Ask the Masked AMHP for the answers to your thorny MHA
related problems. He might know the answer. Or not.
The Masked AMHP always tries to assist people, whether
professionals or patients, who ask for assistance or advice. However, I cannot guarantee
that my advice is definitive.
This month: transitional arrangements for s.117 aftercare when
the MHA 1983 came into force, and procedures for AMHP reapproval after a lapse in practice.
A social worker asks an unusual but pertinent question
about s.117 aftercare.
If a person was admitted to a psychiatric hospital for
treatment in 1980 can they claim s.117 Aftercare, or did Aftercare only start
with the 1983 Act?
The Masked AMHP replies:
S.117 aftercare did
not exist before the Mental Health Act 1983. However, there were transitional
arrangements for patients who were detained under the MHA 1959 at the moment
that the MHA 1983 came into force, which was the 30th September
1983. I remember this date vividly, as I was a Mental Welfare Officer under the
MHA 1959, and suddenly became an Approved Social worker (ASW) on that date. I
did my first MHA assessment under the MHA 1983 within the first two weeks,
which happened to be a detention under s.4.
Anyway, the
transitional arrangements stated that any patient detained under s.26 MHA 1959
at that moment would be deemed to be detained under s.3 MHA 1983, and would
therefore be entitled to s.117 aftercare on discharge from hospital. S.26 was
the equivalent of s.3, being for treatment. However, a patient who had been
under s.26 but who had been discharged from this section prior to 30th
September 1983 would not be eligible.
Several people whose
AMHP approval has lapsed have asked about the requirements for being
reapproved.
The Masked AMHP
replies:
The answer to this
question lies at least partially in The Mental Health (Approved Mental Health
Professionals) (Approval) (England) Regulations 2008 (there are separate
regulations for Welsh AMHPs). These regulations state which professionals are
eligible to train to be AMHPs (social workers, mental health nurses,
occupational therapists or clinical psychologists), and what competences need
to be evidenced in order to be approved.
Regulation 3(1) states:
An LSSA may only
approve a person to act as an AMHP if it is satisfied that the person has
appropriate competence in dealing with persons who are suffering from mental
disorder.
The notes add that before
a person can be approved to act as an AMHP if he has not been approved before,
that person must have completed an approved course of training within the last
five years.
The regulations are,
however, silent when it comes to the question of reapproving an AMHP following
a period of not practicing. What is required appears to be down to individual
local authorities.
In Cambridgeshire,
for example, there needs to be evidence of the following:
- A recommendation from their line manager / supervising AMHP that they are acclimatised to local services and ready to be approved.
- Evidence of successful completion of a recognised AMHP course with requisite evidence of attendance at post qualifying AMHP training up to the period of lapse.
- A recommendation / reference statement from the last authority in which they were appointed to act as an AMHP.
- To have led at least one assessment with a competency statement provided by the supervising AMHP, with regard to AMHP competences as set out by HCPC.
- Evidence of at least one specific AMHP supervision session with a suitable qualified professional, following the shadow / lead assessments undertaken.
If the lapse had
been for more than a year, the AMHP might be required to complete part or all
of an AMHP qualifying course.
Torbay & South
Devon’s guidance is much less specific. They state that the
re-approval procedure will identify appropriate training/practice needs that
are required before re-approval can take place. This would involve the presentation
of a portfolio, and a formal meeting to look at learning and practice needs.
Norfolk’s procedure for
AMHPs who have had a lapse in practice of more than a year requires an
individual support plan. This could include:
- a period of both observing and being observed on MHA assessments, supported by their AMHP supervisor and other experienced AMHP as appropriate
- MHA legal refresher training
- attending AMHP team meetings
- taking part in any other relevant training, such as safeguarding or risk management
- undertaking regular AMHP supervision.
Solihull make decisions concerning reapproval on a case by case basis which would include factors such as when the AMHP was last approved, their current skills and knowledge, familiarity with local services and so on. In the event of a long gap since last period of practice, there may be a need for completion of part or all of an accredited AMHP course.
So it appears that there are as many answers to this question as there are local authorities. However, the willingness of a local authority to facilitate the reapproval of an AMHP whose approval has lapsed would ultimately depend on the urgency to fill any shortfall in AMHP availability.
And while the national demand for AMHPs to undertake MHA
assessments continues at the current record rate, it would be surprising if any
local authority were to make the reapproval process too onerous.
Can I ask a question unrelated to this post? I'm a patient with an eating disorder. My BMI is currently around 15. I've had a number of hospital admissions, a few brief admissions to gereral psychiatric hospitals due to preventing me from harming myself (suicidal behaviour/ picked up under 136 by police) and a number if voluntary admissions to eatibg disorder units. I've discharged myself early on every occasion due to feeling overwhelmed (I'm autistic) on my last 2 admissions I've said I don't want to be allowed to leave (supported by my family) but I've been allowed to leave. My BMI was 14.5 on the last occasion, thinking impared but blood test results stable. Often sensory overload or plans not being clear can make me want to flee, but this can be managed with staff who understand my autism. On the last admission my family requested a mental health act assessment at the point i asked to leave. I did see the ward psyciatrist but my family were told i couldn't be referred for a MHA assessment. From what I've read this isn't correct? I know it sounds very odd a person saying they want to be stopped from leaving but when I'm at home and rational I clearly understand I need the intensive treatment to gain weight, but when I'm there a totally different thinking takes over where I become very persuasive in saying I can do it at home, which I can't. There's no day patient service where I live and within a few weeks of being discharged I quickly start to struggle again. My name is on a waiting list for another voluntary admission, it's not what I want, but I know I'm still unwell and am not recovering. I wondered if you had any advice or suggestions that my family could look at or follow as it feels inevitable that it will happen again and it's breaking us.
ReplyDeleteThere is no simple reply, but here are a few thoughts.
DeleteOne is to write an advance directive, saying how you would like to be treated in the event of a relapse. This could even include consideration of a MHA assessment if you wanted to leave hospital against medical advice. This would be under the Mental Capacity Act.
Your nearest relative can at any time ask the local authority to consider assessing you under the MHA, although it would not necessarily mean that an AMHP convening a full MHA assessment would occur.
Your ward psychiatrist was simply wrong in saying that you couldn't be referred for a MHA assessment. He/she simply decided you didn't need to be, possibly reasonably on the basis that you were accepting treatment as an informal patient.
By now, there ought to be sufficient evidence of your tendency to put on a good front and persuade people to allow you to be discharged when you are not in reality likely to comply with an aftercare plan. this ought to be taken into account, and the hospital could ask for a MHA assessment, or detain you under s.5(2) which would automatically trigger a full MHA assessment.
It could be worth (you may have done this) discussing with your treatment team your concerns and wishes (as well as making an advance directive).
It also has to be borne in mind that AMHPs always look for the least restrictive option, which might be informal admission, but they also legally have to take into account "all the circumstances of the case", which would include your tendency to self discharge prematurely and then relapse.
I hope this has given you some ideas.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI wondered whether you could write something on the ethics of sectioning someone, who's treatment for the one condition would make the symptoms of the other condition significantly worse.
Would this person still be sectionable under section 3 as the very act of treatment would cause undue distress and worsoning in the symptoms of the other condition so there for no sutible treatment would be available.
Just take for example a person with asd and bpd.
That's interesting. I'll give it some thought.
DeleteHi I have a question. Say an individual is discharged on extended section 17 leave to a care home (not a trial period), can they be subject of a DOLS authorisation at the care home? I understand there is a 'but for' test, so but for the physical treatment which should be separated from the treatment for the person's mental disorder, would it be necessary to deprive the person of their liberty? If not, then they would be ineligible for DOLS. Is this the right idea? I ask because in this case the local authority maintain that the care home would only be providing accomodation/support and not treatment for mental disorder. I disagree as the individual will receive treatment for her mental disorder at the care home by antipsychotic medication, support with self-care which she neglects as a consequence of her mental disorder. I guess my question is this: does it come down to whether the DOLS would still be necessary to treat the mental disorder were it not for the physical conditions in this case, or is the person ineligible for DOLS anyway if they receive treatment for mental disorder which they object to at the care home whilst on extended section 17 leave?
ReplyDelete* correction- 'then they would be eligible for DOLS'
DeleteI can find case law on s17 leave to a general hospital for treatment of a physical disorder where the person is subject of a DOLS authorisation, but I can't find anything on discharge on s17 leave to a care home where a person is subject to DOLS
DeleteI am a layperson so my understanding is very hazy. If the person receives any treatment for a mental disorder at a care home to which they object, surely they can't be subject to DOLS when discharge on s17 leave?
DeleteSomeone on extended s.17 leave is still legally detained under the MHA, and if that is s.2 or s.3, then they can continue to be given treatment for mental disorder. If they are objecting to treatment for physical disorder they can still be made subject to DoLS. If they have been detained under s.3, then they could be made subject to a Community Treatment Order or even Guardianship (don't need to have been on s.3 for guardianship). Under Guardianship, the guardian has the power to direct them to live in a specific place. If medical treatment is required, however, then a DoLS would be required. As long as someone is on s.17 leave, they are still officially a hospital inpatient. If they refuse to take medication, the leave can be terminated and they must return to hospital.
DeleteThanks but just to clarify a few things. I thought extended s17 means an individual is liable to be detained but not detained. In this case they want to discharge my mother who is on section 3 to a care home on section 17 leave and they want to authorise a DOLS whilst she is there. So she would be ineligible if the DOLS authorisation is in any way used to treat her mental disorder which would include the physical consequences of mental disorder? s145 MHA has broad definition of treatment for mental disorder I believe. Thanks for your help.
DeleteSchedule 1a MCA sets out cases where someone is ineligible for DOLS. I think my mother would fit in case B as she is liable to be detained and still subject to hospital treatment regimen. It then says: "P is ineligible if the relevant care or treatment consists in whole or in part of medical treatment for mental disorder in a hospital." By that rationale, if the DOLS is necessary for treatment for mental disorder in a care home she would be ineligible whilst on s17 leave?
Deletereally interesting id defo recommend to no one
ReplyDelete