Informal mental health patients: what are they told of their legal rights?

Purpose – This study sought to determine what written information is given to informally admitted patients in England and Wales regarding their legal rights in relation to freedom of movement and treatment. Design/methodology/approach - Information leaflets were obtained by a search of all National Health Service mental health trust websites in England and health boards in Wales and via a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request. Data were analysed using content analysis. Findings - Of the 61 organisations providing inpatient care, 27 provided written information in the form of a leaflet. Six provided public access to the information leaflets via their website prior to admission. Although the majority of leaflets were accurate the breadth and depth of the information varied considerably. Despite a common legal background there was confusion and inconsistency in the use of the terms informal and voluntary as well as inconsistency regarding freedom of movement, the right to refuse treatment and discharge against medical advice. Research implications - The research has demonstrated: the value of Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests in obtaining data. Further research should explore the effectiveness of informing patients of their rights from their perspective. Practical implications - Work should be undertaken to establish a consensus of good practice in this area. Information should be consistent, accurate and understandable. Originality - This is the only research reporting on the availability and content of written information given to informal patients about their legal rights. Keywords: Informal inpatient, legal rights, Mental Health Act Code of Practice, voluntary patients, written information. Paper type: Researc

Cross-national comparative mixed-methods case study of recovery-focused mental health care planning and co-ordination: Collaborative Care Planning Project (COCAPP)

The care programme approach in England and care and treatment planning in Wales are systems designed to provide mental health service users with a named care co-ordinator who meets regularly with the service user, oversees their care and develops a written plan to guide the care that they receive. These approaches are meant to help people towards recovery. In this study, we investigated whether care is organised to help people’s recovery and whether this is done in a personalised way. We identified six NHS trust/health board sites in England and Wales, and surveyed staff and service users to measure views on recovery, empowerment and therapeutic relationships. At each site we also interviewed managers, clinical staff care co-ordinators, service users and carers about their experiences of care planning. We found that good relationships are important for service users, carers and care co-ordinators in care planning and supporting recovery. Experiences of care planning and co-ordination varied within all sites. People do not always feel involved in their own care. The understanding of recovery and personalisation varied among the service users and staff interviewed. Workers say that there is too much paperwork and, like service users, they rarely look at care plans once written. Staff focus on risk but this does not often appear to be discussed with people using services, which may be problematic. We recommend research to investigate new ways of working and training to increase staff contact time with service users and carers and to improve a focus on recovery

Cross-national mixed methods comparative case study of recovery-focused mental health care planning and coordination in acute inpatient mental health settings (COCAPP-A)

Background: Serious concerns have been identified in relation to care planning, patient involvement and consent to treatment in mental health wards, including for those patients detained under the Mental Health Act. Further evidence is needed to develop care planning interventions that embed dignity, recovery and participation for all people using inpatient mental health care. Design: We propose to undertake a cross-national comparative study of recovery-focused mental health care planning in inpatient settings. This two-phase exploratory mixed methods study will produce theory and empirical evidence to complement that developed in our current study of community mental health services to inform a future whole systems intervention study. The study is guided by a theoretical framework emphasising the connections between different 'levels' of organisation (macro/meso/micro). In phase 1 we study the macro-level through the comparative analysis of English and Welsh policy contexts. In phase 2 concurrent quantitative and qualitative data will be collected at 6 NHS Trust/Health Board case study sites (meso-level) and within each site, a single micro-level mental health ward will be selected to provide in-depth qualitative data related to care planning processes. Phase 1: We will extend our current meta-narrative mapping review (Wong et al 2013) of English and Welsh policies and the international literature on personalised recovery-oriented care planning and coordination in community settings to include inpatient settings. We will provide a review of evidence that is useful, rigorous and relevant for service providers and decision-makers and to inform Phase 2. Phase 2: We are employing a concurrent transformative mixed methods approach with embedded case studies (Creswell 2009: 215). We will conduct six in-depth meso-level case study investigations across contrasting NHS Trusts in England (n=4) and Local Health Boards in Wales (n=2), selected to reflect variety in geography and population and include a mix of rural, urban and inner city settings providing routine inpatient care. A large sample of service users (total n=300), inpatient staff (n=300) and informal carers (n=150) will be surveyed about perceptions of acute mental health care and care planning, recovery oriented practices, therapeutic relationships and empowerment using validated questionnaires. Documents and interviews with managers, consultant psychiatrists, ward staff and informal carers (n=60) will also be generated relating to local contexts, policies and practices. In each site we will also select a single inpatient ward and conduct a series of case studies embedded within each organisational case study, to explore care planning in detail. We will invite a sample of service users (total n=36) to participate in in-depth interviews about care planning and structured narrative reviews of their care plans; undertake a structured review of anonymised care plans for a further sample (n=60) of consecutively discharged patients; and conduct observation of care planning processes (n= 18). Framework method will be employed to integrate and compare textual and statistical summaries of qualitative and quantitative analyses within each case study site, informed by the theoretical framework focused on recovery and personalisation. Armed with our set of six within-case analyses we will then conduct a cross-case analysis to draw out key findings from across all sites

A mixed-methods study exploring the characteristics and needs of long-stay patients in high and medium secure settings in England: implications for service organisation

Background: Forensic psychiatric services provide care for those with mental disorders and offending behaviour. Concerns have been expressed that patients may stay for too long in too high levels of security. The economic burden of these services is high, and they are highly restrictive for patients. There is no agreed standard for ‘long stay’; we defined a length of stay exceeding 5 years in medium secure care, 10 years in high secure care or 15 years in a combination of both settings as long stay. Objectives: To (1) estimate the number of long-stay patients in secure settings; (2) describe patients’ characteristics, needs and care pathways and the reasons for their prolonged stay; (3) identify patients’ perceptions of their treatment and quality of life; and (4) explore stakeholders’ views on long stay. Design: A mixed-methods approach, including a cross-sectional survey (on 1 April 2013) of all patients in participating units to identify long-stay patients [work package (WP) 1], file reviews and consultant questionnaires for long-stay patients (WP2), interviews with patients (WP3) and focus groups with other stakeholders (WP4). Setting: All three high secure hospitals and 23 medium secure units (16 NHS and 9 independent providers) in England. Participants: Information was gathered on all patients in participating units (WP1), from which 401 long-stay patients were identified (WP2), 40 patients (WP3), 17 international and 31 UK experts were interviewed and three focus groups were held (WP4). Results: Approximately 23.5% of high secure patients and 18% of medium secure patients were long-stay patients. We estimated that there are currently about 730 forensic long-stay patients in England. The source of a patient’s admission and the current section of the Mental Health Act [Great Britain. Mental Health Act 1983 (as Amended by the Mental Health Act 2007). London: The Stationery Office; 2007] under which they were admitted predicted long-stay status. Long-stay patients had complex pathways, moving ‘around’ between settings rather than moving forward. They were most likely to be detained under a hospital order with restrictions (section 37/41) and to have disturbed backgrounds with previous psychiatric admissions, self-harm and significant offending histories. The most common diagnosis was schizophrenia, but 47% had been diagnosed with personality disorder. Only 50% had current formal psychological therapies. The rates of violent incidents within institutions and seclusion were high, and a large proportion had unsuccessful referrals to less secure settings. Most patients had some contact with their families. We identified five classes of patients within the long-stay sample with different characteristics. Patients differed in their attribution of reasons for long stay (internal/external), outlook (positive/negative), approach (active/passive) and readiness for change. Other countries have successfully developed specific long-stay services; however, UK experts were reluctant to accept the reality of long stay and that the medical model of ‘cure’ does not work with this group. Limitations: We did not conduct file reviews on non-long-stay patients; therefore, we cannot say which factors differentiate between long-stay patients and non-long-stay patients. Conclusions: The number of long-stay patients in England is high, resulting in high resource use. Significant barriers were identified in developing designated long-stay services. Without a national strategy, these issues are likely to remain. Future work: To compare long-stay patients and non-long-stay patients. To evaluate new service models specifically designed for long-stay patients. Study registration: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network Portfolio 129376. Funding: The NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programm

On the state of public health.

Mode of access: Internet

General practitioner recruitment, retention and vacancy survey 2002, England and Wales

Title from coverAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:4107. 852(2002) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

Facilities for critical care

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:4274. 928(57) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo