience.
I found the book as a whole stimulating and thought-provoking. It was a pleasure to read a book that directly addresses the dilemmas with which I am faced every day of my professional life.
I wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone
interested in the AMHP role, including those undergoing AMHP training, AMHP’s
preparing for reapproval, and social work and mental health nursing students
who seek to obtain a deeper understanding of the moral and legal complexities
of the role.
Approved Mental Health Practice: Essential Themes for Students and Practitioners
Edited By Sarah Matthews, Philip O'Hare and Jill Hemmington
Palgrave Macmillan, April 2014
ISBN: 1-137-00013-9, 978-1-137-00013-2
As one of the authors, thank-you for this lovely review.
ReplyDelete