Section 2 or Section 3?

These are the sections of the Mental Health Act that are the most commonly used when compulsory detention in hospital is being considered.

S.2 Mental Health Act lasts for 28 days, and its main purpose is to assess a patient in hospital (although it does also permit treatment). S.3 MHA lasts for a maximum of 6 months, and is for the purpose of treatment.

Statistics show a general increase in the use of compulsory detention between 2016-17 and 2017-18. Detentions under both S.2 and S.3 have increased.

In the year 2016-17 there was a total of 34,137 admissions under S.2, while in the years 2017-18 there were 37,408. While this shows an increase of 9% over the previous year, it does not approach the peak in the year 2015-16, when detentions under S.2 amounted to 40,063.

In the year 2016-17 there were 21,361 detentions under S.3, while in the years 2017-18 there were 23,073. This shows an increase of 7.5% over the previous year, but still it does not approach the peak in the year 2015-16, when detentions under S.3 amounted to 28,147.

Digging deeper into these statistics, 11,296 of the S.3 detentions followed previous detention under S.2 This indicates that 30% of people detained under S.2 were subsequently detained under S.3 for a longer period of inpatient treatment.

The Code of Practice states that S.2:

should only be used if the full extent of the nature and degree of a patient’s condition is unclear, or there is a need to carry out an initial in-patient assessment in order to formulate a treatment plan, or to reach a judgement about whether the patient will accept treatment on a voluntary basis following admission, or there is a need to carry out a new in-patient assessment in order to re-formulate a treatment plan, or to reach a judgement about whether the patient will accept treatment on a voluntary basis. (14.27)

The Code goes on to say that Section 3 should be used:

if the patient is already detained under section 2, or the nature and current degree of the patient’s mental disorder, the essential elements of the treatment plan to be followed and the likelihood of the patient accepting treatment as an informal patient are already sufficiently established to make it unnecessary to undertake a new assessment under S.2. (14.28)

Despite this guidance, making a choice between S.2 or S.3 is a frequent source of discussion among AMHPs. There are a number of reasons for this.

Some are strictly to do with professional clinical decisions and the imperative to explore least restrictive options. It may be felt, for example, that the shorter detention period of a S.2 is felt to be less restrictive than the 6 months of a S.3.

Some may be more to do with expediency, or more, shall we say, complex issues.

What factors might influence use of S.2 or S.3?

Here are a couple of scenarios. They are fictitious, but describe situations that will be familiar to AMHPs.

Jason

It is 22:00 hrs on Friday evening: an out of hours AMHP is asked to assess a patient detained under S.136.Jason is in York, where he was detained by police attempting to climb onto the altar of York Minister claiming to be the Second Coming of Christ.

The Police have established that he normally lives in Cornwall, where he is well known to psychiatric services, has a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, is subject to S.117 aftercare, and recently went missing from the mental health hostel in which he was living.

On assessment, it is clear that Jason is thought disordered, but is unable or unwilling to reveal any information about his medication or mental health care. It is clear that he needs to be in hospital. Unfortunately, the AMHP is unable to contact mental health services in Jason’s area to obtain more information.

Should Jason be detained under S.2 or S.3?

Applying the principles for decision making in the Code of Practice, the AMHP is aware that Jason is well known to his local mental health services, and has in the past been detained under S.3.

But at the same time, the AMHP is unable to confirm this and discuss the situation with Jason’s care team. Because he is so far from home, neither the AMHP nor the doctors assessing him have had any previous acquaintance with the patient.

The AMHP might in these circumstances consider that S.2 is preferable even though Jason’s diagnosis and presumably treatment is well known. It is just that these things are not well known to the assessing team.

Jonathon

Jonathan is a well known patient with a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder. He has recently stopped taking his mood stabilising medication and his care coordinator reports that he is becoming increasingly manic, spending profligately, not sleeping, is harassing his neighbours, and becoming sexually disinhibited. These are all warning signs of relapse.

An AMHP and two S.12 doctors assess Jonathan at home and conclude that he needs to be detained in hospital for treatment.

The doctors have a dilemma. No hospital bed has been identified prior to the assessment, and the bed managers can give no indication as to how long it would be to identify a hospital.

What should the doctors do?

The difficulty here is that, unlike medical recommendations for S.2, the doctors have to state on a S.3 recommendation the name or names of hospitals where appropriate treatment would be available.

In the real world, where there is a national shortage of psychiatric beds, especially for children and people with learning disabilities, doctors will often make recommendations for S.2 and then leave them with the AMHP. These can then be used at any time within 14 days from the date of the recommendations. The doctors do not have to be involved in another assessment.

But the doctors in Jonathon’s case would not be able to complete their medical recommendations, because they could not name the hospital in which the patient could receive treatment. So they can’t just sign the document and go on their way.

Might they be tempted to find some pretext that might justify detention under S.2 for assessment, rather than S.3 for treatment?

And would that be ethical?

The Nearest Relative

The rights and powers of the Nearest Relative of a patient are important factors that AMHPs have to take into account when considering detention under the MHA.

For a S.2, the NR should at the least be informed that detention has taken place, and should be made aware of their rights to order the discharge of the patient from hospital.

However, for a S.3, it is a legal requirement for the NR to be consulted if at all possible, because if they object, detention under S.3 cannot take place. The only option then for an AMHP is to go to the Courts to have the NR displaced. This can be a time consuming process, and it can take weeks for the courts to make a final decision.

This is where some interesting decisions might be taken to avoid consulting the NR, especially if it is known that they are likely to object to detention under S.3.

There is a body of Case Law relating to the NR and failure to consult them. Sometimes, AMHPs (and ASWs in the past) have got into considerable trouble.

One example is GD v The Managers of the Dennis Scott Unit at Edgware Community Hospital and The London Borough of Barnet, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 27th June 2008.

In this case, there were real fears that the patient’s father might hide the patient if it was known that an assessment under the MHA was going to take place. The ASW did not contact the NR before the assessment, and only let him know by leaving a message when the assessment was actually taking place. When the NR returned the call 20 minutes later, the paperwork had already been completed. He then indicated in no unclear terms his feelings about this and his objection.

But the ASW had by then filled in the section of the form indicating that it had been “impracticable” to consult with the NR.

The Judge in the case found that the patient had been illegally detained because the ASW had deliberately failed to make adequate attempts to consult with the NR as he knew that the NR would object.

So an AMHP may be confronted with a dilemma. The AMHP might be clear that a certain patient in the community, who is well known to services with a clear diagnosis, and where it is known what treatment the patient requires, needs to be detained for treatment under S.3.

But the AMHP is also aware that the NR may object, making it impossible to ensure their admission and treatment, at least without having to go to a Judge to have the NR displaced.

So does the AMHP bite the bullet, make efforts to consult, then go through the necessary legal processes if the NR objects?

Even if this might put the patient in danger?

Or does this hypothetical AMHP consider that just maybe they can find some justification for detention under S.2, for assessment, hence avoiding the need to obtain the NR’s consent, and at the same time ensuring the patient’s safety?

The Mental Health Act Review

The recently published review of the Mental Health Act makes many recommendations for changes to existing law. Some of these relate to the use of S.2 and S.3.

The Review is keen to reduce the length of time that a patient can be detained in hospital wherever possible.

For a start, the Review is keen to reduce the use of compulsory detention at all. It is suggesting that the bar for justification of detention should be raised, and even where a patient is detained under S.2, the detention should be reviewed after 14 days, and a decision should then be made to either discharge or detain under S.3: “section 2 should only be used where it is truly necessary to assess someone."

It goes on to say:

Where the AMHP is aware that a person has been subject to detention under section 3 within the last twelve months, an application for detention under section 2 can only be made where there has been a material change in the person’s circumstances since they were previously detained under a section 3. We are also recommending that the Code of Practice makes it clear that section 3, rather than section 2 should be used when a person has already been subject to section 2 within the last twelve months.

At the same time the Review is also recommending a reduction in the initial maximum detention period under S.3 to 3 months from the present 6 months. There would be a further extension period of 3 months, and only after that could a person be detained for 6 months.

I am inclined to the view that, even though the Review’s recommendations have a long way to go before a change in the law might take place, an AMHP should still heed the Review’s opinions, especially as the recommendations are backed up by people’s rights under the Human Rights Act.