# data[].attributes.body
Dear colleagues,

Hope you are well.  I wanted to share that the registration for the October CPD event is now open and wondered if you would share with the networks. This will be pushed out through our news bulletins but we wanted to give network members early access for registration as there will be limited spaces in order to manage break out rooms effectively.

https://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/news-and-events/Events/October/Neighbourhood-health-starts-with-social-care.aspx

We will be updating the website with event speakers as they are confirmed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Neighbourhood health starts with social care

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The panel discussion and workshops will enable regulated professionals to understand their unique contribution to the neighbourhood health model, identify opportunities for stronger multidisciplinary and cross-sector working, and consider how commissioning. prevention, and community assets influence professional practice.

# data[].attributes.headline
2026 Skills for Care AMHP workforce report

# data[].attributes.subject
2026 Skills for Care AMHP workforce report

# data[].attributes.headline
Minutes AMHP Leads Network November 2025

# data[].attributes.subject
Minutes AMHP Leads Network November 2025

# data[].attributes.headline
ADASS Research Committee webinar - Friday, 24 July |  11:00 – 12:30 | Online 

# data[].attributes.subject
ADASS Research Committee webinar - Friday, 24 July |  11:00 – 12:30 | Online 

# data[].attributes.body
Dear Colleagues,

The ADASS Research Committee’s second webinar ‘A common sense introduction to in-house research into adult social care in your council’ looks at how your council can maximise research benefits. This involves demystifying research, seeing it not simply as something ‘done to us’ by outside experts, but something many of us do every day. What are the practical steps we can take to improve the quality of the knowledge we are producing, and how does a ‘research lens’ help us take important decisions in adult social care?

The session will present insights from Dorset and Thurrock Councils and will take place on Friday, 24 July from 11:00 – 12:30.  If you are interested in attending, please contact paul.buddery@adass.org.uk.

# data[].attributes.headline
AMHP leads and AMHP service details (updated 19 August 2026)

# data[].attributes.subject
AMHP leads and AMHP service details (updated 19 August 2026)

# data[].attributes.body
This list is updated regularly. Its accuracy depends on individuals communicating changes in a timely manner

If you are aware of any changes or additions to the list, please contact steve@oxberry.plus.com.

While the Padlet is only publicised within the AMHP Leads Network, it is freely available to anyone with the link.

Therefore no lead's direct mobile numbers are included.

If you are unhappy with your email address being on the list, please advise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Approved mental health practice can have a significant impact on people's lives, including those who are assessed under the Mental Health Act, their families, and indeed those of us who work in this strange field. For a long time, continuous professional development in the AMHP world has largely focussed on legal literacy, which is, of course, very important. However, AMHP work is, at its very core, relational, values-based and political. AMHPs speak a lot about resources (particularly about a lack of them) but speak a lot less about the most important resource of all in their practice - themselves.

The Critical AMHP creates a forum for us to examine, celebrate and contest what motivates us and what holds us back in the work we do. It is place where we can connect with our professional standards, with new ideas, and with each other in all our humanity and diversity. Its creation is also a recognition that AMHPs and other health and social care professionals rarely get the time or the headspace to critically reflect, to find and read journal articles or to engage with research. The Critical AMHP brings these things into an accessible space with pieces that can be read in small chunks of time (perhaps whilst being on hold to your bed management team or 101...).

The Critical AMHP seeks to capture and learn from multiple, diverse voices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Approved mental health practice can have a significant impact on people's lives, including those who are assessed under the Mental Health Act, their families, and indeed those of us who work in this strange field. For a long time, continuous professional development in the AMHP world has largely focussed on legal literacy, which is, of course, very important.

# data[].attributes.headline
2020 BASW - COVID impact on AMHP services

# data[].attributes.subject
2020 BASW - COVID impact on AMHP services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) services in England

BASW England and the office of the Chief Social Worker in DHSC are pleased to have been able to jointly commission and support this important piece of research. It was undertaken by BASW ENGLAND and the AMHP Leads Network. Commissioned by BASW England and the Department of Health & Social Care...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) services in England

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BASW England and the office of the Chief Social Worker in DHSC are pleased to have been able to jointly commission and support this important piece of research. It was undertaken by BASW ENGLAND and the AMHP Leads Network. Commissioned by BASW England and the Department of Health & Social Care...

# data[].attributes.body
Please find below the link to the recording of the AMHPLeads Dataset webinar recording https://vimeo.com/1176573542

Best wishes,

Project Support Team

AMHPleads.Network@researchinpractice.org.uk

AMHP Leads Network Resource Page

The Research in Practice team, working alongside the AMHP Leads Network

Posted 25 February 2026

# data[].attributes.headline
Anti-racist practice and the AMHP role  (October 2023)

# data[].attributes.subject
Anti-racist practice and the AMHP role  (October 2023)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Anti-Racist perspectives and the AMHP role | 17 October 2023

# data[].attributes.headline
2022 - MHA Reform - Race and Ethnic Inequalities

# data[].attributes.subject
2022 - MHA Reform - Race and Ethnic Inequalities

# data[].attributes.headline
Culturally Appropriate Advocacy, Rapid Appraisal and Evaluation: final report (Sept 22)

# data[].attributes.subject
Culturally Appropriate Advocacy, Rapid Appraisal and Evaluation: final report (Sept 22)

# data[].attributes.headline
Section 13 - Resource Pack (shorter version)

# data[].attributes.subject
Section 13 - Resource Pack (shorter version)

# data[].attributes.body
An edited version of the full document, aimed at promoting discussion, developing practice, and confidence in utilising section 13 decision making to its fullest with potential applications of the approach.

# data[].attributes.headline
Recording - Webinar for MHA ASSESSMENTS AND s13(1) MHA 1983_ New AMHP Practices within existing Law - 17th July 2024 - 

# data[].attributes.subject
Recording - Webinar for MHA ASSESSMENTS AND s13(1) MHA 1983_ New AMHP Practices within existing Law - 17th July 2024 - 

# data[].attributes.body
Please copy the link to the video to a new tab to play.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Monitoring the Mental Health Act is our annual report on the use of the Mental Health Act (MHA). It looks at how providers are caring for patients, and whether patients' rights are being protected.

This year's report puts a specific focus on the impact that the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has had on patients detained under the MHA, and on the services that care for and treat them.

The pandemic has presented mental health services with an unprecedented challenge. Services have been faced with the difficult balance of a duty of care towards patients while at the same time upholding the principle of least restriction.

It is vital that we share with providers, mental health care staff, system stakeholders and policy makers, the learning from the initial stages of the pandemic so that this can be applied as quickly as possible in the current wave of coronavirus and any future resurgence.

The majority of the findings in the report are drawn from a combination of our remote monitoring carried out during the pandemic and contacts both with services and national health system bodies. The pandemic has had an unprecedented impact across the system, and this will continue to be felt for some time as we enter a challenging winter period and beyond.

Many of the services we considered through our remote monitoring coped well with the pandemic situation. In particular, we found that services that focused the most on carefully applying the principles of least restriction were the most successful in empowering their patients (and staff) to cope with the extra restrictions imposed on society in general, especially during the first national lockdown.

Good services also put emphasis on care planning to involve and empower patients, as well as co-production with patients in order to improve the ward environment.

Our evidence and findings point to the actions we want to see to support people subject to detention under the MHA.

1. Planning for individuals' discharge from hospital continues to be essential and is particularly important during the pandemic period due to the increased burden on all services, including those in the community. It is vital that discharge planning is carried out in co-production with patients and their families/support networks in order to ensure better outcomes.

2. Some services showed exemplary practice in the co-production of care with patients, including infection control measures, and where this was done patients were generally supportive and cooperative with the steps to limit coronavirus infection. Patients must be involved in decisions about their care, including infection control. Where this is done, the negative impact of restrictions on detained patients during a pandemic can be limited.

3. In many services the physical environment requires modernisation and doing so would have the added positive impact of making infection control easier. Modernising physical estates would help with infection control measures.

4. Some services continued to uphold restrictions on patients' movement, activities and leave for longer than seemed necessary, which we saw could have an adverse impact on patients' wellbeing. Services should recognise the significant impact restrictions on leave of absence and activity can have on detained patients and ensure these are lifted as quickly and as safely possible to avoid very damaging 'closed cultures' from emerging.

5. Many services invested in software to help detained patients to stay connected with their family and other sources of support during the pandemic. Some also lifted restrictions around the use of technology such as mobile phones and tablet computers. Relaxing the rules around using personal technology, such as mobile phones, should continue in future, and services should prioritise linked issues such as WiFi connectivity in future estates development.

6. Detained patients' access to advocacy services was made more difficult during the pandemic, but such services played an even more crucial role where patients' lives were more limited by infection control measures. We believe that advocacy should move to be offered on an opt-out basis in future.

7. We observed the use of remote technology such as video conferencing for clinical meetings and assessments, as well as assessments for detention, tribunal procedures and advocacy services. We also put in place a remote Second Opinion Appointed Doctor service. There needs to be careful evaluation of using remote technology should aspects of them continue after the pandemic abates.

In April 2020, we moved most of our MHA monitoring to remote technologies and we have continued to use these through the pandemic. We will return to regular, unannounced site visits once it is safe to do so. In the meantime, we will continue to evaluate our remote MHA methodology and develop it to make improvements where necessary.

Previous Monitoring the Mental Health Act reports

Read our annual reports from previous years:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2019/20: The Mental Health Act in the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Monitoring the Mental Health Act is our annual report on the use of the Mental Health Act (MHA). It looks at how providers are caring for patients, and whether patients' rights are being protected.

# data[].attributes.headline
Culturally Appropriate Advocacy Training Evaluation (July 22)

# data[].attributes.subject
Culturally Appropriate Advocacy Training Evaluation (July 22)

# data[].attributes.headline
AMHP LEADS NETWORK WELCOMES ‘EXPERIENCED AND DIVERSE’ COMMITTEE

# data[].attributes.subject
AMHP LEADS NETWORK WELCOMES ‘EXPERIENCED AND DIVERSE’ COMMITTEE

# data[].attributes.body
Posted 6 June 2025

# data[].attributes.headline
Minutes AMHP Leads Network September 2025

# data[].attributes.subject
Minutes AMHP Leads Network September 2025

# data[].attributes.body
A resource to aimed at promoting discussion, developing practice, and confidence in utilising section 13 decision making to its fullest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Best practices for Approved Mental Health Professionals and Interpreters working together guidance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AMHPs perspectives on interpreter mediated MH assessments

# data[].attributes.headline
AMHP Leads Network Response 270924 Police Data 136

# data[].attributes.subject
AMHP Leads Network Response 270924 Police Data 136

# data[].attributes.headline
Joint Statement: Proposed Amendments on S135/136 May 2025

# data[].attributes.subject
Joint Statement: Proposed Amendments on S135/136 May 2025

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Joint Statement Proposed amendments S135 136

# data[].attributes.headline
AMHP Leads Network Conference 2024 - slide deck

# data[].attributes.subject
AMHP Leads Network Conference 2024 - slide deck

# data[].attributes.headline
AMHP Leads Conference 2024 - section 13 https://vimeo.com/922415513?share=copy

# data[].attributes.subject
AMHP Leads Conference 2024 - section 13 https://vimeo.com/922415513?share=copy

# data[].attributes.body
A paper to support discussions at the AMHP Leads Network Conference 7th March 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is s13 AMHP Practice All About - ALN Conference 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ALN Briefing Paper for Commons Committee Stage

# data[].attributes.headline
2023 - AMHP decision making at the point of referral (section 13)

# data[].attributes.subject
2023 - AMHP decision making at the point of referral (section 13)

# data[].attributes.body
Matt Simpson's Thesis on the subject of AMHP consideration under section 13

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Simpson, M., 2023. An Appreciative Inquiry into Approved Mental Health Professional decision- making at the point of referral for a Mental Health Act assessment. Doctoral Thesis (Doctoral). Bournemouth University.

Full text available as:

Abstract

In England and Wales, the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983 provides a legal framework for psychiatric detention, requiring two medical recommendations from legally defined doctors, and an application from an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP). Civil detentions are the result of an assessment process involving all three professionals, not always together. AMHPs make detention decisions but they also make a decision at the point of referral. This qualitative study focused on that early decision made by AMHPs. Nine AMHPs in one local authority attended four workshops exploring their experience of decision-making at the point of referral for an MHA assessment. The collaborative strengths-based methodology of appreciative inquiry encouraged participants to define the best of their practice, then build on those strengths with service design amendments. Data analysis was completed by participants within the workshops using nominal group technique. At the point of referral for an MHA assessment participants were optimistic about avoiding detention, changing gears through the analysis and deconstruction of presented risks, and buying time to meet with the person referred and work in a more collaborative, transparent, and person-centred way. Based on my review of the available literature, these qualities are more challenging to achieve in traditional assessment approaches involving three professionals. As such this study highlights how AMHPs are more likely to achieve practice consistent with their values at the point of referral for an MHA assessment. The detention decision was in essence relocated to the assessment completed at the point of referral, and participants wanted to see this early decision valued within the service, creating a triage AMHP role and AMHP s 13.1 report to legitimise interventions that seek to avoid the necessity of an assessment process involving doctors. Participants also wanted a shared pathway to assessment with doctors seeking alternatives to detention, promoting a multi-agency emphasis on less restriction. This is the first study to explore this area of practice, and the rich understanding gained validates the importance of service structures that support this decision, enabling AMHPs to practise in a way that is consistent with their purpose and values.

Downloads per month over past year

More statistics for this item...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Simpson, M., 2023. An Appreciative Inquiry into Approved Mental Health Professional decision- making at the point of referral for a Mental Health Act assessment. Doctoral Thesis (Doctoral). Bournemouth University. Full text available as: In England and Wales, the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983 provides a legal framework for psychiatric detention, requiring two medical recommendations from legally defined doctors, and an application from an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP).

# data[].attributes.headline
Minutes AMHP Leads Network February 2024

# data[].attributes.subject
Minutes AMHP Leads Network February 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
02.05.23 Minutes - National AMHP Leads Network Steering Group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
04.04.23 Minutes - National AMHP Leads Network Steering Group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
07.03.23 Minutes - National AMHP Leads Network Steering Group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10.01.23 Minutes - National AMHP Leads Network Steering Group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
02.08.22 Minutes - National AMHP Leads Network Steering Group - final version

# data[].attributes.headline
2022 - Solution-focused Practice and the role of the AMHP

# data[].attributes.subject
2022 - Solution-focused Practice and the role of the AMHP

# data[].attributes.headline
Sept 2022 - AMHP Leads Network - Submission to the Joint Committee on Mental Health Bill

# data[].attributes.subject
Sept 2022 - AMHP Leads Network - Submission to the Joint Committee on Mental Health Bill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AMHP Leads Network - Submission to the Joint Committee Call for Evidence (final)

# data[].attributes.headline
2022 Commons Research Library - MHA Bill briefing

# data[].attributes.subject
2022 Commons Research Library - MHA Bill briefing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
20220705 - National AMHP Leads Network Steering Group Minutes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This report presents the findings of a study which explored the reasons for and nature of reported difficulties in accessing section 12 (s12) doctors for Mental Health Act (MHA) assessments. For a person to be legally detained in hospital, the law requires that MHA assessments must involve such doctors and also other professionals (mainly social workers) acting as Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs). The study was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). We combined interviews (n=52) with an analysis of the national MHA Approvals Register Database (Approvals Register), maintained on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care by four regional Approvals Panels. This is the first time that external analysts have been given this access and we are grateful for this permission. We also consulted with people with direct experience of being assessed by s12 doctors for their views on our initial findings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This report presents the findings of a study which explored the reasons for and nature of reported difficulties in accessing section 12 (s12) doctors for Mental Health Act (MHA) assessments. For a person to be legally detained in hospital, the law requires that MHA assessments must involve such doctors and also other professionals (mainly social workers) acting as Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs).

# data[].attributes.headline
Joint Committee - Oral Evidence Sessions

# data[].attributes.subject
Joint Committee - Oral Evidence Sessions

# data[].attributes.headline
2022 National AMHP Day (YAMHP Conference - film and slides)

# data[].attributes.subject
2022 National AMHP Day (YAMHP Conference - film and slides)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies

The government is publishing a draft Mental Health Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, to modernise the Mental Health Act for the 21st century.

Applies to England and Wales

Documents

Ref: ISBN 978-1-5286-3527-1, CP 699 PDF, 658 KB, 87 pages

Order a copy

Ref: ISBN 978-1-5286-3527-1, CP 699 PDF, 662 KB, 88 pages

Order a copy

PDF, 1.45 MB, 122 pages

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.

Request an accessible format.

If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email publications@dhsc.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Details

This draft bill delivers on 2 government manifesto commitments:

to reform the Mental Health Act

to improve the way that people with a learning disability and autistic people are treated in law

This draft legislation is intended to give effect to the policy approaches outlined in Sir Simon Wessely's landmark independent review in 2018. These were subsequently taken forward in the government's white paper Reforming the Mental Health Act in 2021.

These are once-in-a-generation reforms, to give people greater control over their treatment and help ensure they receive the dignity and respect they deserve.

Thank you for your feedback

Report a problem with this page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to main content We use some essential cookies to make this website work. We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services. We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

# data[].attributes.headline
MHA as amended by 2022 Bill (Alex Ruck Keene version)

# data[].attributes.subject
MHA as amended by 2022 Bill (Alex Ruck Keene version)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Tim Spencer-Lane

The government has published its much-anticipated draft Mental Health Bill to amend the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA).

According to the government, the draft bill includes "a range of changes to shift the balance of power from the system to the patient, putting service users at the centre of decisions about their own care". The following is a general summary of the key provisions in the draft bill.

Tighter detention criteria

The draft bill would tighten the criteria for detention under the MHA to address the rising and disproportionate rates of detention, and to end the inappropriate admission of people with learning disabilities and autism to mental health hospitals.

Firstly, section 2 would be amended to insert the following tests for detention:

That serious harm may be caused to the health or the safety of another person, unless the person is detained, and

It is necessary, given the nature, degree and likelihood of the harm, and how soon it would occur, for the patient to be detained.

Secondly, the section 3 detention criteria would be amended to insert the following new tests:

That serious harm may be caused to the health or the safety of another person, unless the patient receives medical treatment;

It is necessary, given the nature, degree and likelihood of the harm, and how soon it would occur, for the patient to receive medical treatment;

That medical treatment cannot be provided unless the patient is detained, and

Appropriate treatment is available (which is defined as meaning there must be a reasonable prospect that the outcome of the treatment would have a therapeutic benefit for the patient).

Thirdly, learning disability and autism would be excluded from the definition of mental disorder for the purposes of section 3. This means a patient could not be detained under section 3 for treatment, solely on the basis of learning disability or autism. The learning disability exclusion does not apply to part 3 patients (those in the criminal justice system).

Replacing the nearest relative

The draft bill would replace the nearest relative with a new statutory role, the nominated person (NP). The NP could be selected by the patient at any time when they had capacity or competence to do so. The nomination would have to be witnessed by a health or care professional, who must confirm a number of matters, including that there was no reason to think that the patient lacked the relevant capacity or competence or that undue influence had been used.

The NP would continue to represent the patient even if that patient subsequently became unwell and no longer had the relevant capacity or competence. If the patient lacked capacity or competence to nominate, and had not made a nomination, an approved mental health professional (AMHP) would be able to appoint a NP for the patient.

The NP would have the same rights and powers as nearest relatives have now. In addition, the NP would have new rights to be consulted about statutory care and treatment plans and transfers between hospitals, and to object to the use of a community treatment order.

The road to the draft bill

The draft bill seeks to take forward recommendations made by the Independent Review of the MHA, which was chaired by Professor Sir Simon Wessely. The final report of the review was published in December 2018 and made 154 recommendations covering both legislative reforms and changes to policy and practice. The government published its response in a white paper, which accepted the vast majority of the review's recommendations. The subsequent consultation on the white paper reported in July 2021 and showed broad support for the proposed reforms.

Currently, when a nearest relative exercises their powers inappropriately, the only means of overruling them is to remove or displace them as nearest relative. The draft bill would change this to enable the NP to be temporarily overruled when they exercise certain powers (such as the right to object to a section 3 admission). This is intended to ensure that, where appropriate, the NP would continue to have a role in the patient's care and treatment. The county court would retain the power to terminate the appointment of an NP either permanently or for a specified time.

Requirements for compulsory medical treatment

The draft bill makes several reforms to part 4 of the MHA, which regulates when treatment can be imposed on detained patients.

It would introduce a 'clinical checklist', which would apply to clinicians making treatment decisions. There would be a duty on the treating clinician to consider certain matters and take a number of steps when deciding whether to administer medical treatment to a patient. These include considering the patient's wishes and feelings, assisting patients to participate in treatment decisions and consulting those close to the patient. This is intended to ensure that, as far as possible, decisions would be based around the patient's wishes, preferences and needs.

Currently, the MHA requires that in order to continue giving medication to a patient, after three months have passed, an approved clinician or second opinion approved doctor (SOAD) must certify certain matters, such as that the treatment is appropriate and the patient is, or is not, "capable of understanding the nature, purpose and likely effects" of the treatment. The draft bill would shorten the three-month period, to two months. It would also amend the language to refer to "capacity" and "competence" and require confirmation of therapeutic benefit.

New safeguards would be introduced for patients refusing medication, either with capacity or competence at the time, or in a valid and applicable advance decision, or where the treatment were in conflict with a decision made by a donee of a power of attorney or deputy or the Court of Protection. In these circumstances, the treatment could not be given unless there was a 'compelling reason' to give the treatment and a SOAD had provided certification. A compelling reason means that no other forms of treatment are available or that alternatives are available but the patient has not consented (or they would conflict with an advance decision or a decision by a donee or deputy or the Court of Protection).

The draft bill would also give additional safeguards to patients who had refused urgent ECT, either with capacity or competence at the time, or in a valid and applicable advance decision, or where the treatment was in conflict with a decision made by a donee or deputy or the Court of Protection. In order to give such treatment, a SOAD must first issue a certificate within a prescribed time period. Regulations could also specify circumstances in which the approved clinician could give the certificate, rather than the SOAD.

Also, a patient with the relevant capacity or competence would be able to refuse urgent treatment which was considered necessary to alleviate serious suffering. This is based on the policy rationale that patients with the relevant capacity or competence should be able to make their own judgments on the degree of suffering they are willing to accept.

Right to statutory care and treatment plans

The draft bill would create a right to statutory care and treatment plans for certain detained patients. In general terms, this right would extend to all such patients except those subject to 'short-term' detention. Responsible clinicians would be placed under a duty to prepare and regularly review the plan, and regulations would be used to set out the contents of the plan.

Access to independent mental health advocates (IMHAs)

IMHAs are specially trained advocates who represent and support patients detained under the MHA. The draft bill would extend the right of an IMHA to informal patients, impose duties on hospital managers and others to notify advocacy services about qualifying patients and impose duties on advocacy services to arrange for qualifying patients to be interviewed to find out if they wanted to use those services. These changes would apply in England only.

Shortened detention periods

The draft bill would shorten the period that a patient may be kept in detention for treatment. The initial detention period would be reduced from six months to three months. This could be renewed for a further three months (reduced from six months) and then for six months (reduced from one year). These changes would mean the patient's initial detention would expire sooner and if the detention were to continue, it would have to be reviewed and renewed more frequently.

Mental health tribunal access

The draft bill seeks to ensure that patients have greater access to the tribunal. Specifically:

section 2 patients would be able to apply to the tribunal within 21 days of detention (rather than 14 days currently);

section 3 patients would be able to apply within three months (rather than six months currently), and

automatic referrals to the tribunal would take place - in cases where the patient had not exercised their right to apply - three months from the date on which the patient was first detained and then every 12 months.

Tightened criteria for community treatment orders (CTOs)

In response to concerns that CTOs are used too often, patients stay subject to them for far too long, and they are used disproportionately on black people, the draft bill would tighten the criteria for their use. CTOs could only be used if there was a risk of "serious harm" to the health and safety of the patient or others, and consideration had been given to the "nature, degree and likelihood of the harm, and how soon it would occur".

In addition, there would have to be a reasonable prospect that the CTO would have a therapeutic benefit for the patient. The CTO would also have to be agreed in writing by the community clinician. The mental health tribunal would also be given the power to recommend that the responsible clinician reconsidered whether a particular CTO condition was necessary.

People with a learning disability and autistic people

As well as the exclusion from section 3 detention (see above), the draft bill also includes other reforms aimed at improving the position of those with learning disability or autism. Care (education) and treatment reviews (C(E)TRs) would be placed on a statutory footing. There would be a duty on responsible commissioners to make arrangements for C(E)TRs for detained patients with a leaning disability and autism. Decision makers would be required to have regard to the recommendations made by the C(E)TR.

There would be a duty on integrated care boards (ICBs) - which now commission NHS care - to establish and maintain a risk register in their area of individuals with a learning disability and autism who were at risk of hospital admission, and to monitor their care and treatment requirements. Individuals could only be included in the register with their consent. ICBs and local authorities would have to have regard to the information contained in the register when exercising their commissioning and market functions.

Section 117 services

The draft bill would make reforms to the identification of which NHS bodies and local authorities were responsible for arranging section 117 after-care services to individual patients, by applying 'deeming rules' to the determination of ordinary residence. In broad terms, this means that when patients were placed out of area, they would remain ordinarily resident in the area of the placing authority for the purposes of section 117 services. In order to discharge section 117, services would be required to put this to the patient in writing. These proposals are, in part, a response to the ' Worcestershire case '.

The mental health tribunal would also be given the power to recommend to NHS bodies and local authorities that after-care services be provided for a patient. The tribunal could reconvene to reconsider a case if any such recommendation were not complied with.

Patients in the criminal justice system

Other reforms would speed up the transfer from prison to mental health inpatient settings, by introducing a 28-day time limit, amending the detention criteria and a setting out a process to facilitate the process. This is intended to ensure that transfers take place more swiftly to an appropriate hospital.

A new power of 'supervised discharge' would be introduced that allowed the mental health tribunal or the secretary of state for justice to place conditions that amounted to a deprivation of liberty on a patient as part of a conditional discharge. This would apply in a small number of high-risk cases where the patient was no longer benefiting from hospital detention, but the conditions were necessary to protect the public from serious harm. This is a response to the Supreme Court decision in MM v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] UKSC 60, which held that a patient with capacity could not be discharged in this manner under the existing provisions of the MHA.

Places of safety restricted

The draft bill would remove police cells and prisons from the definition of a place of safety, including for the purposes of sections 135 and 136. This provision has been made in response to evidence which suggested they were not suitable environments for people with a severe mental health need awaiting assessment and treatment.
Tim Spencer-Lane is a lawyer who specialises in mental capacity, mental health and social care law and legal editor of Community Care Inform.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Tim Spencer-Lane The government has published its much-anticipated draft Mental Health Bill to amend the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA). According to the government, the draft bill includes "a range of changes to shift the balance of power from the system to the patient, putting service users at the centre of decisions about their [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Following a commitment given in the Queen's Speech in May 2022, a draft Mental Health Bill has been brought forward today (27 June 2022). It contains 49 clauses and 3 schedules, accompanied by explanatory notes and an Impact Assessment.

Its main elements are:

Amending the definition of mental disorder (for civil detentions only) so that people can no longer be detained solely because they have a learning disability or because they are autistic. The draft Bill also includes the proposal to require integrated care boards in England to establish a (consent-based) register of autistic people and those with learning disability who have 'risk factors' for detention under the civil parts of the Mental Health Act 1983 ('MHA 1983'), and for this register to be taken into account in commissioning and market function decisions;

Changing and tightening the criteria needed to detain people under the civil sections of the MHA 1983 (and to place patients on CTOs), as well as tightening the definition of 'appropriate medical treatment' to seek to reinforce the requirement that such treatment has a reasonable prospect of alleviating or preventing the worsening of the disorder or manifestation of the disorder - i.e. (implicitly) addressing the concept of therapeutic benefit;

Shortening s.3 to 3 (from the current 6) months at the first instance, then 6 months, then 1 year at a time);

Introducing a statutory care and treatment plan for all patients in detention (other than on very short term emergency provisions) as well as subject to guardianship, to be produced - where possible - with the patient. This brings England into line with Wales; the operation of such plans is to be monitored by the hospital managers;

Changing the approach to treatment under Part 4, by creating an approach that functionally mirrors the approach to decision-making under the MCA 2005, including provision for consideration of advance decisions to refuse treatment. The approach mirrors, but does not entirely replicate, the MCA approach, as there are still 'let outs' for treatment against a person's will, framed by reference to the nudge theory of making it more burdensome for a clinician to do so. There is no statutory provision for advance choice documents, but their principles are incorporated into the provisions of new clauses 56A and 57A. The period during which it is possible to treat on the basis of one clinical opinion alone is also being reduced from 3 months to 2. It will also no longer be possible to administer treatment under the 'urgent' provisions of s.62 to a patient who is capacitously/competently refusing it. The explanatory notes contain a helpful table of the implications of the change.

Giving patients better support, including offering informal patients the option of an independent mental health advocate (already the position in Wales); and allowing patients to choose their own 'nominated person', rather than have a 'nearest relative' assigned for them. Where no nominated person has been appointed, and the patient currently lacks capacity (or for a child, competence), there are provisions to enable the AMHP to appoint one;

Tightening the rules around CTOs, including the requirement for the appointment of a community clinician and liaison between the community and the responsible clinician, and enabling the Tribunal to make recommendations that the responsible clinician reconsiders conditions;

Introducing a 28-day time-limit for transfers from prison to hospital for acutely ill prisoners (subject to an 'exceptional circumstances' let-out) and ending the temporary use of prison for those awaiting assessment or treatment.

Introducing a new form of supervised community discharge. This will allow the discharge of restricted patients into the community, with the necessary care and supervision to adequately and appropriately manage their risk.

Increasing the frequency with which patients can make appeals to Tribunals on their detention and provide Tribunals with a power to recommend that aftercare services are put in place;

Tidying up the perennial problems in relation to determination of ordinary residence for purposes of s.117 MHA aftercare.

More will be forthcoming here as I have the chance to dig further into its detail, but a number of key points merit immediate emphasis.

First, this is draft legislation which amends the MHA 1983. This is in line with the approach of the independent Review chaired by Sir Simon Wessely, which deliberately took an approach of modernising the MHA 1983, rather than attempting to start again from a blank sheet of paper as has happened (for instance) in Northern Ireland in the form of the Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016. Some might say that the amending approach is underwhelming; others might say that it represents realism. As the former legal adviser to the Review, I need:

to declare an interest;

to say that it seems to me that there some frequently underestimated merits to proceeding with due caution in respect of legislative reform in this area;[1] and

to express regret that the Northern Ireland legislation ('fusing' mental health and mental capacity legislation) is moving sufficiently slowly towards implementation that, contrary to the hopes of many, it has not been possible to learn lessons from it within this reform cycle.

Second, and crucially, the draft legislation is going to be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a joint Parliamentary committee, anticipated to review the Bill and report in late autumn. The Government intends then to make such amendments as are required to respond to the recommendations of the committee with a view to introducing the Bill in 2023. The timeframe thereafter starts to sound long, with full implementation to be achieved by 2030-2031. We might anticipate that the pre-legislative scrutiny committee will want to examine the timeframe for implementation carefully, to see whether it is striking the right balance between ensuring implementation is effective and allowing too much more water to go under what is roundly recognised to be a bridge in need of some considerable upgrading.

Third, the draft legislation adopts many, but not all, of the recommendations of the independent Review. Even where it does not adopt those recommendations expressly (as with the recommendation to place principles on the face of the Act), it can be seen in many cases to have 'internalised' those recommendations through the measures that it introduces to push practice towards greater respect for the rights, will and preferences[2] of those subject to the Act. Nonetheless, we might anticipate that the starting point for the pre-legislative scrutiny committee will be to examine why measures recommended by the Review have not found their way into the draft Bill, and to stress-test the reasoning for this. In this regard, and again declaring an interest from my role on the Review, I am bound to say that I hope that particular attention is paid to the position in relation to the role of the Tribunal in relation to treatment challenges, as this is notably absent from the draft Bill, but featured significantly in the Review's thinking as a safeguard which, by its very existence, would help guide clinicians to proceeding in line with their patient's will and preferences.[3]

Fourth, in one crucial respect, the draft Bill introduces a measure that was specifically not recommended by the Review, namely the removal of those with learning disability and autism from the scope of detention under s.3 MHA 1983. Whilst coming from an entirely legitimate and understandable desire to try to stop the inappropriate detention of people with these conditions, for my part I have grave doubts that, in isolation, this change would achieve this as opposed to leading to the use of an alternative framework (the Mental Capacity Act) to authorise detention of those in crisis. The Bill includes some measures which might potentially alleviate this in the form of a 'register' for those autistic people or people with learning disability at risk of civil detention.[4] However, a serious discussion is needed, and I would hope can take place during pre-legislative scrutiny, as to whether such would actually achieve the goal being sought - and what further measures (for instance amendments to the MCA 2005) might be required to stop Rumsfeld-ian known unknowns from coming to pass.

Fifth, it is impossible to escape the irony of this draft Bill being published within a week of the Bill of Rights Bill, reflecting as it does a serious policy commitment towards greater promotion of the human rights of those within its scope. It might be said that the Bill is doing 'the right thing' in terms of making the promotion of those rights a matter for Parliament, but in many ways, this Bill is enabling Parliament to play 'catch-up' to understandings of rights in this area developed, in significant part, by the courts.[5] It may also be appropriate here to set out again how the Review identified how human rights operate in this area:
Knowing an individual's rights in specific circumstances should be straightforward. The difficulty comes when there is more than one right involved (e.g. the right to liberty versus the right to life) or when rights of others may conflict with the rights of the patient. Here we are required to strike fair balances, using the recognised concept of proportionality. Any government, or other body, must respect the rights of those in whose lives it sanctions intervention. At the same time, it may have other duties. It may be required to protect the lives of those contemplating serious self-harm or suicide. It must have regard to the safety of any others where there is a reasonably probable consequence of what a patient might do. These sorts of issues are the justification for the compulsive powers the state authorises and uses in this field. Our position is those interventions must be the least invasive or restrictive required to enable the state to fulfil its duties. An approach which focuses solely on the rights of one specific group can never be sufficient for a state concerned for the rights and safety of all.[6]
Put another way, it might be said that human rights arguments assist everyone - including clinicians - to navigate the ethical dilemmas that are involved in respecting rights, will and preferences in the presence of mental disorder.[7]

Sixth, the changes proposed in the draft Bill, for instance in relation to the detention criteria, as well as learning disability and autism, will increasingly cement a distinction between 'civil' and 'forensic' patients. It might be thought that this is a reflection of the different purposes that the MHA 1983 is playing in these two contexts, but this is likely (and rightly) to be something that is a focus of scrutiny at the pre-legislative stage.

Seventh and finally, all the law reform in the world can only go so far towards securing actual respect for rights, will and preferences - it is, ultimately, impossible to legislate for actual respect, which reflects the qualities of those charged with discharging duties and power under the Act. And without commitments to change, including financial commitments, legislative change will fall upon very stony ground. This was a central theme of the Review, and it is incumbent upon all those concerned with securing meaningful change in this area to keep banging this drum.

________________________

[1] See also in this regard the Review's approach to the question of whether non-consensual treatment or admission is ever compliant with international human rights norms at Appendix B of its report, an approach I would say remains valid despite the passage of nearly three further years since the report was published.

[2] A term that I am deliberately drawing from Article 12 (4) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, given the direct implications of the MHA 1983 for the legal capacity (i.e. the extent to which their decisions are viewed as determinative) of those falling within its scope.

[3] Slightly curiously, the Impact Assessment notes (at para 81) that "[t]he Government proposes to allow the MHT to review the patient's CTP where concerns have been expressed."

[4] Although, being consent based, it is not immediately obvious how this would benefit those whose conditions have a profound impact upon their decision-making abilities.

[5] Amongst other examples are the decisions in , making the clear the importance of procedural safeguards in relation to involuntary treatment and Rooman v Belgium, emphasising the requirement of the link between detention and the availability of treatment with a therapeutic benefit.

[6] See also the section in the Review report on "How we are meeting our human rights obligations"

[7] For very practical examples of this, see the work of the British Institute of Human Rights, in particular their toolkit for embedding human rights in Mental Health Services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Following a commitment given in the Queen's Speech in May 2022, a draft Mental Health Bill has been brought forward today (27 June 2022). It contains 49 clauses and 3 schedules, accompanied by explanatory notes and an Impact Assessment.

# data[].attributes.headline
AMHP Leads Network response to the MHA White Paper consultation

# data[].attributes.subject
AMHP Leads Network response to the MHA White Paper consultation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
20220301 ALN Steering Group Minutes plus AGM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies

This revised reference guide gives information and advice on how the 1983 Mental Health Act operates.

Documents

Details

It is a reference source for people who want to understand the main provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 and the regulations under the Act, as amended at 1 April 2015, including by the Mental Health Act 2007, Health and Social Care Acts 2008 and 2012 and Care Act 2014.

The revised reference guide complements the revised Mental Health Act Code of Practice, with the Code giving guidance on how the Act should be applied.

The guide is not a definitive statement of law, nor a substitute for consulting the Act itself or taking legal advice in relation to the Act.

Thank you for your feedback

Report a problem with this page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This revised reference guide gives information and advice on how the 1983 Mental Health Act operates.

# data[].attributes.headline
2022 - NR Qualitative study - "Beyond the call of duty" 

# data[].attributes.subject
2022 - NR Qualitative study - "Beyond the call of duty" 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beyond the call of duty: A Qualitative study into the experiences of family members acting as a Nearest Relative in Mental Health Act assessments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research shows that tensions occur between family carers and professionals when compulsory admission to hospital is being considered. In England and Wales, a sp

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This programme will introduce the mental health crisis breathing space, which pauses enforcement action and freezes interest and charges on debts while a person is receiving mental health crisis treatment, and for 30 days after crisis treatment ends.

# data[].attributes.headline
2021 AMHPs, BIA and People with lived experience research

# data[].attributes.subject
2021 AMHPs, BIA and People with lived experience research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2021 AMHPs, BIAs and People with Lived Experience

# data[].attributes.headline
Government response to the White Paper Consultation July 2021

# data[].attributes.subject
Government response to the White Paper Consultation July 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies

Applies to England and Wales

This consultation has concluded

Download the full outcome

Request an accessible format.

If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email publications@dhsc.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Detail of outcome

The government hosted a public consultation from 13 January 2021 to 21 April 2021 on a set of proposals to reform the Mental Health Act.

We received over 1,700 responses. This report is the government's formal response to this consultation.

Further details on the impact of costs and benefits can be found in the impact assessment.

The Welsh response is currently being translated and will be uploaded as soon as possible.

See the easy read version.

Original consultation

Summary

We want your views on changes to the Mental Health Act to help put patients at the centre of decisions about their own care.

This consultation ran from

Consultation description

In 2017 the government asked for an independent review of the Mental Health Act 1983 ( MHA), to look at how it's used and to suggest ways to improve it.

The review's final report said that the MHA does not always work as well as it should for patients, their families and their carers.

We're now proposing a wide range of changes to rebalance the MHA, to put patients at the centre of decisions about their own care and ensure everyone is treated equally.

The changes are based on 4 principles that have been developed with people with lived experience of the MHA. They are:

choice and autonomy - ensuring service users' views and choices are respected

least restriction - ensuring the MHA's powers are used in the least restrictive way

therapeutic benefit - ensuring patients are supported to get better, so they can be discharged from the MHA

the person as an individual - ensuring patients are viewed and treated as individuals

Documents

Request an accessible format.

If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email publications@dhsc.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Thank you for your feedback

Report a problem with this page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We want your views on changes to the Mental Health Act to help put patients at the centre of decisions about their own care.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Statement

The Government has today published the joint Department of Health and Social Care and Ministry of Justice consultation response to the White Paper Reforming the Mental Health Act, published in January this year.

The publication of this report represents a significant milestone on the road to reform of the Mental Health Act, a once in a generation reform programme. It summarises the invaluable and constructive responses that we have heard from the public and stakeholders, and takes us a step closer towards the fulfilment of two Manifesto commitments:

That we "will legislate so that patients suffering from mental health conditions...have greater control over their treatment and receive the dignity and respect they deserve".

That we "will make it easier for people with learning disabilities and autism to be discharged from hospital and improve how they are treated in law".

In January we published a Mental Health Act White Paper, responding to the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act which was conducted by Sir Simon Wessely and published in 2018.

This White Paper set out that we will be accepting the vast majority of the recommendations and asked a series of consultation questions on the detail and implementation of the proposals.

Since the consultation closed in April, we have analysed more than 1,700 responses. In parallel to the consultation, our departments have held policy development workshops to get richer insights from service users, clinicians, and those with lived experience of detention under the Act, on the details of the proposals.

The consultation response, published today, includes no new policy announcements, and instead reports on the feedback from clinicians, service users, those with lived experience of detention, and other key stakeholders on the 35 questions posed in the White Paper to gather views on the best way to implement the reforms and ensure they achieve their aims, and inform further policy development as we progress towards a Bill to reform the Act, which we will bring forward when parliamentary time allows.

The response has been overwhelmingly positive, with general support for the proposals and direction of travel set out in the White Paper. The responses have provided valuable insights on the practicalities of implementation, which our departments will work through, and continue to engage as we do so. We are committed to continue the open policy making approach, in order to bring forward a Bill which will improve how the Act works for everyone. There are a small number of areas where the consultation response did not support the direction of travel set out in the White Paper, or there were mixed views on the proposals. We will reflect on the feedback received, and continue to engage with key stakeholders, prior to taking final policy decisions to inform the Bill.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Written statements - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Government has today published the joint Department of Health and Social Care and Ministry of Justice consultation response to the White Paper Reforming the Mental Health Act, published in January this year. The publication of this report represents a significant milestone on the road to reform of the Mental Health Act, a once in a generation reform programme.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
www.socialworkengland.org.uk needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Evie Toombes v. Dr. Philip Mitchell [2020] EWHC 3506 the High Court has given renewed consideration to claims for, so called, "wrongful life". Can a disabled person ever claim damages on the basis that they would not have been born but for the defendant's negligence? The Court answered that question with a resounding "yes".
The Issue
Where a disabled child would not have been born but for the Defendant's negligence, it is well established that their parent has a claim for the reasonable costs associated with the child's disability . That is a "wrongful birth" claim: see Parkinson [2001] EWCA Civ 530. However, the child cannot bring a claim for personal injury on the basis that, with competent advice, their mother would have chosen a termination. In McKay v. Essex Area Health Authority [1982] 2 All ER 771 the Court of Appeal affirmed the principle that a disabled claimant cannot sue for "wrongful life". In Toombes the Court reconsidered the scope of that prohibition. Did it apply only to termination cases? Or did it extend to claims that, absent the negligence, a disabled person would never have been conceived?

Continue reading →

In The Government of the United States v Julian Assange (2021), the District Judge sitting at Westminster Magistrates' Court discharged the American extradition request against the founder of WikiLeaks because there is a substantial risk that he would commit suicide. Given Julian Assange's political notoriety as an avowed whistle-blower, however, the judgment is significant for its dismissal of the defence's free speech arguments. This article analyses why these human rights submissions were unsuccessful.
The Criminal Charges against Assange
In December 2017, Assange was charged with a conspiracy to commit unlawful computer intrusion contrary to Title 18 of the US Code. Assange is alleged to have conspired with Chelsea Manning to steal classified material. Manning was previously convicted by court martial in July 2013 for violations of the Espionage Act 1917 and other related offences.

Subsequently, in May 2019, a federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment containing eighteen counts alleging further offences related to the obtaining, receiving and disclosure of "National Defense Information" (contrary to Title 18).

The information Assange is alleged to have unlawfully acquired and published relates to the illegal actions of the United States' military and intelligence agencies during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the abusive treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. An extradition request was submitted to the British government in June 2019.

Continue reading →

Pardons versus failure to prosecute
One of the many outrages perpetrated by Donald Trump in the waning of his Presidency was granting a pardon to four private military contractors for their role in the Nisour Square massacre. Those military contractors had opened fire indiscriminately, killing 14 Iraqi civilians, including two children.

As with many of Trump's assaults on the Rule of Law, the thought was that this kind of abuse could not happen in the UK. But certainty over our moral high ground will be short-lived if Parliament passes the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill - a Bill whose precise aim is to make it much harder to prosecute British military personnel for abuses (including murder) carried out overseas. The Bill reaches Second Reading this week in the House of Lords.
Hurdles to prosecution under the Bill
The Bill introduces three substantial hurdles to the prosecution of British soldiers if the incident took place overseas more than five years ago. The first is that prosecutions must only be "exceptional circumstances". The second is that the consent of the Attorney General is required. The third is that, in contemplating prosecutions, prosecutors must place particular weight on a list of exculpatory factors, but with the absence of a list of factors tending in favour of prosecution.

Continue reading →

In the news

For several years, China has been enacting a policy of repression and brainwashing against over a million Uyghur Muslims in its northwest Xinjiang province. Reports include instances of forced sterilisation. Its hundreds of 're-education' camps have been revealed as places where contact with relatives, the ability to pray and even when to use the toilet are tightly controlled. A leaked document reveals the state's use of algorithms to score inmates on a 'behaviour-modification' points system, which tells guards when to mete out rewards and punishments. Absent from their homes, Uyghur places of worship are secretly bulldozed en masse.

On Tuesday, the UK government announced new rules that seek to prevent UK companies profiting from forced Uyghur labour. Companies will have to demonstrate that their supply chains are free from slavery. Public procurement rules will also attempt to exclude suppliers with links to human rights violations. This new policy appears to implement Key Proposal no. 5 of the newly created China Research Group, a think tank set up by Tory MPs to 'counter violations of international universal human rights'. The ERG-style group was formed after China's coronavirus cover-up operation became clear.

Continue reading →

Most UK people's 2020 Christmas eves were cheered by the news that we had some sort of Brexit deal - here, in all its majesty. Given the deadline for no deal, some deal, however thin, was a good deal better than nothing, with the ill-tempered chaos between the UK and a major trading partner which would have followed from the latter.

News in the last few weeks has concentrated on some of the immediate supply chain issues (notably fishing) which affect businesses, and whether those issues are long-term and intrinsic in any non-single-market Brexit (my view), or can be ironed out in time (as Leavers say).

But there are other long term issues such as environmental protection which are potentially affected by the deal. These have not really picked up in the media. One exception is the very helpful briefing by Greener UK (a group of the major UK environmental NGOs) - here.

The prism for any analysis of the deal is that it is a Trade and Cooperation deal, and the environmental commitments, such as they are, are tied into trade implications - to retain a level playing field for that trade.

The other thing to remember is that it is a public international law agreement, full of the terminology of such agreements, well trodden by the EU in terms of external agreements, and more generally. Put the other way, don't read it like an EU directive, let alone a UK statute.

To a seasoned follower of environmental policy in Europe, its terms are like winding the clock back 40-odd years. The initial environmental directives (notably on water and waste in the mid-1970s) had no express Treaty hook on which to be hung. The hook only arrived with effect from the end of 1992, when the Treaty was amended. So environmental policy measures in those early days were couched essentially in trade terms.

So what does the deal (a.k.a the Trade and Cooperation Agreement or TCA) tell us? Here are my first thoughts.

Continue reading →

Whilst many of us would prefer not to dwell on 2020, it was a year that produced many interesting decisions. In Episode 134, Michael Spencer and Jon Metzer talk to Emma-Louise Fenelon about the cases they consider to be 2020's most significant landmarks.

This episode refers to:
Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Audioboom, Player FM, ListenNotes, Podbean, iHeart, Radio Public, Deezer
or wherever you listen to our podcasts. Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.

Selahattin Demirtaş delivering a speech in 2016. Photograph: Ozan Köse/AFP/Getty Images. Source: The Guardian

On 22 December 2020, the European Court of Human Rights ("ECtHR") published a Grand Chamber decision against Turkey, requiring the immediate release of the pro-Kurdish opposition leader Selahattin Demirtaş from pre-trial detention ( Selahattin Demirtaş v Turkey, Application no. 14305/17). The ECtHR said that Mr Demirtaş' detention went against "the very core of the concept of a democratic society" and was in breach of Articles 5, 10, 18 and Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the "Convention").

The decision is particularly significant given Mr Demirtaş' high profile status and the numerous cases against Turkey that the ECtHR is now hearing, following the attempted coup in July 2016 and the government's subsequent crackdown on civil society. Shortly after publication of the judgment, the ECtHR website was subject to a cyber-attack and rendered temporarily inaccessible. A group of pro-Turkish hackers claimed responsibility for the attack via a Twitter post.

Continue reading →

In the news:
Last week's round-up looked at the measures and messaging of the UK's latest lockdown. This week we ask what it means for vulnerable children and victims of domestic abuse. Are sufficient legal safeguards in place?

For vulnerable children, it unfortunately seems not. On Wednesday, a Guardian investigation revealed that thousands of children were sent to unregulated care homes last year, while local authority provisions were stretched throughout many months of restrictions. These homes include supported accommodation facilities for over 16s, which are not subject to any inspections by regulators in England and Wales. The Children's Commissioner for England Anne Longfield has warned that the children's care system has been 'left to slip deeper into crisis, seemingly unable to stop some of the most vulnerable children from falling through the gaps.'

Continue reading →

The exterior of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

In this two-part article, Ruby Peacock, an aspiring barrister and currently a legal and policy intern at the Legal Resources Centre in Cape Town, examines the history of medical claims brought under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The first part analysed the history of how such cases have been decided, with particular focus on claims based on psychiatric illness. This second part will examine the recent developments in the law and what these may mean for the future.
The author is very grateful to Greg Ó Ceallaigh and Sapan Maini-Thompson for their insights and comments when preparing this article. Paposhvili v Belgium
By the time Paposhvili v Belgium came to be considered by the Grand Chamber, the applicant had sadly passed away. Before his death, he faced a proposed removal to Georgia. However, he had been suffering from several medical conditions, the most serious of which was chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Crucially, the applicant accepted that, because his medical conditions was stable, he did not meet the D criteria. Intervening, the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University argued that the case presented a unique opportunity to 'depart from the excessively restrictive approach adopted by the Court in N' (at para 165). In a unanimous verdict, the Court seized upon this opportunity.

As outlined in Jonathan Metzer's article, Paposhvili expanded the circumstances in which a person could resist removal to a third country on Article 3 grounds to include:

Continue reading →

Courtroom of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

In this two-part article, Ruby Peacock, an aspiring barrister and currently a legal and policy intern at the Legal Resources Centre in Cape Town, examines the history of medical claims brought under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The first part analyses the history of how such cases have been decided, with particular focus on claims based on psychiatric illness. The second part will examine the recent developments in the law and what these may mean for the future.

Continue reading →

On Wednesday 30 December, the UK parliament passed Boris Johnson's trade and cooperation agreement with the European Union. Professor Catherine Barnard of Cambridge University is continuing her series 2903 CB. Everyone agrees this is a bit of a thin deal - as Catherine predicted - but is it a good deal?

As Catherine said, the negotiating team has delivered on sovereignty. There's no reference in the text to the CJEU or EU law. On the other hand, there's very little about services of any sort in the deal. This is because the UK was so keen not to be subject to the European Court of Justice, so it was not looking for concessions in this area.

The document is a daunting 1246 pages long - but the first four hundred odd are the meat of the deal, and in Episode 133 Professor Barnard delivers a succinct and truly helpful summary of what she calls a "Canada minus" free trade deal.
Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Audioboom, Player FM, ListenNotes, Podbean, iHeart, Radio Public, Deezer
or wherever you listen to our podcasts. Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.

In the News:
So: here we are again.

Rampant spread, fuelled by a combination of a new variant that is around 50-70% more transmissible, plus a lifting of restrictions at the beginning of December, brings us into another national lockdown.

In many ways, Prime Minister Boris Johnson's first address of 2021 felt unpleasantly like a return to early 2020.

The original "Stay Home" messaging made a comeback. The Prime Minister was deliberately vague about how long lockdown would last. Big Brother Watch criticised the government for "yet again ... evading the democratic process" by denying MPs a meaningful vote on the new national restrictions prior to their televised announcement to the nation, or their coming into force. The new guidance differs from the Tier 4 guidance in emphasis, if not substance.

Ever the optimist, the Prime Minister was keen to emphasise "one huge difference" between this lockdown and the first one: the UK is "rolling out the biggest vaccination programme in its history". He also managed to get in a jab at the UK having delivered more vaccines than the rest of Europe combined.

There were other, more subtle differences, as No. 10 tweaked its messaging in light of past mistakes.

Continue reading →

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission

Four and a half years after Britain voted to leave the EU, and 12 months after Boris Johnson was elected Prime Minister with his 'oven-ready' Brexit deal, the UK and European Union finally concluded a trade agreement on Christmas Eve. The deal, yet to be ratified by Parliament, is expected to gain approval without difficulty on 30 th December, with the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer, whipping his MPs to approve it. So did this deal supply the Christmas joy we've been missing in 2020? What does the deal contain?

Continue reading →

The Christmas decorations at Middle Temple. Photo by the author.

This time last year I wrote that 2019 had been "perhaps the most tumultuous period in British politics for decades". Little did I know what 2020 would have in store.
The Covid-19 pandemic has caused loss, suffering and anxiety across not only the UK but almost all of the globe. At the UK Human Rights Blog, we feel deep gratitude to the doctors, nurses, carers and essential workers who have kept society going in what has been a deeply difficult year for so many of us.

In light of this, it is perhaps harder to summon the usual festive spirit that graces the approach of the holiday period - particularly as so many of us will be separated from our loved ones. And yet, perhaps it makes holding onto some spirit of joy all the more necessary.

Writing the article summing up the legal developments of the year is one of the highlights for me as commissioning editor of this blog. Let us embark together on a tour of what the courts had to say over the last 12 months. As ever, it has been a very interesting year.

Continue reading →

R (Finch) v. Surrey County Council et al [2020] EWHC 3559 (QB) - read judgment

Environmental Impact Assessment or EIA is the process by which a developer and a planning authority look at whether a particular project is likely to have significant direct or indirect effects on the environment. And an EIA must address a factors such as human health, biodiversity, land, water and climate as well as cultural heritage and landscape.

But how far does the enquiry have to go? This is the very stark question raised by this planning case.

The developer wanted to drill oil from the Horse Hill site in Surrey (see pic) for a production period of 20 years. The crude oil thus won would be tankered offsite for refining by others. The refined product would probably be used for transportation, but also for heat, manufacturing and in the petrochemical industry.

The issue was whether the local authority could stop its EIA lines of enquiry when it had considered the setting up works and the oil production processes, or whether it had to assess the wider climate change implications of long-term use of the oil so produced.

The judge, Holgate J was firmly of the view that the assessment process was limited to the first. Surrey's EIA process was thus sufficient.

Continue reading →

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK Human Rights Blog - 1 Crown Office Row

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Evie Toombes v. Dr. Philip Mitchell [2020] EWHC 3506 the High Court has given renewed consideration to claims for, so called, "wrongful life". Can a disabled person ever claim damages on the basis that they would not have been born but for the defendant's negligence?

# data[].attributes.headline
Office of the CSW letter to local authorities re s140

# data[].attributes.subject
Office of the CSW letter to local authorities re s140

# data[].attributes.headline
9th October 2023 - Statement on assault of AMHP colleague (BBC News Story)

# data[].attributes.subject
9th October 2023 - Statement on assault of AMHP colleague (BBC News Story)

# data[].attributes.headline
White Paper Consultation Questions - Word Version

# data[].attributes.subject
White Paper Consultation Questions - Word Version

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Joint foreword from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor

It is two years since Professor Sir Simon Wessely delivered his landmark Independent Review of the Mental Health Act. This set out what needs to change in both law and practice in order to deliver a modern mental health service that respects the patient's voice and empowers individuals to shape their own care and treatment. It also made recommendations on how to address the disparities in how the act affects people from black, Asian and minority ethnic minority ( BAME) backgrounds.

We are grateful to Sir Simon, and to his Vice Chairs, Sir Mark Hedley, Baroness Julia Neuberger and Steve Gilbert OBE for their report and for their continued advice and support.

We welcome the considered work and in-depth engagement undertaken by Sir Simon Wessely's Independent Review. We accept, and we will take forward, the vast majority of its recommendations for change.

The government has not been able to bring forward this White Paper as early as originally planned - because of the unprecedented battle we are waging with the COVID-19 pandemic. We have all made it our priority to fight this virus, which has already claimed so many lives and is affecting the mental health and wellbeing of the nation.

This is a challenging time. But we are confident that people who are or who have been users of inpatient mental health services, their families and carers, and those who work for these services will all recognise the critical importance of taking the next steps in this process of reform.

The review is already influencing the major decisions and actions the government is making to improve mental health care. We have already taken steps to introduce significant new investment to transform the mental health estate so that inpatients can have the privacy and dignity of their own bedrooms with en suite bathrooms. We are investing over £400 million to rid the mental health estate of dormitory provision, just as the review recommended. We will build new mental health hospitals - with two schemes already approved and with more to come - and will tackle the maintenance work needed in the mental health facilities where patients are treated.

Fortunately, NHS mental health services did not need to use the emergency provisions contained in the Coronavirus Act 2020 designed to be deployed if severe staff shortages due to the pandemic disrupted vital care and assessment under the act. Instead, steps have successfully been taken to innovate in order to adapt and manage the pandemic within wards. As a result, the emergency provisions within the Coronavirus Act have been expired.

Some of these approaches point to new ways of doing things - such as remote video consultations, when appropriate, as part of the Care Quality Commission's second opinion appointed doctors service. The Department of Health and Social Care has also followed suit - removing regulatory barriers to the electronic transmission of the act's statutory forms. This has allowed more flexible and remote working to take place and represents a crucial first step in our work towards digitising the clinical pathways under the act.

This government believes firmly in increasing the liberty of its citizens. And so we will seek to implement reforms which see people not just as patients, but as individuals, with rights, preferences, and expertise, who are able to rely on a system which supports them and only intervenes proportionately, and which has their health and wellbeing as its central organising principle.

Mental health services must be improved for people of BAME backgrounds. The government asked the Independent Review to take a close look at the disparities that exist and to make proposals to address them.

This White Paper reflects on the progress that has been made in response to the review to enable organisations to take the steps they need to make improvements in access, experience and outcomes for individuals from different ethnic backgrounds. It also sets out future plans, including work to develop and support a more diverse and representative workforce and to launch a programme of culturally appropriate advocates, in order to better help patients from all ethnic backgrounds voice their individual needs.

We have seen high profile cases of quality failings in the care of people with a learning disability and autistic people in inpatient settings such as the abuse uncovered at Whorlton Hall in May 2019. Too often people have been detained without sufficient therapeutic input and without their rights being upheld. We propose changes to reduce reliance on inpatient services for people with a learning disability and autistic people and to further ensure the availability of community alternatives. We will also deliver on our commitment to improve how people with a learning disability and autistic people are treated in law, with a separate legal approach more suited to their needs. This acts on our manifesto pledge and on our commitment earlier last year to the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) that individuals within this group should only be in inpatient care for as short a time, as close to home and in the least restrictive setting possible, with a clear, therapeutic benefit, not as a last resort due to lack of appropriate community support.

This White Paper marks the next step on this journey. We urge you to take part in the consultation that will take place over the next three months to help shape future legislation, service approaches, and modernise the act's principles and values.

Executive summary

Unprecedented transformation: making mental health services fit for the future

The government and NHS England and Improvement ( NHSEI) are delivering the most ambitious programme for the transformation of mental health care England has ever known. This expansion of support, central to our NHS Long Term Plan and backed with record levels of investment, will see two million more people receive high quality mental health services by 2023 to 2024 - from primary care and specialist community teams, in some schools and colleges, in accident and emergency departments, when in crisis, and in inpatient settings. This work builds on the successes of the Five-Year Forward View for Mental Health which will deliver services to one million more people by April 2021.

Putting these transformation plans in place gives us a vital opportunity to modernise mental health legislation. We have a unique chance to ensure enhanced services are matched by enhanced rights for patients who should have a greater say about what happens to them when they are made subject to the Mental Health Act ("the act"). Taken together, the NHS Long Term Plan and this White Paper share common aims - that people affected by serious mental health conditions and their families do not get left behind and that inequalities experienced by people from BAME backgrounds in access, experience and outcomes of mental healthcare are addressed.

The NHS Long Term Plan is delivering a clear and concerted shift towards providing more people with high quality, accessible care closer to home. However, sometimes people with serious mental illnesses will still need to be detained in hospital so that they can be treated and supported in their recovery.

We echo Professor Sir Simon Wessely's view that living in a country that protects and cares for people when they are at their most vulnerable is far preferable to the alternative. It is our strong view that such protection should always be in the least restrictive setting, and where possible support people to live independently at home. Therefore, assessment and detention under the act should only happen when detention is truly the best option to support someone to get out of crisis and get better as quickly as possible. We recognise difficult tensions will always exist between individuals' autonomy and protection under the act, detention should not be without regard to human dignity, respect or the right to have a say in your own care. Supporting this is at the heart of our reforms.

The current Mental Health Act has a Code of Practice that promotes considerations of a person's dignity and independence, as well as a requirement not to restrict people more than is absolutely necessary. It is true, however, that the act has not kept pace with developments in public attitudes, how we understand and treat mental health, or how we should support people with a learning disability or autistic people. We have heard consistently that the act, which is still arranged around a system that essentially was established in 1959, does not fit with our modern sense of how health and care services should provide for people in the 21st century.

People should expect parity of esteem between mental health and physical health services. People who need to be detained under the act should have every right to expect that their voice and views will be central to decisions made about their care, as with any other NHS service.

People must be able to express their views and to collaborate with professionals to agree care and treatment plans that work for them, that have a clear therapeutic benefit and are focused from the outset on discharge and recovery. Today, while there are many examples of good practice across the country, we simply cannot say this is everyone's experience.

The government has serious concerns about the rising rates of the use of the act. Between 2006 and 2016 the number of detentions rose by 40% and we are now detaining tens of thousands of people each year. Not only this, there are significant disparities between different groups in terms of who becomes subject to the act, particularly for black people, who are both more likely to be detained and more likely to be discharged from hospital with the further restrictions of a community treatment order ( CTO).

There is a clear case for modernisation and change. This White Paper sets out our proposals for a substantive programme of legislative reform, taking forward the government's commitment to legislate to give people greater control over their treatment, and ensure they are treated with dignity and respect. It also takes forward our commitment to improve how people with a learning disability and autistic people are treated in law and reduce the reliance on specialist inpatient services for this group. We want everyone to have the opportunity to live a full and rewarding life in their communities and see an end to perpetuated detentions without appropriate therapeutic inputs. The White Paper also provides the government's full response to each recommendation made within the final report of the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act.

Responding to the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act

In 2017, the government asked Professor Sir Simon Wessely to lead the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act 1983, to examine issues around the use of the act and to propose recommendations for modernisation and reform.

The final report of the independent review, published in December 2018, concluded that the act does not always work as well as it should for patients, nor for their families and carers. When the act fails people, they become disempowered, are excluded from decisions about their care and treatment, and are treated with neither dignity nor respect. The current legislation goes too far in removing people's autonomy and does not do enough to protect and support the ability of people to influence or make decisions about their own care.

We welcome the considered work and in-depth engagement undertaken by the review. We accept, and we will take forward, the vast majority of its recommendations for change.

Informed by the review's recommendations, we are proposing a wide range of changes to rebalance the act, to put patients at the centre of decisions about their own care. Four principles, developed by the review and in partnership with people with lived experience, will guide and shape our approach to reforming legislation, policy and practice. These are:

choice and autonomy - ensuring service users' views and choices are respected

least restriction - ensuring the act's powers are used in the least restrictive way

therapeutic benefit - ensuring patients are supported to get better, so they can be discharged from the act

the person as an individual - ensuring patients are viewed and treated as individuals

The government agrees that these principles are the right ones, has put them at the centre of the reforms that we propose to make, and will continue to do so as we seek to embed them into practice.

We are improving access to community-based mental health support, including crisis care, to avoid the need for detention and admission.

Through the transformation programme set out in the Long Term Plan, we want to ensure that more people are able to get the care and treatment they need, at an earlier stage and in their local community, in order to prevent people reaching crisis and needing detention under the act.

The NHS Long Term Plan, backed by £2.3 billion of new investment for mental health services a year by 2023 to 2024, will improve mental health care for people of all ages and all types of mental illness, particularly severe mental illnesses. We are developing new and integrated models of primary and community mental health care to support adults and older adults with severe mental illnesses, as well as new comprehensive crisis services for people of all ages, including children and young people, ensuring greater focus on prevention and early intervention.

With these services in place, we will be able to provide better and earlier support to reduce the risk of people reaching crisis point, better alternative options to detention under the act, and arrangements for quicker discharge, with appropriate mental health care services available in the community.

The NHS Long Term Plan also makes provisions for better crisis care and once these enhanced services are fully in place, and local areas are ready, legislation will end the use of police cells to hold someone experiencing a mental health crisis, once and for all.

We will seek to revise and clarify the detention criteria for civil sections of the act, so that patients are only detained when it is appropriate and where there is demonstrable therapeutic benefit to the patient.

We propose to reform the criteria so that the purpose of detention is always about helping patients to recover and supporting them towards discharge. This is what we mean by therapeutic benefit. We also want to revise the criteria around the risk of harm posed by the individual to themselves or others. We want to make this clearer so that detention is only used when the risk of harm is substantial. Detentions under the act must always provide the least restrictive option for the individual.

We will seek to align the criteria for using CTOs with the planned reforms to the detention criteria ‒ so that they are only used where there is strong justification, and a clear therapeutic benefit to the individual.

The proposed changes will make the criteria for detention and subjecting an individual to a CTO more stringent, better reflecting the gravity of placing restrictions on a person's liberty.

We acknowledge significant concerns relating to admissions of people with a learning disability and autistic people to mental health hospitals under the act, where such an admission could become protracted or may not result in someone receiving an appropriate therapeutic intervention. We propose to make reforms which would ensure that mental illness is the reason for detention and that neither autism nor a learning disability are grounds for detention under the act in and of themselves.

We will increase the frequency with which patients are reviewed against these new criteria, making longer term detentions more difficult to justify after the point where the patient is no longer considered to pose a significant risk and where treatment or detention ceases to have therapeutic value.

We will also improve the rights of patients around challenging their detention, where they feel their detention is unjustified.

We will give everyone a voice and the power to express their views about the care and treatment they want to have.

Giving someone a greater say in their care can lead to greater engagement in treatment and potentially longer-term therapeutic benefit.

We will introduce statutory advance choice documents to enable people to express their view on the care and treatment that works best for them as inpatients, before the need arises for them to go into hospital.

For the first time, we will put care and treatment plans on a statutory footing and require them to be developed in good time and in partnership with patients. The plan will be regularly updated to reflect the patient's progress and to ensure that care and treatment continues to be carried out in the way they would like. For each patient, the plan will also set out the steps to be put in place to make sure discharge to home or community settings can happen as quickly and safely as possible.

We want to see a culture change, so that a patient's views and preferences, whether given at the time or in advance, are taken fully into consideration, and that the very process of developing the plan makes decision-making transparent and collaborative.

Patients will have greater rights to choose their preferred evidence-based treatment, and to refuse a particular treatment, where there is a clinically appropriate alternative available. There will be more stringent rules about the circumstances and process to be followed in overruling a patient's choice, including an expanded role for the Mental Health Tribunal.

We will provide high quality, tailored support to everyone detained under the act.

A new right to choose a nominated person will mean patients will be able to choose the person who is best placed to look after their interests under the act. We think it is important that people are able to choose the specific individual who, under the act, is able to exercise certain rights on their behalf, for example by applying to the tribunal. Currently, people cannot choose this person, rather it is dictated by legislation.

To ensure people have awareness of their rights, and are supported to exercise them, we will expand the role of Independent Mental Health Advocates to offer a greater level of support and representation to every patient detained under the act.

We will take steps to improve how the Mental Health Act works for people with a learning disability and autistic people.

The government has committed to improving the way that people with a learning disability and autistic people are treated in law. We will take steps to address the inappropriate use of detention of people with a learning disability and autistic people, recognising that the mental health inpatient environment can fail to meet the specific needs of this group.

We propose that neither learning disability nor autism would be considered a mental disorder for which someone can be detained for treatment under Section 3 of the act. People with a learning disability or autistic people could only be detained for treatment if a co-occurring mental health condition is identified by clinicians. This would allow for detention for assessment of a person with a learning disability or autism behaving in a way that was inherently risky, but would end the use of the act for people with a learning disability or autism longer than 28 days where there is no evidence of a co-occurring mental health condition.

We propose to introduce a new duty on the NHS and local authorities to ensure an adequate supply of community services for people with a learning disability and autistic people.

We will take action to tackle the disproportionate number of Mental Health Act detentions of people from BAME backgrounds.

The Independent Review was commissioned by the government because of the profound inequalities that exist for people from ethnic minority groups in terms of access to treatment, experience of care and quality of outcomes. Black people are over four times more likely to be detained under the act and over ten times more likely to be subject to a CTO.

We are committed to taking action on the issues, which the review shone a spotlight on, and addressing the underlying causes of these disparities. The reforms to the act proposed in the White Paper follow key recommendations made by the review. We aim to improve the transparency of decision making, provide greater choice and autonomy, and increase the ability for patients to challenge decisions. These changes will benefit all people subject to, or at risk of detention, but are designed to have a particularly positive impact for people from BAME groups.

In June 2019, the government pledged to introduce a new Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework ( PCREF), as recommended by the review. This will support NHS mental healthcare providers to work with their local communities to improve the ways in which patients access and experience treatment. Monitoring data on equality at board level, and taking appropriate action, will be a fundamental component of this.

Momentum on developing this framework is building. Patients, carers and front-line staff are currently instrumental in shaping the PCREF to ensure it can be applied across a number of mental healthcare settings, and supports measurable improvements in BAME patient and carer experience.

While advocates can help patients under the act voice their needs, poor cultural understanding can worsen outcomes for patients from BAME backgrounds and compound other inequalities. We have committed to launching a pilot programme of culturally appropriate advocates so that patients from all ethnic backgrounds can be supported to voice their individual needs.

A diverse and representative workforce at all levels is critical to making progress to address disparities. The review found that parts of the mental health workforce don't reflect the populations they serve, meaning there are gaps in the delivery of meaningful support.

We are undertaking several programmes to improve the diversity of the workforce. The NHS People Plan for 2020/21, along with the NHS COVID-19 phase 3 recovery guidance urgently prioritises further action for the NHS to advance equality and diversity and to develop leaders who have the knowledge, skills and behaviours to create and sustain cultures of compassion and inclusion.

NHSEI's Advancing Mental Health Equalities Taskforce and Health Education England (HEE) are working to address the workforce priorities outlined in the NHS Long Term Plan and to implement strategies to enable a more diverse and inclusive mental health workforce that is reflective of the population it serves. This includes workstreams to increase fairness of access to and inclusion in mental health training programmes.

We will ensure the benefits of reform are extended to people with serious mental illness who come into contact with the criminal justice system, with a focus on public protection, rehabilitation and reduced re-offending

We think it is important that people with serious mental illness, who come into contact with the criminal justice system, benefit from many of the reforms set out above. We will continue work which has been under way in recent years to support rapid diversion to mental health care and treatment from court or from custody as appropriate. We will ensure that where people in prison require treatment in a mental health hospital, they are transferred within an appropriate timeframe to support necessary care and recovery.

The Ministry of Justice and NHSEI are working together to ensure prompt decisions in relation to 'restricted patients', for whom the Justice Secretary is responsible for approving clinicians' recommendations. We want to ensure the reformed Act upholds its function to protect the public, and that appropriate support is available to victims of mentally disordered offenders. We will drive a renewed focus on improving quality of care, through improvements to the patient environment, training for the existing and new workforce, and through a dedicated Quality Improvement Programme to promote practical and cultural change across the system.

Through the NHS Long Term Plan, the government and the NHS are taking steps to drive up the quality of inpatient mental health care, to improve patient experience and ensure everyone is treated with dignity and respect.

Providing a modern, positive environment is particularly important for people with mental illness in terms of promoting a strong focus on recovery and return to independence. We are investing over £400m to rid the estate of dormitory provision, as the review recommended. We will build new mental health hospitals - with two schemes already approved and with more to come - and will tackle the maintenance work that the estate needs.

The government and the NHS will work with wider partners to bring about an overall culture change that places individuals at the heart of care and promotes partnership working between patients and professionals. We will support our dedicated frontline staff to create the best ward cultures, that are focused on high quality patient experience, outcomes and safety. This will require strong clinical leadership at all levels and co-production with services users at every stage. This work will be underpinned by NHSEI and HEE through comprehensive training for staff and a full implementation plan including a National Quality Improvement (QI) programme, which will look specifically at care under the act to enable and support this system-wide drive for change.

Next steps

This White Paper represents a significant milestone on the journey towards reform, but changing the legislation is only part of the story. Long-term sustainable change will require everyone to play their part, including national health and social care organisations, NHS mental health services, local authorities , the courts and the police, and the third sector. Continuing the collaborative approach taken by the review, we are committed to continuing to work with people with lived experience, their families and carers and frontline staff to help people plan for change and ensure all aspects of care place the patient's needs and preferences front and centre.

The in-depth work undertaken by the review provides a strong platform for change based on the four new guiding principles.

During the review, people also underlined the importance of taking the necessary time to get this reform right, given the complexity of the legal framework and the important implications it has on people's lives.

As a next step, and in the spirit of co-production established by the review, we will consult widely to gather the views of everyone who may be impacted by the planned reforms, including service users, their families and carers, mental health clinicians and professionals, and experts in mental health and mental capacity legislation, to ensure the reforms work for everyone. We will use the evidence and views from this consultation to make final policy decisions and to draft a revised Mental Health Bill, which we will introduce when Parliamentary time allows.

The proposals set out in this White Paper are also subject to future funding decisions, including at Spending Review 2021. The government will continue to work closely with national and local health and care organisations, including NHSEI, the CQC and HEE, to understand the impact of legislative reform on the current system and to develop a robust and achievable plan for implementation. This will need to take into account other demands placed on the system by wider transformation plans and the capacity of the health and care workforce to deliver what is required.

Introduction

The government and NHS England and Improvement ( NHSEI) are delivering the most ambitious programme to transform mental health care that England has ever known. As part of this, we have committed to legislate so that patients suffering from mental health conditions, who may require care under the Mental Health Act, have greater control over their treatment and receive the dignity and respect they deserve. We have also committed to improve the treatment of people with a learning disability and autistic people in law.

This White Paper sets out the government's proposals to reform mental health legislation. Our proposals take forward the recommendations made by the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act, and the full Government response to all 154 recommendations is set out at part 3 of this White Paper. The review engaged widely and heard from a range of views to inform its findings, including those of service users and carers and people with lived experience of treatment under the act. We are committed to continuing this collaborative approach and will consult on our proposals before bringing forward a Bill to amend the act.

Throughout this White Paper we are seeking views on the implementation and impact of the reforms, which will inform the final drafting of the Bill. We will supplement the responses we get back on these questions with further engagement during the formal consultation period with service users, carers and professionals to ensure legislation, policy and implementation are all informed by the experience and expertise of people who have lived experience of being treated under the act. Given the continued constraints of the pandemic, this engagement will take place in a COVID secure manner, while ensuring that it is broad and inclusive.

This White Paper represents a significant milestone in the journey towards reform. This consultation period will last for fourteen weeks. Following this, we will consider and report on what people have told us,and bring forward a draft Bill when parliamentary time allows. To guide professional practice the Code of Practice will later also be revised to align with the reformed legislation.

We are clear that these reforms will require additional funding over and above commitments made in the NHS Long Term Plan. Analysis to support this view is outlined in the accompanying impact assessment. The delivery of the transformational proposals set out in this white paper will therefore be subject to future funding decisions, including at Spending Review 2021.

The White Paper, which comprises the government's response to the Independent Review, is arranged around 3 discrete parts:

Scope of the White Paper

The current Mental Health Act applies in both England and Wales. The majority of the White Paper concerns health policy which is devolved to Wales.

Although health policy is devolved to Wales, justice matters remain reserved to the UK government. There is also a separate devolved system for tribunals in Wales.

This White Paper represents the position of the UK government, which commissioned the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act.

Improving mental health outcomes is a cross-cutting priority in Wales, and the Welsh government has set out a clear policy commitment to deliver excellent mental health services. Given that the act has application in both England and Wales, the findings of the review and the proposals set out in this White Paper will also be carefully considered in the context of how the act currently operates alongside legislation, mental health services and systems in Wales. In particular, the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010 has already put some similar proposals, such as care plans for people subject to detention, on a statutory footing in Wales.

The Welsh government will continue to engage with the UK government on the proposals set out in the White Paper as it considers appropriate next steps for Wales and develops its own response to the review.

Reserved matters where the UK government could apply changes in both England and Wales are highlighted in this White Paper (in particular in relation to the criminal justice system). However, even in reserved areas, the UK and Welsh governments are working closely to understand any distinct impacts and issues for Wales, and there may be cases where a different approach to reform is appropriate between nations.

It is not uncommon that Welsh patients are cared for in England and English patients cared for in Wales. Both governments are therefore committed to ensuring there is a joined up, person-centred mental health system that works for all patients and staff in these circumstances.

We will ensure that voices from Wales are heard during the consultation period and we will work with the Welsh government, sharing consultation responses to help inform policy decisions for Wales.

The jurisdiction mental health tribunal

The functions which in England are performed by the Mental Health jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (usually referred to as the Mental Health Tribunal or MHT), are dealt with by a separate tribunal in Wales, the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales, or MHRTW. This is a devolved Welsh Tribunal under the President of Welsh Tribunals and is administered by the Welsh government. It is important to note that the response to the recommendations in this White Paper only refer to the MHT in England and not the MHRTW.

Part 1: Proposals for reform of the Mental Health Act

1. New guiding principles

We will introduce new guiding principles to drive a more person-centred system, in which the choices made by patients have weight and influence, where care must have a therapeutic benefit for the patient, and where the powers of the act are only used when absolutely necessary.

These principles have informed every aspect of the government's approach to this White Paper and as we move forward to legislation and implementation, they will continue to inform our ambition to shape a modern Mental Health Act. We want the principles to have impact beyond legislative reform; changing day to day practice and providing a guide for anyone working with or supporting someone who is detained under the act.

Together with the other legislative reforms set out in this White Paper, these principles will help to redress the balance of power between patient and professionals with a view to improve patient experience. The new principles are:

choice and autonomy - ensuring service users' views and choices are respected

least restriction - ensuring the act's powers are used in the least restrictive way

therapeutic benefit - ensuring patients are supported to get better, so they can be discharged as quickly as possible

the person as an individual - ensuring patients are viewed and treated as individuals

These reflect the principles put forward by the Independent Review, and were developed in close collaboration with service users and carers.

Embedding the principles in the Mental Health Act

We will seek to include these four principles up front in the act, as well as in the Code of Practice. The Care Quality Commission's evaluation of how the Code of Practice is applied found that, although the principles introduced to the act in 2007 do influence practice for the better, they are applied inconsistently and are not widely understood. By putting these principles on the face of the act itself, we are hoping to support better understanding and awareness.

We also want to embed the principles within our planned reforms to the act, including in the following ways:

choice and autonomy : Service users' views and choices will be represented in advance choice documents and through their involvement in care and treatment plans, and through enhanced opportunities to challenge treatment decisions

least restriction : We will ensure the act's powers are used in the least restrictive way, by strengthening and clarifying the criteria that must be satisfied before a person is detained and treated. We will make discharge planning a key part of care planning so that people are detained for the shortest possible time according to their needs

therapeutic benefit : We want to ensure patients are supported to get better, so they can be discharged from the act, and that therapeutic benefit is a requirement of detention

the person as an individual : We will ensure that patients are viewed and treated as rounded individuals in accordance with the NHS Constitution's statement that staff should "value each person as an individual, respect their aspirations and commitments in life and seek to understand their priorities, needs, abilities and limits". This will be supported by enhanced rights to Independent Mental Health Advocates, and through NHSEI's commitment to a Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework (PCREF) with the goal of improving access, experience and outcomes for people from BAME backgrounds

Before seeking to put the principles on the face of the act, we will consider how the principles will impact on the practical application of the act and address any issues of compatibility - so that the new principles can be embedded into the act with real meaning and without causing confusion for practitioners. Compatibility with the principles is a particular consideration for Part III of the act, where public safety concerns necessitate a higher degree of restriction and compulsion.

Wider application of the new principles

These principles will apply to all professionals involved in the care of people under the act. Once the reforms are enacted, we will work with service users and practitioners to ensure the new principles are effectively embedded in future revisions of the act's Code of Practice and are used to guide broader policy and practice surrounding the act. This will ensure that the principles govern every element of someone's care.

Question

We propose embedding the principles in the MHA and the MHA code of practice. Where else would you like to see the principles applied to ensure that they have an impact and are embedded in everyday practice?

Your answer can be up to 500 words.

2. Clearer, stronger detention criteria

Context: the rising and disproportionate rates of detention

The detention criteria set out in the act are the fundamental justifications that allow decision makers to remove a person's liberty and give them treatment without consent. The criteria which must be met are that a person must be suffering from a mental illness with symptoms severe enough to present a risk to themselves or to other people. As a society, we accept that these are circumstances that necessitate the use of these powers, but practitioners should not use them lightly - these are strong state powers to detain people and remove both their liberty and their right to make choices about their care.

The government commissioned the Independent Review in response to concerns around the growing number of people being detained, inequalities among the detained population, and the length of time people spend detained under the act. The rate of compulsory detention in mental health hospitals has more than doubled since 1983 and it is disproportionately higher among certain ethnic minority groups, with black people four times more likely than white people to be detained under the act and ten times more likely to be put on a CTO. In parallel, as highlighted by the review, there are concerning cases of people being subject to unsuitably long stays in wards, which may exacerbate and not ease their problems. This is most common among autistic people, people with a learning disability and people living with schizophrenia.

To help address growing detention numbers, we need to ensure patients are provided with the appropriate care and support they need in the community. The NHS Long Term Plan's commitments for mental health - to improve community provision, to provide earlier support for people with serious mental illness, and to ensure that alternatives to detention are available for those in crisis - are all critical improvements we need to make to tackle detention rates. Our plans to improve services for people with a learning disability and autistic people will also have an impact on detention rates. The NHS Long Term Plan and the NHS Mental Health Implementation Plan 2019/20 to 2023/24 both provide detail on how the NHS will take this work forward.

Detention criteria: our proposal

To complement this significant expansion of community provision, we need to ensure the act is used in a fair and just way and works to increase trust among those groups that are more likely to be detained. To be effective, this must take a multi-pronged approach, and must include better and more transparent decision making, when assessing whether someone meets the criteria for detention under the act.

We propose to revise, strengthen and clarify the detention criteria to ensure that, in the future, detention only takes place when it is absolutely appropriate. We will also introduce requirements around how and when the new detention criteria should be applied, to ensure that people are only detained when there is a clear justification for doing so and that they are discharged as soon as that justification ceases to be relevant.

We will seek to revise the criteria to deliver two of our core principles:

i. Therapeutic benefit - greater consideration must be given to whether, and if so how, detention and interventions provided under the act are or would be beneficial to a person's health and recovery

ii. Least restriction - ensuring a person is only detained where it is absolutely necessary, where not detaining poses a substantial risk of significant harm being caused to themselves or others

i. Therapeutic benefit

Currently, the act states that detention should be "necessary for the health or safety of the patient" and that "appropriate medical treatment is available", neither of which expressly provides for a requirement that the patient should benefit from the treatment allowed for by the detention.

We therefore propose to amend the detention criteria in section 3 of the act, and elsewhere, to more clearly stipulate that in order for someone to be detained, it must be demonstrated that:

Applying the principle of therapeutic benefit to the detention criteria is designed to ensure care and treatment provided under the act will promote recovery and facilitate patients to get better, so that that they can be discharged as soon as possible. This could mean through improved mental health, or the therapeutic management of an ongoing condition. This should prevent the 'warehousing' of patients, where they are detained within inpatient settings without treatment which provides therapeutic benefit, something that the review identified as more likely to happen for people with a learning disability and autistic people. Care and treatment that constitutes therapeutic benefit should include consideration of the patient's wishes and preferences. Decisions about when and whether to discharge a patient should also include an assessment about whether the hospital or an alternative community setting provides the most therapeutic package of care. The presumption should always be that care is delivered in the least restrictive setting possible. Patients and service users have consistently said that delivering therapeutic benefit is about more than just medication. The ward culture and environment in which someone is being cared for is also very important.

Our proposed reforms to reduce reliance on inpatient services for people with a learning disability and autistic people, further embed this principle, to ensure that neither autism nor a learning disability are grounds for detention in and of themselves.

ii. Substantial likelihood of significant harm

The presence of a risk to self or others will remain a fundamental justification for detention under the act. However, we agree with the review that the current wording within the act, that detention is lawful for the interests of the patient's "own health or safety or with a view to the protection of other persons" is too ambiguous and may have contributed to growing risk aversion among some professionals, particularly with regard to patients with a learning disability and autistic people. We want to revise the act to ensure it is more explicit about how serious harm must be, or how likely it is that the harm will occur, to justify detention and/or treatment.

We propose to amend the detention criteria for sections 2 and 3 of the act, and elsewhere, to clearly stipulate that in order for someone to be detained, it must be demonstrated that:

There is a substantial likelihood of significant harm to the health, safety or welfare of the person, or the safety of any other person. We think that this will make it harder to detain people in a way that is more in keeping with the gravity of the removal of their liberty. Requiring that the potential harm is significant will mean detention will only be permitted in the most serious of cases. The risk of harm posed by the individual must be evidenced and recorded, encouraging professionals to focus on more than the individual's presenting behaviour and their perceived likelihood and severity of the harm.

Clearly, how risk to oneself or others is managed will remain a sensitive and critical issue at the heart of the act - and there remains a reality that some people with mental illness can present a risk to other people. This must be dealt with by assessing risk on a case by case basis, taking a positive approach to clinical risk management, and by regularly reviewing if the individual continues to meet the detention criteria on the grounds that they pose a substantial risk to themselves or others.

Where that threshold is no longer met, detention under the act should no longer be justified and would not be lawful under the proposed revised criteria. We think that this will protect patients from prolonged detention under the act.

Applying the new detention criteria

Those taking the decision to detain someone will need to document the specific risk that justifies detention and how detention will deliver therapeutic benefit in the new statutory care and treatment plan.

Our intention is that this will improve transparency, help tackle a culture of risk aversion which could impact on decisions, particularly in relation to people from a BAME background or people with a learning disability or autistic people.

The new detention criteria will apply when detaining an individual under sections 2 and 3 of the act, and when using a CTO. Following the initial decision to detain a patient, the new criteria will need to be applied every time a decision is made about a patient's continued detention under the act For example, the decision to transfer a patient from section 2 to 3 for treatment, as part of the routine detention renewal process and when a patient's case is brought before the Mental Health Tribunal.

Taken together, these changes will make longer term detentions more difficult to justify after the point where the patient is no longer considered to pose a significant risk and where treatment or detention ceases to have therapeutic value.

While we intend to tighten the detention criteria, we want to avoid making them so stringent that people who need the protection of the act can no longer be legally detained. The legislation will still allow for the detention of people at risk of suicide, and for patients with conditions that may be harder to treat, so long as detention under the act has a therapeutic benefit.

Part III patients and the new detention criteria

For clarity, we do not propose to change the criteria for detention under Part III of the act (nor was this proposed by the review). Patients in the criminal justice system have a unique risk profile which must be carefully managed. Changing the detention criteria for Part III patients would limit the scope for professional discretion or judgment with regard to risk, and therefore compromise our ability to adequately protect the public from risk of harm from sometimes serious or violent offenders. We are satisfied the current criteria for detention under Part III of the act enables professionals to make the right decisions for people, including where this requires diversion from criminal justice settings into a hospital setting.

3. Giving patients more rights to challenge detention

We are concerned that too often patients are detained for longer than is needed, and beyond the point of therapeutic benefit to the individual. The previous chapter set out proposed reforms to detention criteria. We think it's important that all detentions are frequently reviewed against these criteria, to ensure detention is justified, that it lasts for as short a time possible and only so long as there is a therapeutic benefit.

We want to introduce more checks on whether a patient's detention continues to be appropriate, both internally and by the tribunal, and increase the rights of patients and their representatives to challenge detention.

We also want to expand the powers of the tribunal so that it plays a greater role in embedding the core principles of reform - in particular those of least restriction, therapeutic benefit and greater choice and autonomy.

More frequent review of the case for detention

For patients under section 3 of the act, going forward we want their detention to be reviewed to assess whether it is still justified three times within the first year, as opposed to current policy and practice which states this needs to happen just two times.

The decision to detain an individual is one which has significant impact. We think that 6 months is too long to wait for detention to be reviewed for the first time. We want to bring this forward to month three by halving the initial detention period to three months. This will mean that in the first year of detention, reviews will occur at month three, month six and at month twelve. At each review, the patient's case for detention will be subject to scrutiny by the responsible clinician and other decision makers, such as the Hospital Managers who are required to provide additional oversight and to assess the responsible clinician's decision in certain circumstances.

Greater access to the Mental Health Tribunal so detention can be scrutinised

We also intend to increase people's access to The First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) ( MHT), which provides vital independent scrutiny of detention.

The Mental Health Tribunal is responsible for considering applications by patients and their nearest relative, and referrals by hospital authorities or the Secretary of State for Justice, for discharge from the act.

For patients detained under section 2 of the act, there is currently a 14-day time limit in which they (or their representative) can make an application for discharge to the tribunal. We think that this is too short and therefore we will seek to extend the limit to 21 days, to give patients (or their representative) greater opportunity to appeal their detention. While allowing enough time (seven days) for the hearing to take place before the section expires, after which the patient must be discharged or transferred to section 3 of the act.

For patients detained under section 3 of the act, the patient (or their representative) will have three opportunities to appeal to the tribunal in the first 12 months of detention, up from the current two.

To ensure that the right to apply to the tribunal can be fairly accessed by all, we will create a new statutory power for Independent Mental Health Advocates ( IMHAs) to apply to the tribunal to challenge the patient's detention on their behalf. This will be in addition to the nominated person who can also apply to the tribunal in certain circumstances, in line with the current powers of the Nearest Relative.

The tribunal will consider applications for discharge against the revised detention criteria, as set out above. As part of their assessment of whether the detention continues to be justified, the tribunal will take into consideration the new statutory care and treatment plan, which will set the responsible clinician's justification as to why the patient continues to meet the detention criteria. As the tribunal is a judicial body, rather than a clinical body, the tribunal will not comment or rule on the specific details of the plan or the treatments being provided, as part of applications for discharge, but will be able to consider the strength of evidence set out that the patient continues to meet the detention criteria.

We will work with Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) to consider whether the statutory care and treatment plan could replace some of the existing tribunal reports, to reduce paperwork and bureaucracy.

Automatic referral to the tribunal

Automatic referrals to the tribunal are an important safeguard, ensuring that all detentions are reviewed independently from the detaining authority on a regular basis, rather than relying on the patient or their representative to request one. This helps ensure that patients who are intimidated by the process or lack the capacity to exercise their rights do not miss out on having their case for discharge considered by the tribunal.

Increasing the frequency of automatic referrals to the tribunal, as recommended by the review, would ensure that detentions under the act are more regularly scrutinised. However, this creates an additional demand on the tribunal that must be carefully balanced alongside other reforms that will also result in new pressures on the body. For example, the patient's increased right to appeal to the tribunal, and the expansion of its function to considering treatment challenges. Making too many requirements on the system at once could lead to long waits before a patient's case is heard. Therefore, while we plan to put in place the necessary legal framework to allow the timeframes for automatic referrals to change, we wish to first ensure that the new timeframes proposed by the review are appropriate and ensure there is sufficient capacity in the system to take them forward. We will then consider phasing in any changes over time so that we can carefully assess resource constraints and ensure sufficient capacity and funding to enable the tribunal to deliver on the reforms to the act.

We would welcome views on the proposed changes to the frequency of automatic referrals to the tribunal, set out in detail below, to help inform our thinking:

Question

Do you agree or disagree with the proposed timetable for automatic referrals to the Mental Health Tribunal? (See table 1 for details.)

1) Patients on a section 3

2) Patients on a community treatment order ( CTO)

3) Patients subject to Part III

4) Patients on a conditional discharge

Please give reasons for your answer (up to 500 words).

Table 1: frequency of automatic referrals, current and future proposals

Type of patient

Current provisions

Proposed provisions

Patients subject to section 3

Referral 6 months after the detention started, if the patient had not made an appeal.

Thereafter referral takes place if more than 3 years have elapsed since the case was last considered by the tribunal.

For patients under the age of 18, cases are referred to the tribunal annually.

Referral 4 months after detention starts, if the patient had not already made an appeal.

Thereafter, referral would take place 12 months after the detention started, if the tribunal has not considered the case in the intervening months.

After the first 12 months of detention, referral would take place annually.

During the CTO, referral takes place 6 months after detention begins, if the tribunal has not considered the case in the first 6 months.

Thereafter, referral takes place if more than 3 years (or 1 year in the case of a patient under 18) have elapsed since the case was last considered by the tribunal.

If the CTO is revoked, referral to the tribunal takes place as soon as possible.

Referral would take place 6 months after the patient was put on the CTO, if the tribunal has not considered the case in the first 6 months.

Thereafter, referral would take place 12 months after the patient was put on the CTO, if the tribunal has not considered the case in the intervening month and continue to take place annually.

Patients subject to Part III

Referral takes place if the tribunal has not considered the patient's case in the last 3 years.

Every 12 months.

Patients on a conditional discharge (restricted, part III patients)

These patients have no right to an automatic referral.

Referral would take place 24 months following receipt of the conditional discharge by the patient.

Thereafter, referral would take place every 4 years.

Removing the tribunal's role when revoking CTOs

Giving the tribunal more power to grant leave, transfers and community services

Where the continuation of a patient's detention is justified, we want to give the tribunal the power to determine if the current setting represents the least restrictive option or if other options are available that better support the recovery of the patient and their path to discharge.

We will extend the role of the tribunal, when considering applications for discharge, to give it the power to grant leave, transfer patients, for example to a less secure hospital, and to direct services in the community.

Under section 72 of the act, the tribunal can already make recommendations relating to a patient's leave or transfer, but such recommendations are not binding. We intend to legislate so that the tribunal is able to grant leave and transfer, and direct services in the community. We propose that there should be an obligation in legislation on health and local authorities to take all reasonable steps to follow the tribunal's decision. If the authority is not able to give effect to the tribunals' decision, it must provide an explanation to the tribunal, setting out the steps it took and why it was not possible to follow the decision. This approach will align the tribunal with that of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (the SEND tribunal).

These powers would only apply for patients who are not subject to restriction orders (unrestricted patients) and would only be considered as part of an appeal for discharge. Patients will not be able to appeal directly to the tribunal to be granted leave or transfer.

We acknowledge that there are practical implications to implementing this recommendation. For example, if the tribunal grants the transfer of a patient to a hospital in a different location or with a lower level of security, bed availability may mean it is not possible to give effect to the transfer immediately. We therefore propose that healthcare bodies and local authorities should be given a period of five weeks to take reasonable steps to deliver the tribunal's direction and to respond to the tribunal if they are unable to give effect to the direction.

Question

We want to give the Mental Health Tribunal more power to grant leave, transfers and community services.

We propose that health and local authorities should be given 5 weeks to deliver on directions made by the Mental Health Tribunal. Do you agree or disagree that this is an appropriate amount of time?

Please give reasons for your answer (up to 500 words).

Hospital managers' hearings

Hospital managers have various responsibilities under the act, many of which are delegated to others who act on their behalf. Under section 23(4) of the act, decisions to discharge a patient from detention and CTOs can be delegated to managers' panels. The panel is made up of people appointed specifically for this purpose who are not officers or employees of the organisation concerned and are therefore independent.

The Code of Practice establishes the right of the patient to appeal to the managers' panel to have their case for discharge heard. The managers' panel can also act on behalf of the Hospital Managers to exercise their power to discharge a patient if they disagree with the responsible clinician's decision to renew a patient's detention or extend their CTO.

The review recommended removing the role of the managers' panel in discharging patients, based on concerns around the effectiveness of this safeguard and the lack of formality surrounding panel hearings.

We agree that the tribunal is better placed to assess whether a patient continues to meet the criteria for detention under the act. As set out above, we will be taking steps to increase access to this safeguard, both through increasing the patient's right to appeal to the tribunal and the frequency of automatic tribunals. However, we have heard mixed views from stakeholders on the effectiveness of managers' hearings, with some trusts reporting to us that the managers' panel provides an effective means of identifying when a patient is ready for discharge. We therefore wish to consult on this issue prior to taking a final decision on whether or not to remove the hospital manager hearing.

Hospital managers

In England, NHS hospitals are managed by NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. For these hospitals (including acute/non-mental health hospitals), the trusts themselves are defined as the 'hospital managers' for the purposes of the act. In an independent hospital the person or persons in whose name the hospital is registered are the Hospital Managers.

4. Strengthening the patient's right to choose and refuse treatment

We will take steps to legislate so that people with mental health conditions, when subject to the act, have greater influence over decisions about their care and treatment.

Over recent years, the framework for user involvement in care under the act has not kept pace with the increased expectations for patient-centred choice and care seen elsewhere in healthcare. In particular, it does not place enough emphasis on empowering patients and it too readily removes their freedom and ability to express choices and preferences.

We want to change radically the act's provisions around the administration of treatment once someone has been detained. We want to ensure that patients can specify what they want. We expect that their voice will be heard and respected and that they will have the opportunity to challenge when it is not. We will seek to do this in the following ways:

advance choice documents (ACDs): these will enable people to set out in advance the care and treatment they would prefer, and any treatments they wish to refuse, in the event they are detained under the act and lack the relevant capacity to express their views at the time. It will be a legal requirement that ACDs are considered when a patient's care and treatment plan is developed.

care and treatment plans: these will set out the patient's care and treatment, including how this takes into consideration the wishes and preferences of the patient, and critically the rationale when a person's wishes have not been followed. care and treatment plans will be a legal requirement for all patients, and there will be a legal time limit within which plans will need to be in place.

a revised part 4: this will provide a new legal framework for consent to and refusal of medical treatment, setting out the process which must be followed to ensure wishes and preferences are taken into consideration, and limiting the circumstances where a patient's views, and treatment refusals, can be overruled.

enhanced role of the Mental Health Tribunal (MHT): this will give patients a new route to challenge their treatment, where their choices have not been followed, by introducing a new role for the tribunal.

Advance choice documents

The introduction of advance choice documents (ACDs) and the legislation underpinning them will mean that decision makers are legally required to consider the advance wishes of the patient, meaning that the patient's voice will play a far greater role in informing treatment.

Existing statutory provision in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) for advance decision making in England has been developed primarily in the context of physical healthcare and community mental healthcare. With limited exceptions, there is no legal requirement on the responsible clinician to consider advance decisions made by the patient when determining their medical treatment under part 4 of the act. This means that if a patient has a valid and applicable advance statement which sets out their preference of one antipsychotic drug over another, while the responsible clinician is professionally obliged to act in the best interests of the patient, they are not legally obliged to take this into account.

How the advance choice document will work in practice

advance choice documents give individuals the opportunity to record a range of choices and statements about their care and treatment in preparation for a future situation in which they are too unwell to express these decisions themselves.

An advance choice document must be made when the individual has the relevant capacity. The statements made within it will only be considered if the individual loses the relevant capacity to make decisions about their own care and treatment. There will be a legal requirement on clinicians to consider the contents of an individual's advance choice document while they are detained under the act.

While advance choice documents will be available to all individuals who wish to make one, we think it is particularly important that people who have previously been detained are proactively offered the opportunity to develop one. This would aim to ensure that people with experience of detention, who have developed knowledge and expertise of the sorts of things they do or don't prefer, can inform their care and treatment to meet their needs. We will therefore make it a requirement in the legislation for advance choice documents to be offered to all people who have previously been detained. We will also set out in guidance that anyone who is at risk of detention should be offered the opportunity to make an advance choice document.

To ensure that service users' advance choice documents can be readily accessed by health and social care professionals, where necessary, we will seek to ensure that these important documents are available via a secure digital database.

What will you be able to include in an advance choice document?

advance choice documents will follow a standard format and approach, and should include the following information about an individual's preferences, including on treatment and non-medical therapeutic approaches, as well as any other information deemed relevant by the individual:

any treatments the person does not wish to consent to as well as their preferred clinically appropriate treatments

preferences and refusals on how treatments are administered (for example refusal of suppositories, and preference for care staff of a particular gender, to avoid retraumatising them, given the relationship between gender-based violence and trauma)

name of their chosen nominated person

names of anyone who should be informed of their detention, care and treatment (including specific instructions on which individual should get what information)

communication preferences

behaviours to be aware of which may indicate early signs of relapse

circumstances which may indicate that the person has lost the relevant capacity to make relevant decisions

religious or cultural requirements

crisis planning arrangements, including information about care of children/other dependents, pets, employment, housing etc.

other health needs and/or reasonable adjustments that might be required for individuals with a disability or learning disability and for autistic people

advance choice documents should draw on an individual's expertise of managing their own mental health. Where possible, they should be written with support and guidance from an individual's clinician and other trusted health professionals. The patient may also invite their Independent Mental Health Advocate ( IMHA), their nominated person ( NP) and family and friends to take part in the discussion of what statements they would like to make in their advance choice document.

What legal weight will an advance choice document have?

Under the reformed Act, decisions made by people when they have the relevant capacity to make them will have a real power and influence over decisions and appeals regarding care and treatment. Any statements of preference in an advance choice document will, in most cases, be considered as equivalent to those made in real time by a patient with the relevant capacity.

To remove the potential for doubt later as to whether the person had capacity to make the choices contained in an advance choice document, the review recommended that service users should seek to have their documents authenticated by a health professional. As part of this, the health professional would ensure that the patient understands the foreseeable consequences of an advance choice document, including the potential risks of refusing treatment; the circumstances in which treatment refusals can be overridden; and in what circumstance wishes and preferences may not be followed, for example if preferred treatments are not available or clinically appropriate.

While we agree an authentication process would be beneficial in ensuring that the patient is fully informed of the decisions they are making and in giving the responsible clinician confidence in the document's contents, we do not think that formal authentication should be necessary for the advance choice document to be valid. Instead, we think that for an advance choice document to be valid and have legal effect, it must have been made by someone who had the relevant capacity and apply to the treatment in question. This is the same approach as under the MCA. Authentication would be one way that an individual could seek to ensure that there is no doubt later about whether the statements were made with capacity. Otherwise, it would be for those concerned with the patient's care and treatment to consider whether the statements were made with capacity, at the point when decisions need to be made.

Statutory care and treatment plans

For the first time, the act will require that all patients subject to detention must have a care and treatment plan , with clear expectations about how and when this should be developed with the patient. In practice this will mean clinicians setting out in detail their assessment and plan for a patient's care and treatment, including how their wishes and preferences have been accounted for and what the intended route is towards discharge.

In recent years, personalised and dynamic care planning has become accepted as a mainstay of modern health and social care services, promoting choice, control and improved levels of service user engagement. However, with regards to the act, the Care Quality Commission has consistently raised concerns that care plans are not always discussed with the patient and often fail to reflect a patient's views about their care and treatment, as set out in their Monitoring the Mental Health Act 2017/18 and Monitoring the Mental Health Act 2018/19 reports.

We will introduce legislation to change this. Patients must receive clear and accessible information to help them understand the reasons for their detention and treatment. They should have a right to see, the plan for the treatment they will receive within a reasonable timeframe, showing how it will help them and what the plan is for their discharge. It is also especially important that patients know how their wishes and preferences have been considered.

It will be for the patient's responsible clinician (RC), working with all others involved in the patient's care, to complete and maintain the care and treatment plan. The Plan should reflect the patient's preferences, as far as possible, even when the patient lacks the relevant capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment. It should also recognise that capacity can fluctuate, and that an individual may lose capacity for some decisions but not others, and ensure that capacitous decisions are followed wherever possible. Where a patient lacks the relevant capacity, their advance choice document - where one exists - should be used to inform the development of the care and treatment plan. Where a patient lacks the relevant capacity and does not have an advance choice document, clinicians must still support the individual to express wishes and preferences, through supported decision making and consultation with the patient's nominated person, family and carers.

If decisions depart from the patient's wishes and preferences, however they are expressed and ascertained, the justification must be explained to patients and recorded. Where treatment refusals have been overruled, the care and treatment plan should document how the necessary procedures have been followed (see following section).

Where a patient has a learning disability or is an autistic person, or both, the responsible clinician will also be required to take into account the findings and recommendations made as part of a care and treatment review ( CTR) or Care Education and Treatment Review (C(E)TR) for children and young people), in the patient's statutory care and treatment plan. C(E)TRs are part of the government and NHSEI's commitment to transform services for people with a learning disability and autistic people, and are designed to overcome barriers to the patient's progress. They are jointly produced with the local authority and education services. Where the responsible clinician has not followed all the findings and recommendations of the C(E)TR, they will again have to explain their rationale in the care and treatment plan.

What will be included in a care and treatment plan?

We think that a care and treatment plan should include the following information:

the full range of treatment and support available to the patient (which may be provided by a range of health and care organisations)

for patients who have the relevant capacity and are able to consent, any care which could be delivered without compulsory treatment

why the compulsory elements of treatment are needed

what is the least restrictive way in which the care could be delivered

any areas of unmet need (medical and social) for example where the patient's preferred treatment is unavailable at the hospital

planning for discharge and estimated discharge dates (with a link to s117 aftercare)

how advance choice documents and the current and past wishes of the patient (and family and/or carers, where appropriate) have informed the plan, including any reasons why these should not be followed

for people with a learning disability, or autistic people, how Care (Education) and Treatment Reviews, where available, have informed the plan, including any reasons why these should not be followed

an acknowledgement of any protected characteristics, for example any known cultural needs, and how the plan will take account of these

a plan for readmittance after discharge for example informal admission, use of civil sections, or recall by the Justice Secretary

When will care and treatment plans be created and reviewed?

For both section 2 and 3 detentions, a patient's care and treatment plan should be made within seven days of their detention. It should be subject to internal scrutiny and approval by the Medical or Clinical Director (or equivalent) within 14 days of detention, who will check that the care and treatment plan is sufficiently comprehensive, in view of the content requirements listed above, and that the detention criteria continue to be met.

For patients detained for assessment under section 2 of the act, the care and treatment plan will understandably be less clearly developed at the 7 day and 14 day stages, however, we propose it will still need to be sufficiently developed to inform decisions on whether to continue to the detain the person.

These requirements will be set out in legislation. This will help ensure that the patient's assessment, recovery and eventual discharge is the primary focus from the very start of their detention. This will also support increased scrutiny of detention.

After approval within 14 days, the care and treatment plan should be a living document,subject to continued dialogue with the patient and amended or adapted as required. It should reflect any changes in the care and treatment being provided, patient consent and refusal of treatment, and continued documentation of how the detention criteria are being met. There should be an ongoing and increasing focus on preparation for discharge and the aftercare that should be in place directly after that discharge. This should bring mental health inpatient units in line with acute hospitals, where there is an established principle of planning for discharge from the point of admission and a 'home first' approach to guide care planning.

A new legal framework for patient consent and refusal of medical treatment

Medical treatment for mental disorders, as regulated by the act, covers a wide range of interventions, from the extremely invasive (for example neurosurgery) to more routine medical treatment given under the direction of an Approved Clinician.

We will seek to reform the act to give patients greater control over their care and treatment, and the right to refuse specific medical treatments at a much earlier point in detention. This is a fundamental issue at the heart of our plans for modernising the act, and our commitment to give patients more choice and autonomy, and greater confidence that their voice will be heard. We will take steps to strengthen safeguards and introduce new rights for people with regards to most treatments, in most circumstances, ensuring that the principle of patient choice and autonomy is at the centre of decision making.

Part 4 of the act regulates decisions about a patient's care and treatment, including what happens when a patient consents to treatment being administered to them, and what happens when they don't. Currently part 4 of the act allows for most medical treatments to be given to an individual without their consent (even where they have the relevant capacity) for a period of three months, at which point a second clinical opinion is required from the Care Quality Commission's second opinion appointed doctor ( SOAD) service.

We propose different requirements and safeguards depending on the nature or invasiveness of the treatment. These can be broken down into 3 categories:

category 1: the most invasive treatments (for example neurosurgery)

category 2: invasive treatments (for example electro-convulsive treatment)

category 3. all other medical treatment for mental disorder

Below, we set out in more detail our proposed framework for each category of treatment, based on the recommendations made by the review. Which treatments fall within each category will be set out in regulations and will be subject to further engagement and consideration. A summary of the revised framework is set out in annex A, as well as a more detailed description of the new categories and how they would work in practice.

Category 1 treatments: most invasive

The provisions within section 57 of the current Act, which relate to the administration of invasive treatments, such as neurosurgery, will apply in the case of Category 1 treatments. These are described in annex A. The review did not make any specific recommendations relating to these provisions.

Category 2: invasive treatments (for example electro-convulsive treatment)

This Category will include electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) and other similarly invasive treatments. As is now the case with ECT, treatments in this category will not be able to be given if the patient has the relevant capacity and is refusing.

We think that people who lack the relevant capacity to express their wishes, but who have refused treatment in a valid advance choice document, should also have access to this important safeguard.

In both cases, the responsible clinician will only be able to override the patient's refusal for treatment if it is considered urgent, meaning it is necessary to save the patient's life or prevent a serious deterioration of their condition ( as currently described in section 62(1) (a) and (b) of the act).

We want to go further to strengthen this safeguard. We think that, where the urgent criteria are met, then the responsible clinician should be required to seek approval from court before overriding the patient's refusal. The responsible clinician should also have to secure two medical opinions to support their application.

For these individuals, if the treatment is considered to meet the urgent criteria set out above, it can be administered without SOAD certification, but the Care Quality Commission should in future be informed of the decision and provided with the clinician's records for scrutiny.

Urgent criteria as set out in the Mental Health Act 1983

Mental Health Act 1983, section 62(1) ...

(a) which is immediately necessary to save the patient's life;

(b) which (not being irreversible) is immediately necessary to prevent a serious deterioration of his condition; or

(c) which (not being irreversible or hazardous) is immediately necessary to alleviate serious suffering by the patient; or

(d) which (not being irreversible or hazardous) is immediately necessary and represents the minimum interference necessary to prevent the patient from behaving violently or being a danger to himself or to others.

Category 3 treatments: all other medication

The changes we want to make to the safeguards and requirements surrounding this category signify the most significant advance from the current legislation.

At the moment, the medical treatments in this category, which represent the vast majority, can be administered for a period of three months without the need for consent. This is even the case for patients who have the relevant capacity to refuse treatment. We want to change this so that the administration of these treatments is subject to far greater control. We will also seek to rebalance the system to be more responsive to the wishes and preferences of the patient.

Most crucially, where a patient is refusing treatment, and the responsible clinician wishes to overrule their refusal, we will seek to bring forward the point at which a SOAD must certify a patient's treatment from 3 months to day 14 of detention, when their care and treatment plan has been signed off by the Clinical or Medical Director.

This will apply both to people who have the relevant capacity, at the time, and are refusing treatment and to people without the relevant capacity who have refused treatment in a valid advance choice document.

We will also seek to bring forward the point at which the SOAD has to certify treatment for patients who lack the relevant capacity to consent to treatment and who do not have an advance choice document. Our intention is that this certification will take place at two months, rather than the current three.

Again, where a SOAD is required to certify treatment they should, as part of deciding whether the treatment should be given, ascertain as far as possible the wishes and preferences of the individual and consult with the appropriate people, ensuring the treatment is in the patient's best interests. Where the patient is refusing treatment, the SOAD will also be required to certify that there is no other clinically appropriate treatment available that is more acceptable to the patient.

Where treatment is considered urgent, we think the criteria for administering treatment against someone's wishes should differ depending on whether the individual has the relevant capacity to refuse treatment at the time, versus if they lack capacity but have refused treatment in a valid advance choice document. In both cases, we think that the responsible clinician should be able to overrule the patient's refusal and administer the treatment, without the certification of a SOAD, if it is considered immediately necessary to save the patient's life, to prevent a serious deterioration of their condition, or to prevent the patient from behaving violently or being a danger to themselves or others, as is currently described in section 62(1) (a), (b) and (d). However, we think that the fourth requirement, which is that the treatment is needed to alleviate serious suffering (as described in section 62(1) (c)), should only apply in the case of patients who lack the relevant capacity to refuse treatment at the time. We discuss the proposed changes to the urgent criteria and consult on this issue below.

Responsible clinicians

For brevity, (and because it is the term most commonly used), when discussing treatment decisions, this document refers broadly to responsible clinicians, a professional category that can include professionals other than doctors, who would therefore not be responsible for treatment decisions. The act refers, more accurately, "to the approved clinician in charge of the treatment".

The right to choose to suffer

The review recommended that the criteria that must be met to administer urgent treatment to a patient with the relevant capacity should be amended to remove section 62(1)(c). This would mean that urgent treatment could no longer be given to patients with the relevant capacity, against their wishes, on the basis of the alleviation of serious suffering. This proposal is based on the rationale that patients with the relevant capacity should be able to make their own judgments on the degree of suffering they are willing to accept.

Exclusion of this criterion would mean that urgent treatment under category 3 could still be administered to patients with the relevant capacity if it was:

Section 62(1)(c) as set out in the Mental Health Act 1983

Section 62(1)(c) requires that treatment (not being irreversible or hazardous) is immediately necessary to alleviate serious suffering by the patient.

Absolute refusal of medical treatment

The new framework for patient consent and refusal will support our ambition of giving patients more choice and autonomy over their treatment. However, the framework will not allow someone to refuse treatment altogether. Creating a new legal framework which would allow for detention without any medical treatment risks contradicting the principle that detention should provide a therapeutic benefit to the patient.

The rights of patients without the relevant capacity

We are aware that the framework set out above introduces significant changes to the legal weight of decisions made with the relevant capacity, whether made at the time or in advance. We also want to ensure that the safeguards to promote choice and autonomy for patients who lack the relevant capacity are also sufficiently robust.

In all circumstances, the responsible clinician should take account of any wishes, preferences, beliefs and values previously shared by the patient. They should also consult with the patient's family, their nominated person, or others who are concerned with their welfare to establish what the patient's wishes might be. This approach should closely follow the best interest assessment checklist set out in the Mental Capacity Act. We intend to set out requirements for this in the revised part 4 of the act.

In the case of most treatments (category 3), we will bring forward the current requirement for a SOAD to certify that a patient's medical treatment is appropriate and that it should be given at 2 months, as opposed to at 3 months. The most invasive treatments will never be given to someone who lacks the relevant capacity to consent and advance certification by a SOAD will continue to be required for certain other invasive treatments to be administered to individuals who lack the relevant capacity.

What happens if a patient is given treatment they don't want?

At any point where a treatment is administered against a patient's wishes, it should only be administered in the lowest possible dose to be effective and for the shortest period to achieve its purpose.

The responsible clinician should always provide the patient with their justification for not complying with the patient's choice and record this within the care and treatment plan, including any additional processes which have been followed to allow this (for example SOAD certification or High Court Judge approval). Clinicians should also be required to record discussions with patients, nominated persons and advocates within the care and treatment plan. Where the patient lacks the relevant capacity, the responsible clinician should record evidence of their efforts to ascertain the wishes and preferences of the patient and document their rationale if they have not been followed.

A new right to challenge a treatment decision at the tribunal

While the reforms set out so far aim to strengthen the patient's say over their care and treatment and ensure that decisions that contradict a patient's treatment choices are appropriately justified, we recognise that there may be situations in which a patient might still wish to challenge treatment decisions.

Currently, a patient has limited ability to challenge their treatment under the act. Should a patient with capacity wish to challenge the decision of the responsible clinician and SOAD, they only have a right to do so by way of judicial review.

We want to address this by seeking to introduce the ability for patients to challenge a specific treatment through the tribunal. This would offer a faster, cheaper and more accessible alternative to judicial review. The challenge may be brought by a patient who has the relevant capacity to refuse a specific treatment at the time. Alternatively, if the patient lacks the relevant capacity, their IMHA or nominated person ( NP) would be able to bring the challenge on their behalf, providing they have an advance choice document stating their refusal to receive a specific treatment, which is considered to have been made with capacity at the time of writing.

Before a case is able to proceed to a full Tribunal hearing, a judge sitting alone would carry out a preliminary review of the case in a 'permission to appeal' stage. We propose that the preconditions for permission are:

i. The responsible clinician and SOAD have confirmed that the treatment should be given and have set out the reasons for overruling the patient's refusal;

ii. The patient, or their NP or IMHA, has set out the treatment refusal and rationale for it;

iii. The application applies to a specific disagreement about an individual treatment decision, rather than a general desire not to be detained, or to not receive treatment; and

iv. Any repeat application shows a material change in circumstances.

If permission is granted for a full hearing, this would be carried out by a single judge sitting alone. During the hearing, the judge would be responsible for determining whether the appropriate processes have been taken by the responsible clinician in overruling the patient's treatment refusal and therefore whether or not the decision to overrule the patient is sufficiently justified and appropriate.

The judge would not take any role in clinical decision-making and they would not be able to authorise the use of a specific treatment. However, the judge would be able to make a finding that the responsible clinician should reconsider their treatment decision. The review also recommended that the tribunal should be able to order that a specific treatment is not given if it is found to disproportionately interfere with a patient's rights. We wish to consult on this point.

5. Improving the support for people who are detained

Nominated person

One of the overarching aims of our planned reforms is to give people more choice and autonomy when subject to the act. The review highlighted that service users and stakeholders consistently found the current model of family and carer involvement is outdated and insufficient. This was found to be particularly true of the current Nearest Relative ( NR) provisions.

The Nearest Relative has a specific set of rights and powers in relation to the patient. The Act includes a prescribed list which is used to determine the person who is given this role, and therefore the patient has no say in who it is who will take on these specific rights and powers. This can sometimes mean that patients are assigned an inappropriate Nearest Relative, who is not best placed to support their needs. In some instances, this can compound what is already a distressing time and even retraumatise people particularly where they have experienced gender-based violence. As recommended by the review, we will seek to replace the Nearest Relative with a new statutory role, known as the nominated person, who the patient can personally select to represent them.

Choosing the nominated person (NP)

As part of an assessment under the act, an individual will be asked to identify their nominated person. They will also be able to identify and record their nominated person before detention, through their advance choice document.

People with the relevant capacity will have the right to opt out and not have a nominated person, if that is their preference. However, section 116 of the act will still stand. This requires the local authority (where the functions of Nearest Relative under the act have been transferred to them) to arrange for visits to be made to the patient and, where the patient is a child or young person in the care of a local authority by virtue of a care order, take such steps that might otherwise be expected to be taken by the patient's parents. This safeguard is important in the case of patients who have been detained for an extensive period of time and have no NP.

In addition to being able to identify someone to take on the formal role of nominated person, patients will also be able to identify other individuals who can receive information about their care and treatment, either by expressing their wishes and preferences while detained or in their advance choice document.

What roles and powers will a nominated person have?

The new nominated person will have the same rights and powers to act in the best interests of the patient as nearest relatives have now. These include rights to:

object to the patient being made subject to the act

apply for the patient's discharge

appeal to the tribunal if this application for discharge is denied

apply for the patient to be detained under the act

receive information from the hospital about the patient's care, detention or CTO, unless the patient objects to this

In addition to the powers currently held by the nearest relative, we propose that the nominated person should also:

have the right to be consulted on statutory care and treatment plans, to ensure they can provide information on the patient's wishes and preferences

be consulted, rather than just notified, as is the case now, when it comes to transfers between hospitals, and renewals and extensions to the patient's detention or CTO

be able to appeal clinical treatment decisions at the tribunal, if the patient lacks the relevant capacity to do so themselves and the appeal criteria are met

have the power to object to the use of a CTO if it is in the best interests of the patient

To support nominated persons to access and exercise these enhanced powers we will provide clear, detailed guidance on the powers of the nominated person role.

Improving support for patients in the criminal justice system

Currently, patients in the criminal justice system, who are subject to Part III of the act, do not have the right to a Nearest Relative. We want to change this as we think it is important that all patients, particularly those who lack the relevant capacity, are supported during their detention by someone who is able to represent their wishes and preferences. We will introduce the nominated person for forensic patients, with powers limited to care and treatment planning.

Children and young people's right to choose a nominated person

The position for children aged under 16 requires additional consideration. We believe that, providing a practitioner can establish that a child is 'Gillick competent', which involves considering whether the child has sufficient understanding, maturity and intelligence to enable them to fully understand what is proposed, a child should be able to choose a nominated person. The review also proposed this approach.

However, in such cases, the patient's right to choose a NP should not undermine the rights of parents, guardians, carers, or other individuals with parental responsibility over the child. If a child were to choose a NP who is not a parent, guardian, carer or person with parental responsibility, then this would not be to the detriment of the usual rights, outside of the act, that such people would expect to have in order to support their child, including rights to information and to be consulted about decisions about their care.

Overruling the nominated person: role of the Mental Health Tribunal

One of the current powers of the Nearest Relative, which will apply to the nominated person, is the ability to block admission, when someone is detained under the act. Currently, if the Nearest Relative exercises this power, but the AMHP believes the grounds for this are unreasonable, the only means of overruling them is to remove or displace them as the Nearest Relative. This can prevent the Nearest Relative from continuing in their statutory role in supporting the patient while they are detained, even though they may be best equipped to protect and promote the patient's interest.

As the nominated person will have been identified by the patient as someone they wish to be involved in their care when detained under the act, we think it is important that they maintain their right to object to detention, without forfeiting their role in the patient's care. We will therefore seek to legislate so that the NP's objection to admission can be temporarily overruled, as opposed to the NP being removed or displaced, to ensure that they continue to have a role in the patient's care and treatment while they are detained.

Currently, the power to displace the Nearest Relative sits with the County Court. However, we wish to explore whether the power to overrule or displace a NP should instead sit within the tribunal Service's remit, which is potentially better equipped to make these kinds of decisions.

As this represents an additional burden on the tribunal, we will consider how this would work in practice and whether these decisions could be made instead by a single judge sitting alone, to reduce pressure on the tribunal workforce. In addition, legal aid currently funds patients' representatives in these County Court proceedings on a means tested basis. If these powers are transferred to the tribunal, consideration is needed on whether representation should be funded on a non-means tested basis, in line with other proceedings before the tribunal.

Advocacy

When someone is detained in hospital it can be a very confusing and distressing experience. In addition to enhancing support through improving NP provisions, we propose to enhance the critical role that Independent Mental Health Advocates ( IMHAs) play in ensuring patients are supported and helped to exercise their rights.

IMHAs are independent of mental health services and can help people ensure their opinions are heard and they know their rights under the law. We will expand the role of IMHAs to offer a greater level of support and representation to every patient detained under the act if they choose to take it up.

IMHAs are trained specifically to work within the framework of the act and to enable patients to participate in decision-making. They are currently responsible for supporting patients to understand:

their legal rights under the act and those of the people who are able to act on their behalf

the particular parts of the act which apply to them

any conditions or restrictions to which they are subject

any proposed or received medical treatment, and the reasons for that treatment

the legal authority for providing that treatment

the safeguards and other requirements of the act which would apply to that treatment

To ensure patients are able to benefit from the reforms to the act proposed in earlier chapters, we propose to expand the role of IMHAs to include the following additional safeguards:

supporting patients to taking part in care planning

supporting individuals in preparing advance choice documents

power to challenge a particular treatment where they have reason to believe that it is not in the patient's best interests

power to appeal to the tribunal on the patient's behalf

Advocacy support for informal patients

However, when someone is on an inpatient ward, they may not always be aware that they have different rights and safeguards to other people on their ward. As IMHAs are trained in legislation and how to support people to exercise their rights within the act, we think they are well placed to support informal patients to understand their rights, as was recommended by the review. However, as we recognise that this will create an additional burden for local authorities, and advocacy providers, expanding the statutory duty to all inpatients will therefore be subject to future funding decisions.

Quality of advocacy services

High quality advocacy is critical to ensuring people get the support they need when detained and that people are able to exercise their rights.

The review heard conflicting views around the current quality of advocacy support, including issues on training, accreditation, standardisation, accountability and regulation of advocates. We are also aware that advocacy services for patients with a learning disability or autistic patients can sometimes fall short and that advocates may benefit from training in this area. We are committed to ensuring that the advocacy available to all patients under the act is of high quality.

We are working closely with City and Guilds as they revise the structure and content of the IMHA qualification, including ensuring the act's legislation is part of the core learning so that IMHAs can advise patients appropriately on their rights.

In addition to this, there are possible options to professionalise the role, by introducing enhanced standards and accreditation, beyond the Advocacy Charter and Quality Performance Mark, as well as inspection and registration, in line with other mental health professions. There are, however, counter arguments for preserving the informality of the role, for the reason that this may be a large part of the value that advocates bring. Formalising the profession may discourage more smaller bespoke services.

We would welcome views on ensuring patients are supported by high quality advocacy.

Question

Do you agree or disagree that advocacy services could be improved by:

1) enhanced standards

2) regulation

3) enhanced accreditation

4) none of the above, but by other means

Please give reasons for your answer (up to 500 words).

Culturally appropriate advocacy

A priority in the delivery of higher quality services is the development of culturally appropriate advocacy for people of all ethnic backgrounds and communities, in particular for people black African and Caribbean descent. The review highlighted the potential for appropriate advocacy provision to be incredibly valuable to people from BAME backgrounds, yet this is where the biggest gaps exist.

We have committed to launch a pilot programme of culturally sensitive advocates in partnership with local authorities and others, to identify how to respond appropriately to the diverse needs of individuals from BAME backgrounds. This is an important step towards delivering an advocacy service that can effectively meet the diverse needs of all service users. Work to scope the requirements for these services has now completed and will inform the commissioning of pilots, which we hope to begin this year. Subject to successful learning from the pilots, and subject to appropriate funding, we will legislate for culturally competent advocacy to be available to detained patients.

Additionally, we will work with NHS England to undertake a review of current advocacy provision for people with a learning disability and autistic people to identify areas for improvement.

6. Community treatment orders (CTOs)

The purpose of CTOs, introduced in the Mental Health Act 2007, is to enable some inpatients, who might otherwise remain detained under the act, to be discharged into the community with conditions intended to maintain ongoing contact with services, in order to provide support and prevent relapse.

The review heard many views on the subject of CTOs, opinions ranged from arguments that they should be repealed entirely, to views that for many people they offer the least restrictive option, and provide a vital framework under which patients can be discharged from hospital but retain a continuing link with services. However, it concluded that, whatever their merits, CTOs are used too often, patients stay subject to them for far too long, and their disproportionately high use on black people must be addressed.

We will reform CTOs so that they can only be used where there is a strong justification, they are reviewed more frequently and by more professionals, are time limited, and that people subject to them really need them to receive a genuine therapeutic benefit.

Criteria for use

We will revise the criteria for using CTOs, in line with the proposed revised detention criteria for section 3 to ensure that CTOs are used in a more consistent way.

We will change the criteria so that a CTO can only be used when there is a substantial likelihood of significant harm to the health, safety or welfare of the person, or the safety of any other person, and where a CTO will provide a therapeutic benefit to the patient.

As with assessments for detention, we will also strengthen the requirement that the evidence and justification for the use of a CTO, against the new criteria, is clearly documented and regularly reviewed.

Making, renewing and extending CTOs

While we believe CTOs benefit some patients and provide the least restrictive option for them, we also recognise that they continue to restrict an individual's liberty. It's important, therefore, that the decision to put someone on a CTO is not taken lightly. We will, therefore, introduce a third decision maker. The initial decision to make a CTO will continue to be the responsibility of the responsible clinician and an AMHP. We will introduce a requirement for the community supervising clinician who will work with the patient while on a CTO to also be involved in the decision. This will support continuity of care between inpatient and community care, helping to address concerns, highlighted by the review, around patients being discharged onto CTOs without any handover to the community mental health team.

The patient should be discharged at or before this point, unless they have relapsed or deteriorated during that time. We will initially set this out as guidance in the Code of Practice, because we recognise that in some circumstances remaining on the CTO may be beneficial to the patient. We will, however, keep this under review, and if we continue to see that people are subject to CTOs for extensive periods, we will look to limit their duration in legislation.

CTOs and the role of the nominated person

When putting someone on a CTO, the nominated person or Interim nominated person should be appropriately consulted, with the act giving them a new power to object, in line with their existing power in sections 2 and 3. As will be introduced for sections 2 and 3, it will be possible to overrule a nominated person's objection to a CTO, without any additional consequence of removing them from that role.

Conditions of CTOs

We want to ensure that the conditions attached to CTOs are:

proportionate

guided by the principle of least restriction

tailored to the individual needs and circumstances of the patient

designed to deliver a therapeutic benefit to the patient

We will seek to revise the act so that CTO conditions will need to be supported by evidence that they meet these requirements. As is the case today, and as was confirmed in the recent judgment in the case of Welsh Ministers v PJ (2018), the conditions of a CTO must not amount to a deprivation of liberty.

It is also important that conditions made are set out clearly to the patient, to ensure they understand:

which conditions constitute advice (for example about lifestyle choices)

which conditions are required in order for the CTO to be made (for example, about supported living arrangements, or engagement with medicines or other treatment)

which conditions are statutory grounds for recall to hospital (currently, failure to be available for examination so that the CTO can be reviewed, or for examination so that treatment that requires certification to continue can be so certified. Our proposals to update the recall procedure are described below).

The responsible clinician should regularly review the conditions as the person progresses towards full discharge from the act. This expectation will be set out in the act's Code of Practice, as will a stronger expectation that clinicians should assure themselves that patients are able to understand the conditions they are required to follow.

The Mental Health Tribunal's consideration of community treatment orders

When considering applications for discharge from a CTO, the tribunal will need to consider whether or not the patient continues to meet the revised criteria for use, in terms of both therapeutic benefit to the patient and likelihood of harm.

In addition, the tribunal will have the power to check the responsible clinician's justification for the conditions attached to a patient's CTO and recommend that they reconsider any which they believe are overly restrictive. However, the tribunal will not be able to recommend changes to conditions that would impact on the patient's clinical treatment.

We think this is critical to making certain that CTO conditions are proportionate and are in line with the guiding principles.

Recalling patients on CTOs to hospital

Today, the patient's responsible clinician may recall a patient on a CTO if the patient needs to receive treatment for mental disorder in hospital, (including as an out-patient), or there would be a risk of harm to the health or safety of the patient or to other persons if the patient were not recalled.

We want to make the recall process more efficient, transparent and to ensure that this important decision receives appropriate consideration.

We will revise the criteria for recalling service users to reflect our wider changes around detention criteria, so that recall will only be possible when it is needed because there is otherwise a substantial risk of significant harm.

We also want to broaden the appropriate locations to which a patient may be recalled, allowing for alternatives in cases where treatment in a hospital is not needed. Currently, the legislation requires the patient to be recalled to a hospital if they need medical treatment in a hospital setting and if the responsible clinician finds that they have not complied with the conditions of their CTO. We think that when the patient does not require hospital treatment, the location should not be limited to a hospital and should be at the discretion of the responsible clinician.

Automatic trigger points for referral to the Mental Health Tribunal

There is also an automatic referral to the tribunal when someone's CTO is revoked. In view of other changes to ensure that a patient's case for discharge is more frequently reviewed and scrutinised, we are proposing to remove this. This is discussed in the next chapter.

The future of CTOs

Since their introduction in 2007, CTOs have been used far more extensively than first anticipated, with people of black African and Caribbean descent over 10 times more likely to be subject to them than white people. Service user and carer experiences also suggest that CTOs are sometimes overly restrictive and evidence on their clinical benefits is lacking.

We will further review and update Government policy on the use of CTOs in line with the emerging evidence.

7. The interface between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act

The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) provides the legal framework for people who need to make decisions for or on behalf of someone else who lacks the relevant capacity to make that particular decision. It sets out that decisions must be made in the person's best interests and which matters should be considered (or not) when making a best interests determination. Where a person over 18 is deprived of their liberty, the MCA's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards ( DoLS) can be used to protect the rights of the person in a care home or hospital.

In certain circumstances, where a person has a mental disorder, lacks the relevant capacity and is not objecting to detention or treatment, a practitioner may need to consider whether that person should be detained under the or instead made subject to a DoLS. The review looked closely at the complexities that arise in these situations.

The interface between the MHA and DoLS is fully explained in the MHA's Code of Practice. This part of the Code will be revised to take account of the new Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) which is due to replace DoLS by April 2022. It will first be published as part of the Code of Practice for the MCA and will later also form part of the MHA's Code.

References to the Mental Health Act

The White Paper generally refers to the Mental Health Act 1983 as "the act", but this chapter refers instead to "the MHA" for clarity, as the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is also being discussed.

Overview of Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS)

The LPS will be a simpler process that involves families more and gives swifter access to assessments, be less burdensome on people, carers, families and local authorities, and in hospitals and will allow the NHS, rather than local authorities , to make decisions about their patients.

The review found that within this interface it is not always clear for practitioners whether the MHA or DoLS should be used if a person lacks the relevant capacity and does not appear to be objecting.

Furthermore, the CQC found in its report, Mental Health Act - The rise in the use of the MHA to detain people in England, that sometimes administrative difficulties with DoLS, such as needing to wait a long time for an assessor, mean that the MHA is used instead for patients.

But the review also made the point that there will be a number of complexities involved with introducing this change, first among these is that the DoLS are to be replaced with the new LPS by April 2022.

We anticipate that the new LPS framework will help to address the matter raised by the review that the MHA is used in cases where DoLS/ LPS provides a better alternative. For example, it will mean that, in future, if arrangements for detention are mainly taking place in an NHS hospital, the hospital's Trust will be able to authorise deprivation of liberty under the LPS without any necessary involvement from a local authority. This should streamline the process for decision makers in hospitals, as they can make referrals on their internal systems, and differs from DoLS where the local authority is the supervisory body in all cases. In addition, when implemented, LPS can apply to young people over 16, as opposed to DoLS only applying to people over. LPS are in part intended to help decrease the disproportionate administrative burden of DoLS, and the government expects this will mean the LPS is more likely to be used when appropriate.

Given that the new LPS framework is yet to come into effect and may serve to address issues raised by the review, we agree with the review that it is important to assess the impact of its implementation, before introducing these reforms to the MCA/ MHA interface.

In the meantime, we are seeking views on how to implement the review's recommendation on establishing a clearer interface between the two Acts, and on how to address the complexities that are arising in practice now, so that we can implement legislation and guidance which is clear to interpret and use.

One such complexity is the fact that although assessing whether a patient is objecting is well established in clinical practice, it can still be difficult to identify, or a person's objection or consent can be fleeting, fluctuating or not expressed clearly. It can be particularly difficult to identify in patients with dementia or other cognitive impairments.

To summarise the complexities and considerations that need to be made, it is best to return to the review's final report (see page 129). This stated that the complexities involved in changing the dividing line between the MCA and the MHA mean that "The government will need to consider the practical implications..., including testing guidance for the Code of Practice". The review also stated that the new LPS arrangements will need "time to bed down" before such a change is introduced. The government agrees on both these counts. We will therefore begin this process through consultation to ascertain views on the best way to proceed. This will need to be considered within primary legislation and alongside the implementation of LPS.

Above all, we are committed to reviewing the powers and safeguards available to make sure that, in future the interface is clear and that people who need to be detained and therefore protected by safeguards, receive care s under the legal provisions that best help to support them and serve their needs, whether this needs to be the LPS or the MHA.

Prior consent to be admitted as an informal patient

The principle that people should be able to make decisions which will endure in the event of future incapacity, including advance consent, is already recognised in law. However, we are aware that advance consent is often applied outside of mental health hospitals, and more commonly in relation to palliative care and end-of-life settings.

Establishing a provision in the MHA to enable people to consent in advance to informal admission would provide clarity in statute that this principle also applies in a mental health setting, making this right more accessible to people at risk of detention under the MHA.

To mitigate these issues, the review suggested providing a 'get out' clause to prevent a person being held to their earlier advance consent, where it is unreasonable to do so. This follows the model originally proposed by the Law Commission in its Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty report This clause could apply if a person withdraws their consent when they have the relevant capacity to do so, or if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person's advance consent was not appropriately informed, or if their actions are not compatible with their decision at the time of consent.

We think that the 'get out' clause proposed by the review is already the case in the common law, but we accept that there may be advantages in amending the MHA and Code of Practice to confirm this position and by using the Code to help mitigate the risk of individuals unknowingly agreeing to conditions or settings that they would otherwise be unhappy with and prevent people being confined as a voluntary patient for longer than they would wish to be. This could be achieved by setting out in the Code the existing position that individuals must clearly articulate the particular arrangements to which they are consenting to in advance, including a time period over which their consent is valid.

As recommended by the review, we wish to seek views about the use of advance consent to informal admission to mental health hospitals.

Question

Do you agree or disagree that the right to give advance consent to informal admission to a mental health hospital should be set out in the Mental Health Act ( MHA) and the MHA code of practice to make clear the availability of this right to individuals?

If you agree, please provide reasons for your answer (up to 500 words).

Are there any safeguards that should be put in place to ensure that an individual's advance consent to admission is appropriately followed?

Your answer can be up to 500 words.

Accident and emergency (A&E)

We want to improve the powers available to health professionals in accident and emergency departments so that individuals in need of urgent mental health care, stay on site, pending a clinical assessment. Too often, the police must be relied upon to hold individuals who are in crisis and are attempting to leave A&E. Potentially leading to further distress to the individual.

Given the limitations of section 4B for the purposes of those attending A&E on the basis of mental ill health, we wish to consider extending section 5 of the MHA. This provides powers to hold a person temporarily, while their mental health is assessed, but it cannot currently be applied unless a person is already admitted as an inpatient.

While extension of section 5 was ruled out by the review as it was considered overly restrictive, the government believes that extending the existing holding powers in section 5 of the MHA could provide hospitals with a greater ability to ensure the appropriate safeguards are in place in a greater set of circumstances. Chiefly, extending section 5 would provide hospitals with the power to hold a person with the relevant capacity, who wants to leave A&E. It is also more obviously applicable in respect of those who may pose a risk to others and it includes a limit of 72 hours on the time that a person can be deprived of their liberty. The same time limit was proposed by the review in relation to section 4B, but this amendment was not made to the MCA. Therefore, the time over which an individual can be temporarily held under section 4B will not be defined in statute. Instead, the powers could be used so long as it is necessary to give life sustaining treatment or carry out a vital act and, except in emergency cases, while the referral under the LPS or to the court has not been determined.

Finally, we believe that extending the use of section 5 may be more effective in addressing the issues described as it is simply more well established and widely understood by health professionals within hospitals. However, we propose that, should section 5 be extended, that the powers should only be available to senior clinicians to ensure that they are only used when it is absolutely appropriate.

We wish to consult on whether the planned amendments to section 4B are sufficient in providing the necessary safeguards for people who are attending A&E and who may be admitted on the basis of their mental health. Or, whether section 5 of the MHA should be extended to increase the scope of who could be temporarily detained, pending a clinical assessment.

Question

We want to ensure that health professionals are able to temporarily hold individuals in A&E when they are in crisis and need a mental health assessment, but are trying to leave A&E.

Do you think that the amendments to section 4B of the Mental Capacity Act achieve this objective, or should we also extend section 5 of the Mental Health Act ( MHA)?

rely on section 4B of the Mental Capacity Act only

extend section 5 of the MHA so that it also applies A&E, accepting that section 4B is still available and can be used where appropriate

Please give reasons for your answer (up to 500 words).

8. Caring for patients in the Criminal Justice System

Some people in contact with the criminal justice system may need to be admitted to hospital for treatment of a mental illness. This could be at the point they enter the criminal justice system, or later on should they become unwell in custody.

Part III of the act sets out the framework for the care of these patients, including provisions to divert a person to hospital from court, prison or immigration detention in order for that person to access the inpatient care and treatment they require. It also includes provisions for offenders who present the highest risk, and so are subject to further restrictions over their care.

We want to ensure Part III of the act supports patients to access the right care, at the right time, while adequately fulfilling our duty to protect the public.

Part III of the act is guided by the principle that those who have committed a criminal offence should be able to access equivalent medical care and treatment to civil patients. That means that Part III patients will benefit equally from the majority of proposed reforms to the act.

There are, however, some areas where reforms will differ, due to the nature of the different provisions under Part III, the need to protect the public from those who have been convicted of serious offences and the need to ensure care and treatment is appropriate for the person it serves. These distinctions are set out within respective chapters elsewhere, but in summary, include:

criteria for detention under the act ‒ where we do not propose to apply the reformed criteria to part 3 patients, to ensure changing the threshold does not make it harder for those subject to the criminal justice system to access the care and treatment they need

a nominated person for a part 3 patient will have limited powers as discussed in

tribunal powers, and automatic referrals to the tribunal ‒ will differ

changes proposed to the detention criteria for individuals with a learning disability and autistic people will not apply to part 3 patients

In Wales, criminal justice matters are reserved to the UK Parliament meaning, unlike health matters, they remain the responsibility of the UK government. As such, the proposed changes set out in this chapter have the potential to apply across England and Wales, however, a different approach may still be appropriate between England and Wales. Since the justice system interfaces with different health arrangements in the two nations, we have been working with Welsh partners as appropriate to ensure that if reforms are to apply across both nations that the impacts are understood and there is agreement from all partners.

Court powers - aligning Magistrate and Crown Courts

The Act provides courts with powers to divert a person accused, or convicted, of criminal offences and in mental health crisis away from the criminal justice system and into hospital for the assessment and/or treatment they require. Because the powers available under the act are different for the Crown Court and the magistrates' court, suspects and defendants are not always getting the mental health care they need at the earliest possible opportunity.

Currently, the powers of the magistrates' courts are limited compared to the Crown Court. The Crown Court, for instance, can remand a person to hospital for treatment under section 36 of the act but magistrates' courts cannot. This is because magistrates' courts deal with less serious offences and lay magistrates have historically had less power to make decisions that extend beyond considering the facts of the case. Nevertheless, a defendant in a magistrates' court may well have the same nature or degree of mental illness as one in the Crown Court, and therefore the same need for treatment.

We want the act to support suspects and defendants in accessing the mental health care they need at the earliest possible opportunity. We will consider the changes proposed by the review alongside wider reforms suggested by the Law Commission in their 'Unfitness to Plead' report. This recommended greater alignment between the Crown Court and magistrates' courts in managing defendants who lack capacity to participate effectively in a criminal trial, as well as wider adjustments to court procedures where mental health and other needs are at play.

Secure transfers

While some people will be in mental health crisis at the point at which they come into contact with the criminal justice system (i.e., are charged with or convicted of offences); others may experience a relapse in a pre-existing condition or become unwell for the first time during their period in custody.

We are determined to improve the system to ensure that those individuals who meet the criteria for detention under the act are not being held in prisons or Immigration and Removal Centres inappropriately. Through ongoing work by health and justice partners and the changes set out below, we will ensure that this does not continue and that any prisoner who requires care and treatment under the act is swiftly transferred to an inpatient setting.

This chapter next discusses the position in England. Partners in Wales will also be giving consideration to the proposals as they would affect devolved responsibilities for health and (potentially) local Government.

Statutory time limit

We recognise that, when people serving a custodial sentence need to be transferred to a mental health inpatient service under the act, too many experience delays in the referral, assessment and transfer processes. There can be similar delays in the pathway for when individuals are transferred back to prison from hospital, which equally need to be addressed.

We need to be cautious in ensuring that a statutory timeframe does not prevent us from considering the most appropriate placement and treatment that can be provided for individuals. Stakeholders, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, have argued that enshrining the time limit in statute could result in unintended consequences if not carefully managed. For example, clinicians may avoid recommending hospitalisation if they, or their employing authority, are likely to be penalised for not meeting the deadline. As each case is different and complex, there may also be occasions when a longer assessment period is required.

In view of these concerns, although we propose to amend the act to introduce a statutory time limit, we will not commence this provision until the new NHSEI guidance is properly embedded. We will also develop a stronger monitoring system to enable us to better understand and provide greater transparency on how the transfer process is working.

Question

To speed up the transfer from prison or immigration removal centres ( IRCs) to mental health inpatient settings, we want to introduce a 28-day time limit.

Do any further safeguards need to be in place before we can implement a statutory time limit for secure transfers?

Please give reasons for your answer (up to 500 words).

Independent role to manage patient transfer

We are consulting on views as to where a new prison/ IRC transfers and remissions co-ordinator role might best sit and what their remit should be.

One potential option is to expand the remit of AMHPs. As set out above, there are clear parallels between the responsibilities and the requirement for independence of the proposed new role and those of an AMHP. We are, however, mindful of the range of responsibilities AMHPs already have, and the recruitment challenges faced by the workforce. We are also concerned that AMHPs may not have the internal system knowledge and/or levers to meaningfully navigate and influence existing providers, NHSEI Health and Justice and Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), which are responsible for managing secure transfers.

Another option is to create an entirely new role that would sit within NHSEI or across NHSEI and HMPPS. We think that there are benefits to placing the responsibility within organisations that already play a key role in the secure transfers process, and which have the levers to overcome delays in the process. We are aware that this would mean the new role is not entirely independent, but we think that someone does not necessarily need to be employed by a separate organisation to be able to take an independent (i.e patient-centric) perspective. It would, however, be important that the new role should sit in a separate team to that responsible for commissioning or providing beds and that their prime responsibility is to the needs of the patient.

We want to hear your views on which of these options we should pursue in order to help speed up the transfer process, or if you have any alternative ideas on how this recommendation might be addressed.

Question

We want to establish a new designated role for a person to manage the process of transferring people from prison or an immigration removal centre ( IRC) to hospital when they require inpatient treatment for their mental health.

Which of the following options do you think is the most effective approach to achieving this?

expanding the existing approved mental health professional (AMHP) role in the community so that they are also responsible for managing prison/IRC transfers

creating a new role within NHS England and Improvement (NHSEI) or across NHSEI and Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service to manage the prison/ IRC transfer process

an alternative approach (please specify)

Please give reasons for your answer (up to 500 words).

We acknowledge that all of the above changes are dependent on collaborative efforts between the MOJ, HMPPS, Home Office, DHSC and NHSEI and NHS Wales; we commit to continuing to work closely together to take forward these important areas of work.

Advocacy support for patients waiting to transfer from prison or immigration removal centres

The review also recommends extending the statutory right to an IMHA to patients awaiting transfer from a prison or an immigration detention centre. We feel that there is close overlap with this proposal and recommendations around the creation of a new statutory, independent role to manage transfers from prisons and immigration removal centres, which would aim to ensure that the least restrictive option for immigration detainees was considered. We are considering the role of the IMHA and how best to provide advocacy support for individuals awaiting transfer alongside the creation of this new independent role.

Prison as a place of safety

In some cases, courts are forced to divert defendants who require care and treatment in an inpatient setting, some of whom may not yet be convicted, to prison as there is no hospital bed available.

We will work with sentencers, health service commissioners and clinicians to ensure that there is a clear, timely pathway in which sentencers have confidence to transfer people directly from court to a healthcare setting where a mental health assessment and treatment can be provided, under the relevant section of the act.

We are conscious that removing the legal provisions that set out when prison can constitute a place of safety in certain contexts, without ensuring that viable alternatives are properly established and commissioned, may leave sentencers without an alternative in some circumstances. We therefore believe that it is important to prepare for any legislative change with the relevant adaptations on the ground, supported by the necessary new investment. We will consider introducing guidance for the courts and will ensure that the necessary adaptations and investment are in place before legislative changes are commenced as a final step to delivering this objective.

Restricted patients

Restricted patients are mentally disordered offenders who are detained under Part III of the act in hospital for treatment and who are subject to special controls by the Secretary of State for Justice. The overall aim of the restricted patient system is to protect the public from harm from offenders who have generally committed serious and very violent offences, while at the same time recognising patients' rights to treatment for their illnesses.

There are 3 types of restricted patient:

those who are diverted from prison to hospital for treatment at the point of sentencing via a hospital order (section 37), but the sentencing judge deems a section 41 restriction order necessary to protect the public from 'serious harm'. This group represents almost 80% of all restricted patients

prisoners who are transferred by the Secretary of State to detention in hospital for treatment but who normally continue to be managed as prisoners in terms of their release. We set out above the plans for improving the process of transfer. Prisoners serving a sentence are transferred under section 47/49, around 15% of all restricted patients. Prisoners on remand or immigration detainees are transferred under section 48/49, around 5% of all restricted patients

those on a hybrid order (section 45A) where the court has imposed a sentence of imprisonment but at the same time directed that they be detained in hospital (who are treated for practical purposes as transferred prisoners). This represents around 1% of all restricted patients

Management of restricted patients

For restricted patients detained in hospital, the responsible clinician must seek the consent of the Justice Secretary to allow the patient leave, to transfer the patient to another hospital or to discharge the patient. In practice, these decisions are made under approved delegated authority by officials in the Mental Health Casework Section (MHCS) in HMPPS.

The MHCS has eradicated a backlog which had arisen prior to the review and has since taken further significant steps to reduce the length of time it takes to consider applications for consent from responsible clinicians. In July 2019 MHCS published, for the first time, targets for timeliness of decisions. Nine out of 13 targets were met over the first year of the targets being in place.

Other changes introduced mean responsible clinicians no longer need to submit individual applications where a patient needs to leave hospital for medical treatment elsewhere. This has reduced applications by around 800 per year (against a total of around 10,000 applications of all types).

During the second quarter of 2020/21 decisions on transfer applications took an average of 14 days compared to an average of 52 days in 2017/18 and applications for escorted leave took an average of 10 days during Q2 of 2020/21, compared to 125 days at the peak of the backlog in January 2018.

We are also proposing that the tribunal is empowered to make a statutory recommendation in relation to community leave or transfer to a different hospital, which the Justice Secretary must consider when taking such decisions.

Conditionally discharged patients

Restricted patients subject to a section 37 hospital order with a section 41 restriction who no longer meet the statutory test for detention in hospital must be discharged. This could either be an absolute discharge, with no conditions and no further powers over the patient or, if deemed appropriate by the tribunal or the Justice Secretary, a conditional discharge. A conditional discharge allows patients to move into the community while adhering to certain conditions and enables them to be recalled to hospital if necessary, to protect the public from harm. There were 2,821 conditionally discharged patients in the community in 2019.

Conditionally discharged patients are generally supervised in the community by a psychiatrist and a social supervisor. This has traditionally been a local authority social worker (although other professionals can also take on this role). Social supervision is an important role, balancing public protection with the care and support of conditionally discharged patients. Social supervisors work closely with the Mental Health Casework Section and can request recall of patients to hospital. Despite this important function, there is currently some confusion about where this role should sit and a lack of national guidance about how it should operate, leading to local divergence in practice and standards.

We wish to strengthen and develop the role of social supervisor and are consulting with stakeholders across the sector on how best to achieve this. For example, this could include specifying the professionals that can undertake the role, and the approval, training and qualifications required.

Question

Conditionally discharged patients are generally supervised in the community by a psychiatrist and a social supervisor.

How do you think that the role of social supervisor could be strengthened?

Your answer can be up to 500 words.

Release of transferred prisoners by the Parole Board

For transferred prisoners who are eligible for parole, which includes those serving life imprisonment or another indeterminate sentence, and some determinate sentence and recalled cases, currently the relevant Tribunal and then the Parole Board are separately required to consider decisions on discharge and release respectively. We recognise that the average length of time between the tribunal hearing and the Parole Board decision is too long.

To address this, HMPPS has been working with the Parole Board and the tribunals to streamline processes so that a Parole Board hearing can take place swiftly after a Tribunal hearing for eligible transferred prisoners. A working group has been considering the procedural and operational changes that will be required in order to commence a pilot to test options to substantially reduce the time taken to convene a Parole Board hearing after a Tribunal decision in cases of transferred prisoners. Timelines for the pilot were delayed as a result of COVID-19. Work is currently underway to ensure that the pilot will commence as soon as is practicable.

Indeterminate prison sentences

An indeterminate prison sentence does not have a fixed length of time. There are a number of types of indeterminate sentence, including Life and Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP). The Parole Board are responsible for deciding whether a prisoner on an indeterminate sentence can be released from prison.

Giving the tribunal the power to discharge someone with conditions which restrict freedom in the community

As with all patients detained under the act, restricted patients should be supported to progress through their pathway of care, while taking care to safely manage the potential risk they pose.

This risk, including potentially violent, dangerous, or inappropriate sexual behaviour, would require continuous supervision to be managed safely in the community.

There is currently no effective legislative mechanism by which this small number of patients could be discharged from hospital by either the Justice Secretary or the tribunal with the necessary care and supervision needed to protect the public from this risk. As found by the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of MM, where such measures amount to a deprivation of liberty they must properly and lawfully be imposed.

We want the reformed Act to support these few patients, who have very distinct needs and risks, to progress through their pathway of care, and to be supported so that their risk is managed in the most appropriate and least restrictive way - including in the community where it is appropriate.

Impact of Supreme Court judgement in MM

Following the Supreme Court judgment in MM, an interim operational policy was implemented to allow a number of patients, who would otherwise have had to immediately return to hospital, to remain in a community setting on long-term section 17 leave. This provides a temporary operational solution while legislative change is considered.

See MHCS Guidance (Jan 2019) Discharge with conditions that amount to a deprivation of liberty.

We are proposing the introduction of a new power of 'supervised discharge' which would enable discharge a restricted patient with conditions amounting to a deprivation of that person's liberty, in order to adequately and appropriately manage the risk they pose. We propose that this type of order would be subject to annual review by the tribunal in line with the Court of Protection decisions on similar cases. The use of this new discharge power would be closely monitored to ensure that conditions amounting to deprivation of liberty were only applied when necessary and proportionate. This supervised discharge would be applicable only to restricted patients, and available irrespective of decision-making capacity. It would be applicable only where such a patient :

We are continuing to consider the appropriate threshold in relation to risk and how this power would be operated. We will consider suitable oversight of these patients in the community alongside proposals to strengthen the role of the social supervisor, as outlined above.

Question

For restricted patients who are no longer therapeutically benefiting from detention in hospital, but whose risk could only be managed safely in the community with continuous supervision, we think it should be possible to discharge these patients into the community with conditions that amount to a deprivation of liberty.

Do you agree or disagree that this is the best way of enabling these patients to move from hospital into the community?

Please give reasons for your answer (up to 500 words).

If you agree, please give reasons for your answer (up to 500 words).

We propose that a 'supervised discharge' order for this group of patients would be subject to annual tribunal review. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed safeguard?

Victims of unrestricted patients

We are aware that there is currently inconsistent provision of information to victims of those offenders who become subject to the act without a restriction order (unrestricted patients) whom courts do not consider to represent a serious risk of harm to the public (and so need not be subject to a restriction order). This disparity is evident both in the level of information and the way in which the information is provided.

The government's Victims' Strategy committed to reviewing and improving the processes by which victims of mentally disordered offenders ( MDOs) are given information. We are working to address concerns that victims of unrestricted patients do not always receive timely, accurate information about key developments in the offender's case. We recognise that although the act's Code of Practice sets out existing responsibilities, the current structure has proved difficult for victims to navigate.

To date, a working group led by the Ministry of Justice's Victim Policy Team and consisting of the HMPPS Victims Team, MHCS, DHSC, Royal College of Psychiatrists and NHSEI has:

agreed that Victim Liaison Officers (VLOs) from the National Probation Service will be assigned to victims of unrestricted patients, as soon as resources allow. This has been reflected in the revised Code of Practice for Victims' of Crime

explored how we can ensure that health professionals responsible for providing information to victims of MDOs, including via VLOs, understand the need to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information to all victims of MDOs and carry out their role mindful of NHSEI's and DHSC's commitment to supporting the revised Code; We have identified that potentially, responsibility for updating victims and VLOs could sit with providers' Mental Health Legislation teams

agreed with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) that it will include, in its inspection and monitoring methodology, consideration of health provider services' compliance with principles in the revised Victims' Code and guidance in relation to duties to victims and VLOs

undertaken significant engagement with key stakeholders on whether it would be appropriate to give victims of MDOs in England and Wales the right to submit a victim personal statement (VPS) to the Mental Health jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal in a way which is consistent with the statutory test which the tribunal has to apply when considering whether to discharge a detained patient. We are continuing to explore options that would enable policy change to allow victims to submit and read a VPS to the First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health). It would not mean that the tribunal has to take account of the VPS when applying the statutory test, having regard to the clinical evidence before it. However, it would allow victims to explain to the tribunal what the impact of the patient's offending was and continues to be and would thereby assist the tribunal in understanding why victims have requested certain conditions to be attached to the patient's discharge

recommended a change to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (DVCV) so that victims of both restricted and unrestricted patients can make representations requesting conditions, be this an exclusion zone and/or no contact, when the responsible clinician requests community leave

recommended a change to the DVCV Act so that victims of both restricted or unrestricted patients are informed when community leave is granted and of the victim related conditions that are put in place

recommended a change to the DVCV Act so that information is provided to victims of unrestricted patients in the same way as restricted patients, changing the relevant clauses so that information comes via the National Probation Service VLO rather than the hospital, and removing the provision that victims of unrestricted patients are informed of the name and address of the hospital

Within Wales, consideration must also be given to how the provision of information to victims of crimes committed by unrestricted patients is working and to what extent the guidance given in the Code of Practice to the Mental Health Act (for Wales) 2016 that provider organisations have a person nominated to promote the rights of victims, is consistently applied in practice.

9. People with a learning disability and autistic people

We are committed to reducing the reliance on specialist inpatient services for people with a learning disability and autistic people and to developing community alternatives. We want everyone to have the opportunity to live a full and rewarding life in their communities. Providing appropriate support in the community can ensure that people with a learning disability and autistic people are not living in an inappropriate institutional setting.

In Building the Right Support, published in 2015, NHS England, the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS) set out the national plan for developing community alternatives to hospitals. Building the Right Support set out the aim of a reduction of between 35% and 50% of inpatient provision with alternative care provided in the community.

The NHS Long Term Plan, published in January 2019, committed to reduce the number of people with a learning disability and autistic people who are inpatients in mental health hospitals by 50% by 2023 to 2024 compared to March 2015. This would be achieved through investment in specialist community provision including intensive, crisis and forensic community support and seven day a week specialist multi-disciplinary services and crisis care in every area.

Building the Right Support anticipates that some people with a learning disability and some autistic people may, at times, be admitted to mental health inpatient services. Where this is the case, the inpatient admission should be high quality, the least restrictive and for the shortest time possible. The inpatient setting should also be close to home to ensure a connection can be maintained with family and friends.

Yet, over a number of years we have seen high profile cases of quality failings where a common theme was that detained in-patients with a learning disability and autistic people were not receiving sufficiently therapeutic or reasonably adjusted care. This was reported in the case of Bethany and in individual cases reported in the CQC's interim report of its thematic review of restraint, seclusion and segregation (May 2019) and in its final report (22 October 2020); and in evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights enquiry (November 2019 and June 2020). The exposure of abuse at Whorlton Hall in May 2019 and at Cygnet Yew Trees this summer is confirmation that some detentions cannot be justified.

These cases provide evidence that for some people with a learning disability and autistic people, the use of the Mental Health Act to detain someone for assessment and/or treatment, however justifiable or beneficial initially, can lead to perpetuated detention. While this could be true of other people detained under the Mental Health Act, sensory needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and reduced ability to self-advocate may exacerbate these risks.

Co-occurrence of mental health conditions

The Act's Code of Practice (paragraph 20.20) is clear that while it is possible for someone on the autistic spectrum to meet the criteria in the act for detention without having any other form of mental disorder, this is expected to be very rare and that hospital treatment is very rarely likely to be helpful for an autistic person.

We know that the inpatient setting can be particularly challenging for autistic people as it can often fail to meet their sensory and communication needs. This can lead to a deterioration in their condition. As the CQC thematic review states, sensory overload can result in severe distress which can be displayed as challenging behaviour. Autistic people may find it difficult to cope with a new and unpredictable environment and unfamiliar sensory stimuli.

Yet, we know that the number of autistic people without a learning disability who are detained as inpatients under the Mental Health Act is increasing. The Assuring Transformation dataset shows that since March 2015, the number of people with a learning disability who are not autistic has declined by around 40% (Sept 2020). However, between March 2017 and September 2020, the number of autistic people without a learning disability who are mental health inpatients has increased by 4%.

We know more now about the link between mental health and autism, than we did when the national Autism Strategy, Think Autism, was published in 2014. We know 7 in 10 autistic children have a mental health condition, with 4 in 10 autistic children having more than one associated condition. Almost 8 in 10 autistic adults experience mental health problems, which is much higher than the incidence of mental health problems in the general population.

It may be that people admitted for mental health problems are being increasingly identified as also being autistic through better diagnosis before or during admissions. However, it is a growing concern that admissions of autistic people are increasing contrary to the act's Code of Practice and current policy.

The act itself contains a specific qualification for people with learning disability. The Code of Practice (paragraph 20.7) states that "a person with a learning disability can only be considered to have a mental disorder for the purpose specified in section 1(2B) of the act, without another concomitant mental disorder, where the learning disability is associated with one or both of the following further features: abnormally aggressive behaviour, or; seriously irresponsible conduct." Both abnormally aggressive behaviour and seriously irresponsible conduct are described in the Code. This qualification recognises that detention under the act where detention is not associated with a co-occurring mental health condition should only occur in specific circumstances.

Detention under the Mental Health Act

We acknowledge the considerable concern about admission of people with a learning disability and autistic people to mental health hospitals under the act, where such an admission could become protracted or may not result in someone receiving an appropriate therapeutic intervention.

We want to limit the scope to detain people with a learning disability or autistic people under the act. Both learning disability and autism are lifelong conditions, which cannot be removed through treatment. However, we recognise that some people with a learning disability and autistic people may require treatment for a mental illness and we want to ensure that people receive high quality and safe care that is the most appropriate for them.

We propose to revise the Mental Health Act to be clearer that for the purposes of the act we do not consider autism or a learning disability to be mental disorders warranting compulsory treatment under section 3. The proposed revisions would allow for the detention of people with learning disability and autistic people for assessment, under section 2, of the Mental Health Act, when their behaviour is so distressed that there is a substantial risk of significant harm to self or others (as for all detentions) and a probable mental health cause to that behaviour that warrants assessment in hospital. The intention is that this additional behaviour 'qualification' would strengthen and expand the current qualification for learning disability to include an assessment of what is driving abnormally aggressive behaviour or seriously irresponsible conduct.

The assessment process under section 2 should seek to identify the driver of this behaviour, and whether a mental health condition, physical condition or response to environmental or life change, is the driver of this behaviour. If it is identified that a mental health condition is the driver, there may be continued justification for detention under the MHA, and the patient might in such cases follow a treatment pathway under section 3 for the mental health condition. Where the driver of this behaviour is not considered to be a mental health condition, for example due to an unmet support need, unmet social or emotional need, or an unmet physical health need (including untreated pain), grounds for a detention under the MHA would no longer be justified and the detention should cease.

Such a detention for assessment on the basis of distressed behaviour should only be considered after all alternatives to de-escalate have been considered and the assessment should be reasonably adjusted to accommodate the sensory and specific needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people. We would expect that a community Care, (Education) and Treatment Review ( CETR) is carried out in advance of a detention and that evidence from such a CETR is considered as part of any decision to admit. We envisage that the process of admission for assessment of people with a learning disability and autistic people should be very different in future reflecting its use only when other options have been tested and with a presumption that detention should be avoided wherever possible.

We intend to introduce these changes only for civil patients. We want to ensure that accused people and offenders whom the courts or the Secretary of State might currently divert to an inpatient setting are not forced into the Criminal Justice System, which is not able, or indeed intended, to cater for their needs.

Question

Do you expect that there would be unintended consequences (negative or positive) of the proposals to reform the way the Mental Health Act applies to people with a learning disability and autistic people?

Please give reasons for your answer (up to 500 words).

Where someone with learning disability or an autistic person is detained for treatment under the act, due to co-occurring mental health condition, we want to ensure that progressing a patient towards discharge is a priority from day 1 of detention. The introduction of Statutory care and treatment plans will ensure that this is the case.

For people with a learning disability and autistic people, we propose that there is a statutory requirement for the responsible clinician (RC) to consider the findings and recommendations made as part of Care, (Education) and Treatment Reviews (C(E)TRs) in the patient's care and treatment plan. Any deviation from the recommendations set out by a C(E)TR should be justified and explained by the RC. C(E)TRs are conducted by a multidisciplinary panel and were introduced as part of NHS England's commitment to transform services for this group. They aim to identify the care needs of a patient and provide recommendations on how barriers to their progress can be overcome. We know that C(E)TRs are effective in reducing hospital admissions when they are undertaken correctly and acted upon. As such, we want to give C(E)TRs statutory force to make sure that they play a more important role in informing the care and treatment of patients.

More information on our proposals on care and treatment plans can be found at Chapter 4 of this White Paper.

Question

Do you agree or disagree that the proposal that recommendations of a care and treatment review ( CTR) for a detained adult or of a care, education and treatment review ( CETR) for a detained child should be formally incorporated into a care and treatment plan and responsible clinicians required to explain if recommendations aren't taken forward, will achieve the intended increase compliance with recommendations of a CETR?

Please give reasons for your answer (up to 200 words).

Ensuring an adequate supply of community services for people with a learning disability and autistic people

In our response to the JCHR (22 October 2020), we agreed with the Committee that more needs to be done to ensure that the right services are available in the community for people with a learning disability and for autistic people, both to prevent unnecessary admissions and to speed up discharges.

We committed to consult, through this White Paper, on the creation of new duties on local authority and Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) commissioners to ensure an adequate supply of community services for people with a learning disability and autistic people with the express intention of reducing the use of and need for mental health inpatient services.

Any duty that requires an adequate supply of services to be commissioned for people with a learning disability and autistic people could create new funding requirements if there is not already sufficient supply in place. We will undertake a formal new burdens assessment to establish implications for local Government, informed by the consultation responses.

In the JCHR response, we also committed to consult on creating a related duty on commissioners that would ensure every local area understands and monitors the risk of crisis at an individual-level for people with a learning disability and autistic people in the local population. The aim would be to enable better planning for provision and to avoid unnecessary admissions to inpatient settings. This could involve local authorities and NHS commissioners working together to identify and monitor the support needs of individuals by way of a 'risk' or 'support' register, often described as a Dynamic Risk Stratification and Support register, including an 'at risk of admission' component. Such a register would have to comply with data protection obligations. The establishment of such registers is existing NHS England policy and is contained in guidance but is not a legislative requirement on commissioners presently. As such, there is no formal requirement on local Government to participate. By having this duty, in addition to the duty described above, we consider that this would increase the likelihood of effective joint action being taken locally and would require commissioners to focus attention on people with a learning disability and autistic people in their population. We expect this to lead to greater provision of appropriate community based services and a reduced reliance on inpatient care.

Pooled budgets

Section 75 of the NHS Act 2006 is the existing mechanism and enabling tool for, among other matters, pooling budgets. It enables an NHS body and a local authority to enter into a partnership arrangement for the purposes of jointly exercising the functions of the NHS body or the health-related functions of the local authority if the arrangements lead to an improvement in the way in which those functions are exercised.

In our response to the JCHR we agreed that there may be more that can be done specifically in relation to pooling budgets for services for people with a learning disability and autistic people and are seeking views on this here.

10. Children and young people

The improvements to the mental health legislative framework that this White Paper proposes will be available to children and young people. We want to strengthen the rights of children and young people, to ensure they are involved in decisions about their care, that they can challenge these decisions, and, above all, to ensure that they are only detained for treatment in hospital when it is absolutely necessary.

Of course, there are particular considerations and sensitivities involved in caring for children and young people who are suffering from mental health problems so severe that they need to be detained for treatment. Children and young people are often especially vulnerable, and there are also complexities involved with balancing their rights and ability to make decisions, with the rights of their parents or carers, particularly for children aged under 16. The review made recommendations on these matters, which are discussed in this chapter.

NHS Long Term Plan commitments to improve support for children and young people

Our proposed reforms to the legislation will be supported by major improvements to children and young people's mental health services, delivered under the NHS Long Term Plan.

The NHS will introduce a full crisis care service for children and young people by 2023 to 2024. This will combine crisis assessment, brief response, and intensive home treatment functions, and will be available nationally on a 24/7 basis. Development of this comprehensive offer will build on the establishment of 24/7 crisis lines created at pace during the initial response to COVID-19. These changes will improve the experience of children and young people and reduce pressures on accident and emergency departments, paediatric wards and ambulance services.

By 2023 to 2024, there will be 345,000 more children and young people aged 0 to 25 accessing mental health services, including through some new school and college mental health support teams. A new approach to young adult mental health services for people aged 18-25 will also be put in place to support the transition to adulthood. In selected areas, the NHS will also develop new services for children who have complex needs that are not currently being met, for example, as a result of trauma or sexual assault.

Improving the Mental Health Act for children and young people

The legislative changes set out in this White Paper will benefit children and young people. The rights we plan to introduce for patients ‒ to have advance choice documents, care and treatment plans, and to choose a nominated person ‒ will all be available to children and young people detained under the act, as will the enhanced rights we will introduce for patients to refuse treatments, to receive faster second opinions on treatment, and to apply to the tribunal.

In addition, we will ensure care and treatment plans are provided to all children and young people when they are receiving inpatient care, whether or not they are under the act. To deliver this, we will put on a statutory footing the requirements that already exist for such plans within the national service specification for Tier 4 Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services.

Children and young people will be able to choose their nominated person. However, we recognise that there are complexities around introducing this right for children under the age of 16, where they have the necessary intelligence, competence and understanding to choose the person who represents them. In particular, we want to ensure that parents maintain all the usual rights with regards to their child as they would expect in cases where a child decides to choose someone other a person with parental responsibility as the nominated person. These issues are discussed more fully in chapter 5 and there is an opportunity to respond to consultation question 14 on this issue.

Children and young people - autonomy and decision-making

The review's chapter on children and young people made a close examination of matters to do with children and young people and how practitioners should assess the competence, as well as the capacity, of young patients to make decisions about their care and treatment.

In summary, the review argued that there is a need to reform the current arrangements in legislation and guidance in order to provide clarifications for professionals, for young patients, and for parents and carers. We will maintain existing legislation for these matters and will look to make improvements to the guidance.

The earliest opportunity to do this is the revision of the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice, which is currently happening to take account of the introduction of the new Liberty Protection Safeguards. Specific recommendations made by the review about children and young people and decision making are considered below.

Young people aged 16 and 17

The review recommended that the Mental Health Act and its guidance should make clear that the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) should provide the only test of the capacity of 16 and 17 year olds. Although Chapter 19 of the Mental Health Act's Code of Practice is already clear that the MCA should provide this test, as it does for adults, it allows for practitioners to consider other circumstances, including that a 16 or 17 year old may be unable to make a decision because they may be overwhelmed by his or her surroundings and situation. The government is considering this recommendation at present as part of its current work to review and update the Mental Capacity Act's Code of Practice.

The review also recommended that young people aged 16 and 17 who lack capacity should not be admitted on the basis of parental consent, which the government agrees with, and which has recently been established by the Supreme Court in the matter of D (A Child).

Children aged under 16

For children aged under 16, in all matters of clinical decision making, practitioners need to assess whether a child has 'Gillick competence', which involves considering whether the child has sufficient understanding, maturity and intelligence to enable him or her to fully understand what is proposed, and to make a decision about consent.

The review took the view that this professional judgement would benefit from a formal test. It recommended that, although the MCA does not apply to children aged under 16, its functional test, as set out in section 3 of the MCA, could be used as a framework to assess capacity to make a decision. This would have the advantage of bringing together the same test for all children and young people and would provide a clearer basis of evidence for decisions made on their capacity.

As the review noted, the MHA Code of Practice already takes the principles contained within the Section 3 MCA test and recommends that practitioners use them. The government appreciates that there are different opinions about matters to do with children and young people's rights, and for under 16s matters to do with assessing their capacity and competence. These matters are ultimately for the Code of Practice rather than the act itself and will form a focus for consultation when we come to review the Code.

11. The experiences of people from BAME backgrounds

The degree of inequality

The most profound inequalities exist across mental health services and under the act for people from ethnic minority communities, and in particular black African-Caribbean people. NHS Digital's MHA Annual Figures 2019/2020 show that black British people are over 4 times more likely than white British people to be detained at all and are over ten times more likely to be subject to a community treatment order ( CTO). As well as higher rates of detention, black British people also experience poorer outcomes. During detention, Mental Health Bulletin data suggests that black patients may be subject to a level of restraint that is three times higher than that of white British people.

There are marked differences between the pathways of people of black African and Caribbean descent and white British people for mental health care. Analysis by BMC Medicine shows that black people are more likely to come to the attention of mental health services through contact with the police or the criminal justice system, rather than via a referral from a GP. This points to the existence of inequalities around access to mental health services well before people are detained under the act. There are also cultural factors to consider. People from BAME backgrounds may engage with services later, because of perceptions held within their communities for example around n recognising mental health problems early, on levels of associated stigma, as well as a distrust of services. A qualitative study into the perceived barriers to accessing mental health services among black and minority ethnic (BME) communities by the British Medical Journal notes that tackling the disparity in detention rates requires a multi-pronged approach, looking not just at care and treatment under the MHA, but also access to services, and the disparity in outcomes from earlier interactions with the mental health system.

Our intention is that enhanced patient voice, supported by advocacy, coupled with a greater reliance on evidence, increased scrutiny of decisions and improved patient's right to challenge, will begin to address the disparity in outcomes, and in turn detentions. Black people should not be treated less favourably than people from other groups - whether in mental health services, by the NHS or by public services as a whole. This cannot continue, and the government and the NHS will prioritise tackling these issues. Although many of the changes set out in this White Paper will have a positive impact on people from BAME groups, the scale of disparity that exists means that specific targeted interventions will also be vital.

The Advancing Mental Health Equalities Strategy summarises the core actions that NHS England and NHS Improvement will take to bridge the gaps for communities faring worse than others in mental health services. It is a call for all mental health services to take concrete steps to fight stigma and inequalities across the sector. The Strategy's aim is to improve access, experience and outcomes for groups with protected characteristics, including age, ethnicity and sexual orientation.

The Mental Health Act Bulletin

Note the Mental Health Act Bulletin is an experimental dataset and therefore limitations apply to the interpretation of this data. You can find out more information about the Mental Health Act Bulletin.

Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework

The Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework ( PCREF) will support NHS mental healthcare providers and local authorities to improve access and engagement with the communities they serve. Service user and carer feedback, alongside an organisational competency framework, will enable organisations to understand what steps they need to take to make improvements in access, experience and outcomes for individuals of diverse ethnic backgrounds.

Monitoring data on equality at board level is crucial to facilitate appropriate action. The PCREF will be a practical tool which ensures services fulfil their existing obligations under the Equality Act 2010, in accordance with the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Ahead of national roll-out, and in line with the recommendations of the review, the PCREF will be tested in different mental health services and settings to ensure the final framework delivers the results we should rightly expect.

Culturally appropriate advocacy

A lack of cultural understanding can make already poorer outcomes worse for patients from BAME backgrounds, and potentially reinforce barriers to earlier engagement with services. Advocates are well placed to help patients voice their individual needs and can be crucial to establishing a better foundation for appropriate care and treatment. However, we know that advocacy support can be poor at taking to account the specific needs and experiences of people from BAME groups.

The development of culturally appropriate advocacy for people of all ethnic backgrounds and communities, in particular for people of black African and Caribbean descent, will be a major priority in our plans to deliver higher quality services that respond appropriately to the diverse needs of individuals.

The government has also already announced funding to pilot culturally appropriate advocacy services. Work to scope the requirements for these services has now completed and will inform the commissioning of pilots, which we hope to begin next year. Subject to successful learning from the pilots, and subject to appropriate funding, we will legislate for culturally competent advocacy to be available to detained patients

Data and research priorities

Data and research are the cornerstones of developments in health.

The National Institute for Health Research launched an open call in December 2019 to tackle the gap in the current research base as identified by the review, including: research to identify and explain the issues that lead to mental health problems in a wide range of ethnic minority communities, particularly people of black African-Caribbean descent; pilot and evaluate interventions that improve the outcomes of people from ethnic minority communities, with a focus on people of black African and Caribbean descent; and develop tailored early interventions for black African and Caribbean children and young people, particularly those at risk of exclusion from school. Up to £4m in total will be allocated to projects judged to be of sufficiently high scientific quality and relevance with projects expected to have started by February 2021.

Changes in the workforce - longer-term impact

The review found that parts of the current mental health workforce often fail to reflect the population which they serve. This is clear in professions such as clinical psychology and occupational therapy. There is also a significant under-representation of people of black African and Caribbean descent across the mental health professions at more senior level - specifically among decision-making professionals operating the act, such as psychiatrists, and among service managers.

The review clearly argues that the mental health workforce needs to be more diverse. The government is fully supportive of this and there are several programmes in place to improve the diversity of the workforce. The Preparation for Work scheme across the NHS aims to improve the representation of people BAME backgrounds through employability programmes, supported internships and traditional work experience programmes. The NHS Leadership Academy has also developed a programme, Ready Now, to support leaders from ethnic minorities to rise to senior levels within the NHS.

The NHS People Plan for 2020/21 also places emphasis on a more inclusive NHS where a diverse and representative workforce are supported to thrive.

NHSEI's Advancing Mental Health Equalities Taskforce, in collaboration with Health Education England's (HEE) Equalities subgroup, is working to address the workforce priorities outlined in the NHS Long Term Plan, to develop and implement strategies to enable a more diverse and inclusive mental health workforce that is reflective of the population it serves. This includes workstreams to increase fairness of access to, and inclusion in, mental health training programmes.

HEE is taking action to increase representation and inclusion in mental health professions, starting with clinical psychology. Training in clinical psychology will, from 2021, be commissioned so that courses are held to account on targeted improvements in representation, such as the introduction of contextual recruitment processes and positive action initiatives. These measures aim to remove systemic obstacles to inclusion.

Reduction in the number of CTOs

It is essential that any reduction in their use and duration also entails a reduction in the disparity of their use. We intend to reflect the strengthened criteria for detention under section 3 of the act in the criteria for making a CTO, so that it will be harder to use a CTO unless the patient is likely to genuinely benefit from the structure they provide.

Policing and ambulances

Use of police vehicles to convey people in crisis who have been detained under police powers under the act risks making patients feel that they are being criminalised for their mental health, which is why the government and the NHS accepts the review's recommendation to improve ambulance provision for urgent mental health cases.

For people from BAME backgrounds, there have been too many tragic cases in recent years, as recorded in the 2013 report from the Independent Commission on Mental Health and Policing, which was established to investigate the experiences of black people in particular. The report highlighted several cases in London where people died "when or after the person had travelled in a police van and been highly agitated and distressed during the journey". Progress has been made since then, led by the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, to ensure that ambulance trusts now recognise mental health crises as emergencies, and to work more closely with the police to monitor how people are being conveyed to hospital under the act.

The NHS Long Term Plan outlines the commitment to introduce new mental health transport vehicles to reduce inappropriate ambulance conveyance or conveyance by police to accident and emergency. The NHS will also introduce mental health nurses in ambulance control rooms to improve triage and response to mental health calls and increase the mental health competency of ambulance staff through an education and training programme.

Decreasing the duration of detention

Reforms to the detention criteria, which will increase emphasis on therapeutic benefit and make clearer what we mean by the risk posed by an individual to warrant detention, will ensure that a person is detained only when it is absolutely necessary. By clarifying and strengthening the criteria used to justify detention, and introducing greater scrutiny of decisions around a patient's continued detention, we hope to achieve a culture in which less restrictive alternatives to detention are preferred and, when an individual is detained, that they progress towards discharge more quickly. We will introduce legislation and wider frameworks to ensure that patients are also able to have greater say over their care and treatment. Where they disagree with decisions, they will be able to more meaningfully make a challenge. We hope that these changes will ensure that a person's dignity is respected, their autonomy is preserved and that the experiences and outcomes of patients detained under the act are improved.

While these changes will apply to all, we will strive to make sure that these important changes benefit patients of black African and Caribbean descent, whose experiences and outcomes under the act are persistently poorer than other ethnic groups.

Part 2: Reforming policy and practice Around the new act to improve patient experience

The first part of this White Paper sets out the changes we plan to make to the act, to ensure the legislation works better for people.

This section describes how the government and the NHS will work, along with other partners, to bring about an overall culture change within mental health services, so that people have a far better experience of care under the act. We want everyone's care to be of the highest standard. Great care is therapeutic care. We know that while a person is detained under the act, for them to recover and be discharged, they need to be in a supportive, therapeutic environment, receive care and treatment from appropriately trained staff, and receive patient centred care that ensures that they are viewed and treated as an individual.

We must also improve the care people receive in the community, to continue to support recovery after detention, or to keep people well and hopefully prevent crisis and detention. We must also continue to build on the progress made in recent years to support people in crisis, as the right care at this critical time can help prevent detention.

These improvements in care and patient experience will be led by staff. We are already taking steps with the NHS to drive up the quality of inpatient care and improve patient experience, to ensure everyone is treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. We know that there are already examples of excellent practice. We need to build on this, and share best practice, to ensure consistent standards across the board.

Transforming mental health services: the NHS Long Term Plan

The NHS Long Term Plan includes ambitions for radical transformation of mental health services, backed by an additional £2.3bn of new investment a year by 2023 to 2024, and with a renewed focus on services for people with severe mental illness. A key ambition of the Long Term Plan is to provide integrated models of mental health care across primary, community and secondary care services and to improve therapeutic services, so that patients have better experiences of inpatient care and better outcomes. It also seeks to reduce lengths of stay in all in adult acute inpatient mental health settings to make sure that everywhere meets the current average of 32 days (or fewer) by 2023 to 2024.

Quality improvement programme

The scoping phase will identify the specific reforms to the act which are most likely to benefit from a QI approach; potential areas of focus may include improved care planning, reducing inequalities, improved partnership working, improved assessment processes, greater levels of safety, and the dignity and respect experienced by service users.

Once developed and tested, subject to funding, the programme will be rolled out nationally to support all mental health providers and local systems.

Inpatient safety and risk

The safety of patients in mental health services, whether detained under the act, or informal patients, will always be the paramount concern of health services.

NHSEI launched a new NHS Patient Safety Strategy in 2019 which sets out how the NHS will improve patient safety incident data collection and learning. This includes work to enhance the local response to patient safety incidents including local investigations. The Strategy will drive improvements to the ways we communicate with the NHS about new and emerging risks to safety and actions to mitigate them. A dedicated Mental Health Safety Improvement Programme ( MHSIP) aims to tackle priority mental health safety issues; sexual safety for inpatients; reducing restrictive practice; and reducing suicide and deliberate self-harm.

However, this work should not be at the expense of developing and maintaining truly therapeutic environments that support people to recover. The review highlighted how decisions focused solely on safety can be at the expense of therapeutic environments and good quality care, and can contribute to cold and unwelcoming environments. This is something that we wish to avoid, and we will work with Arm's Length Bodies (ALBs) and stakeholders to consider how best to ensure that the implementation of new patient safety interventions and programmes have positive contributions to the therapeutic environment.

Sexual safety

It is essential that patients feel safe in inpatient settings and that steps are taken to provide protection from sexual and physical assault. Findings from the CQC, the Women's Mental Health Taskforce and the review indicate that this has not always been the case. As part of the MHSIP, the Sexual Safety Collaborative was launched in October 2019. It is working to produce a set of standards around sexual safety for mental health and learning disability inpatient pathways, with a strategy to measure and support quality improvement via a national quality improvement collaborative. This will support inpatient mental health teams in mental health trusts in England to use QI to improve sexual safety on their wards.

Restrictive practice

The CQC has raised concerns about the use of restrictive practice when caring for people who use mental health or learning disability and autism services; high numbers of people continue to be restrained and are subject to restrictive practice. Research has also demonstrated that people from BAME backgrounds experience excessive use of seclusion and that restraint is used disproportionately both on people from these backgrounds and on women and girls.

Despite guidance supporting positive and proactive care, designed to avoid these practices, large variation in practice across different units, for people with similar needs, was observed and reported in the 2017 State of Care review of mental health and learning disability services. In recent months, the CQC has raised concerns that the reduced availability of staff to keep people safe may have increased restrictive practice in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The initial phase of targeted work to reduce restrictive practice has demonstrated a number of encouraging improvements. The MHSIP will build on this work to refine the interventions ahead of scale-up across England.

Suicide

The NHS Long Term Plans outlines how suicide reduction will remain an NHS priority for the next decade, with particular emphasis on suicide prevention and reducing deliberate self-harm within mental health services.

Approximately a quarter of people who die by suicide are in contact with mental health services at the time of their death. Of people who die by suicide while using an inpatient mental health service, a quarter were absent without leave (AWOL), at the time of their death. When, tragically, people take their own lives while using inpatient services, ligatures (with and without ligature anchor points) continue to be the most common means by which they do so. Progress has been made against the previous Secretary of State's 'Zero Suicide' ambition for mental health inpatients, with all Mental Health trusts developing Zero Suicide Plans.

Taking a quality improvement approach, the Mental Health Safety Improvement Programme ( MHSIP) will focus specifically on reducing AWOL episodes, the risk of suicide of staff working within the healthcare system, and suicide in acute general hospitals. It will also support the adherence to national guidance for ligature anchor point management.

Further, a bespoke national suicide reduction support package delivered in partnership with the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Safety in Mental Health (NCISH) and National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH) will support local areas in their quality improvement plans as part of the national suicide prevention programme.

The physical ward environment

Inpatient settings should offer rehabilitative environments that enable the delivery of therapeutic care, and support patient recovery. They should also facilitate social interactions and activities, which help patients regain their independence. The NHS Long Term Plan set out a renewed commitment to pursue the most ambitious transformation of mental health care England has ever known. It states that there is "wide variation in the quality and capability of these acute mental health units across the country" and acknowledges that capital investment will be needed to upgrade the physical environment for inpatient psychiatric care.

The government and NHSEI have already started to improve the physical environment of hospitals, making them far better places to stay and to work in. We have committed to eradicate dormitory provision, ensuring that every person who is admitted to a mental health hospital has the dignity and privacy of their own bedroom with an en suite bathroom. This is an important step towards improving sexual safety in mental health services and towards ending breaches of single-sex accommodation, as recommended by the Women's Mental Health Taskforce. These new facilities will also support our drive to improve infection control on wards. The government has committed over £400m for this purpose and has identified 1,200 beds that will receive this upgrade over the next four years.

NHSEI will work with stakeholders from across the sector, including experts by experience, to review whether the guidance and data collection on mixed sex accommodation is adequate for mental health settings. This process will enable us to determine whether the existing guidance needs to be revised, better communicated or measured differently.

In October last year, the Prime Minister confirmed that 40 hospitals will be built by 2030 as part of a package worth £3.7 billion. This includes funding for building projects for two mental health hospitals, St Ann's in Poole, Dorset, and Northgate in Morpeth, Northumberland. For many mental health sites, specific investment in a current site is a more suitable clinical option than a full replacement hospital - and we have many schemes underway, and completed, to do this.

The government will also be inviting bids for a further 8 schemes. Further details will be announced in due course, and a proportion of these will be for new mental health hospitals.

This funding is in addition to the over £400 million of investment we have announced in improving mental health estate since July 2017. This includes £72.3 million for Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust to develop a new adult mental health inpatient unit and £33 million to Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust for a 40-bed low secure unit for people with learning disabilities, both of which were included in the £850 million capital funding for 20 hospital upgrades announced by the Prime Minister in August 2019.

In addition, the Department of Health and Social Care spent almost £19 million in capital last year on central programmes to support mental health services. This includes schemes to deliver Perinatal Mental Health Mother and Baby Units to deliver more personalised care to expectant and new mothers with serious mental ill health.

The role of the Care Quality Commission

The CQC has consistently reported that many people continue to experience care that is not person-centred and does not fully protect their rights. Its State of Care report 2019/20 highlighted that some NHS trusts and independent services need to improve the quality of care they provide.

Key issues identified include a lack of community care provision, leading to people not being able to access the right care at the right time which results in people reaching crisis point and ending up in hospital, sometimes far away from their homes. Then, once people are admitted to hospital, they are not always receiving appropriate care and treatment, with poor coordination and joint working between acute and mental health services, delays in assessments and securing beds and inadequate and unsafe ward environments.

Patients being placed far from their homes and families also increases the risk of closed cultures developing. A closed culture is a poor culture in a health or care service that increases the risk of harm, abuse and human rights breaches. CQC has expressed concern that this risk has increased in mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic, with restrictions on people's movements and services having to limit or stop families from visiting loved ones.

Over the next year the CQC will be working with people who use services, families, providers, frontline staff and other stakeholders to improve the way that they regulate services where there is a closed culture, or a high risk of a closed culture developing.

In recognition of the critical role ward culture can plan in someone's care and treatment, and in their recovery, we recognise the need to inspect and monitor improvements on ward culture. CQC has committed to changing its methodology, updating internal guidance and inspection assessment frameworks so that its inspectors focus on the quality of ward social environments, and assess whether wards are therapeutic environments which promote recovery.

The CQC is reviewing how it assesses all wards in mental health and learning disability services, informed by its own findings on the quality of inpatient care, as well as the recommendations of the review and the ambitions of the NHS Long Term Plan.

We will work with the CQC and national bodies including NHSEI and local authorities to consider how best to extend this role and publish proposals for consultation at a later stage. We expect the recommendations to complement the wider work being taken forward to improve the quality and safety of patient care.

Supporting people in the community

We are committed to improving the care and treatment of inpatient care, both for people subject to the act and for informal patients. We must also improve support in the community to prevent people reaching the point where they have to rely on crisis or inpatient services, and also to support recovery after discharge from hospital. We will shift the focus from reactive care to preventative measures and early intervention in the community.

We are aware that poor provision of care in the community can also sometimes lead to delays to an individual's discharge from the act. Addressing gaps in community mental health services is essential if we are to overcome these delays and ensure that, once patients are discharged, they are supported to remain well and are not later re-admitted.

The NHS Long Term Plan commits to expanding services for people with severe mental illnesses, delivered through new models of integrated primary, community and social care, so that by 2023 to 2024, at least 370,000 adults and older adults have greater choice and control over their care and are supported to live well in their communities. The new models will incorporate care for people with eating disorders, mental health rehabilitation needs and those with a diagnosis of a 'personality disorder', among other groups.

The NHS Mental Health Implementation Plan 2019/20 to 2023/24 sets out the detail behind these commitments and how they will be implemented over the next four years, with information about how funding will be spent.

We are currently testing the new models of integrated primary and community care for people with severe mental illnesses ahead of national roll-out from April 2021. Over £70 million across 2019- 2021 has been provided to 12 early implementer sites, ahead of over £750 million additional transformation funding becoming available to all STP/ICS areas in England from 2021/22- 2023 to 2024. While the majority of planned activities of these early implementer sites had to be paused due to the first phase of COVID-19, the programme is continuing as far as is practicable. The testing of new models also includes testing four week waiting times for generic adult and older adult care in line with the Clinically-led Review of NHS Access Standards. Meanwhile, from 2019/20 onwards, all Clinical Commissioning Groups have been in the process of receiving year on- year increases in baseline funding to bolster community mental health provision and will continue to receive these increases up to and including 2023 to 2024.

NHSEI is monitoring the implementation of the new community models, including their potential impact on detention rates, to generate insights that will inform the delivery of the Long Term Plan commitments in future years and any further policy development that may be necessary ahead of or alongside national roll-out.

Care planning in the community

The NHS has held a longstanding ambition to support and treat people in the right place, at the right time, shifting more care from acute settings into the community and people's homes.

To enable this, more planned and personalised packages of care are required that can meet the needs of individuals. High-quality care and support plans are the key to delivering this, as they enable people to stay independent for longer, to have more control and responsibility over their care by setting their own aims and goals and to shape that care in a way that works best for them.

This is a more connected and joined-up approach to care; not only focusing on the person, but involving those that matter to them too. Every care plan should be co-produced, with the person at the centre. Ultimately, the care plan should be produced by them and for them; adequately supported by the system, expertise and information.

Universal, personalised care planning is something that we are striving towards. This ambition is reflected in the NHS Long Term Plan, which aims to make personalised care the norm and has been a key part of local authority support for people with a mental health issue under the Care Act 2014.

All people in contact with community mental health teams, inpatient care and/or social services should have a high-quality care plan. We wish to ensure that this encompasses the new Statutory care and treatment plan, alongside existing rights under the Care Act, NHS Continuing Healthcare and personalised budgets (and section 117 entitlements if someone has been detained on an eligible section). The review recommended placing this joined-up care plan on a statutory footing, but before we do so, further work is required to establish how we can best bring the necessary elements of the care plan together.

Currently, the majority of people already receiving a service from secondary mental health services, should already have a care and support plan in place and those with eligible social care needs should have a social care and support plan under the Care Act.

Further work is required to understand the underpinning reasons why these plans can vary in both quality and frequency. Overcoming these issues will be crucial to delivering high quality care plans to all patients. NHSEI's community mental health transformation programme includes a clear expectation that all new models significantly improve the quality of coproduced, personalised care and support plans in place for people with severe mental illnesses in the community.

Many areas have also found that having social workers and housing support workers linking in with the acute wards is helpful. This can ensure that discharge planning under s117 aftercare is more effective, that patients have easier access to their rights under the Care Act and that some of the issues that cause delayed discharges, such as access to housing or specialist community support, can be planned earlier and more effectively.

We intend to explore how the existing care plans interlink to understand how any new statutory care plan could work in practice, while also conducting work to explore how we can ensure that quality of care planning is consistently high, with limited variation.

We will also be exploring what further information, guidance and support we can provide to commissioners on care planning and the practicalities and implications that placing care planning on a statutory footing would have on the workforce. This work is ongoing, and we will keep this recommendation under review as this work progresses.

Section 117 national guidance

Section 117 aftercare was introduced to the act in 1983 to provide patients with a statutory right to aftercare following discharge from the act. While this provision places a duty on health and social care systems, the review highlighted that there has been a lack of clarity over who is responsible for providing and funding the care and in which locality. This results in delays to providing care to potentially highly vulnerable people.

We will work in close collaboration with local authorities , ADASS, ADCS, NHSEI and service users to update national guidance so that there is greater clarity on how budgets and responsibilities should be shared to pay for section 117 aftercare. We will also develop a clear statement in the new Code of Practice of the purpose and content of section 117 aftercare.

Supporting people in a mental health crisis

While we are committed to improving care in the community, which we hope will help reduce the number of people going into crisis, we must also ensure that when someone is in crisis, they get the right care, at the right time. When people reach mental health crises but are not able to access timely, appropriate care, the consequences can be devastating. Between June 2018 and March 2019, coroners investigated deaths of seven people who were assessed as requiring admission, but for whom no mental health bed was available.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought this into sharp relief. The CQC's recent report highlighted that some areas had received complaints of lack of access to community support during the pandemic, leading to first-time detentions for some patients, and that some services have reported that A&E departments were functioning as a first contact for people in mental health crisis due to lack of alternatives during the first COVID-19 lockdown.

It is vital that we transform mental health crisis care so that people with urgent mental health needs get the responses they need. For too long, mental health crisis interventions have had to rely on the police, ambulance or A&E being the only 24/7 services that the public can access in the first instance.

We are taking action. We want emergency mental health services to be available for people when they need them, whether before or during a crisis to prevent detention under the act.

Work is underway as part of the NHS Long Term Plan to enhance services. To support the COVID-19 response, NHSEI asked all local areas to ensure that urgent mental health advice and support is available to people of all ages through open access NHS 24/7 telephone help lines. This ambition was originally expected to be delivered for adults by March 2021 and children and young people by March 2023 to 2024. As of May 2020, every area had implemented a 24/7, all age urgent NHS mental health telephone service which can be accessed by any member of the public and can be found on a new NHS.UK service finder. This means that 2020 will be the first NHS winter campaign, where there is a national option for people with urgent mental health needs that is not solely to call 999. The wider objective remains that by 2023 to 2024, the whole country will have crisis care support available at all times of the day and night, for people of all ages, fully accessible via NHS 111.

Significant progress has also been made towards the NHS Five Year Forward View for mental health ambition on 24/7 Crisis Resolution Home Treatment (CRHT) teams for adults. In 2017, under 50% of services were 24/7 or accessible to people not known to services. Now almost all teams are staffed to high fidelity, open to self-referral and operate 24/7. The ambition is on track for all areas to have 24/7 CRHT by March 2024.

The Long Term Plan also makes provision to increase complementary and alternative services to traditional NHS crisis care models, with a particular focus on investment in local voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) services such as crisis cafes and crisis houses.

The Long Term Plan also includes the first dedicated national investment that recognises the mental health response carried about by ambulance services. Investment has commenced, and will continue over the next 3 years, to embed mental health professionals in 111/999 telephone triage as well as supporting on-scene response to mental health calls.

Field testing of access and waiting time standards for urgent and emergency mental health care with 11 sites as part of the clinical review of standards began in October 2019, with much of the work paused by COVID-19. Standards for people with mental health needs in A&E are expected to be included in any new roll out of new A&E access standards. Testing and engagement on new access standards for community crisis services will continue through 2020/21, with an intention to carry out sector engagement on potential new standards during 2021/22.

Use of police custody

While people experiencing a mental health crisis should receive support in a clinical environment, the police play an important role in responding to people in mental health crises. In 2018/19, the overwhelming majority of people detained by police officers under section 136 of the act were taken to health-based places of safety, rather than to police custody.

To help ensure that in future all people in a mental health crisis are taken to a clinical environment, where they can receive the care and support they urgently need, we have committed to update sections 135 and 136 to remove police stations as a designated place of safety by 2023 to 2024. However, before we can do this, we will have to make sure that the system is ready. This may require new capital funding to be available to provide the estate needed, including health-based places of safety, in those areas that need them.

The police accept that protecting people in mental health crises is part of their core business, but transfers to health services need to happen more quickly, so that patients receive care and support when they need it, and police officers can safely support patients to gain access to health services and return to their duties.

We will establish a national agreement between mental health services, social care and the police to ensure that people detained under section 136 are safely and effectively transferred into health services in a timely way, while ensuring the ongoing safety of all concerned.

Ambulance conveyance

Ambulance services have a major role in providing emergency support to people in a mental health crisis. However, statistics collected by the Home Office show that more people in a mental health crisis are conveyed to hospital by police than by ambulance. This is for a number of reasons, including police decisions not to call or wait for an ambulance to arrive.

The Act's Code of Practice is clear that ambulances or other health transport arranged by the police should be used to convey people after a section 136 detention. The NHS Long Term Plan has committed to a dedicated national investment programme to improve the capacity and capability of the ambulance service to meet mental health demand. This will see £70 million additional revenue investment by 2023 to 2024 for additional mental health professionals to deliver mental health specific initiatives and extra capacity in ambulance services, such as having mental health staff based in 111/999 (integrated urgent care) control rooms to improve telephone triage and support, as well as a national programme to increase mental health training and education of ambulance staff.

A national programme to develop standards and specifications where required, and to provide implementation support is under way as new funding became available in CCG baselines from 2020/21. There is a specific focus on defining and sharing good practice and ensuring that the improvements made to ambulance response align with the overarching Long Term Plan vision for integrated urgent care and a universal single point of access.

The mental health workforce

The government is absolutely committed to improving mental health services for everyone who requires mental health support. Expanding and developing the mental health workforce is vital to fulfilling this commitment.

The government will be working with NHSEI, HEE, Skills for Care and the Chief Social Worker's office over the coming months to look at further national support requirements, including on training on the changes to the act, and supporting meaningful co-production and the development of expert-by-experience leadership roles within providers and local systems.

We have already committed to increasing both the level and staff skill mix on acute inpatient mental health wards. We will seek to help minimise unnecessary time spent in hospital, and at the same time improve outcomes, through the development of new roles and by increasing access to multi-disciplinary staff groups such as peer support workers, psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists and other allied healthcare professionals.

The reforms to the Mental Health Act will require additional workforce over and above that to be delivered through the NHS Long Term Plan, including the expansion of the responsible clinician workforce. The reforms will also create new demands on advocates, Approved Mental Health Professionals, and second opinion appointed doctors. These estimates are included in our impact assessment.

We have programmes of work under way to meet the mental health workforce ambitions required to deliver on the NHS Long Term Plan by 2023 to 2024. These include commitments to expand community mental health and crisis services, to prevent admission and where necessary provide more alternatives to admission and improving the availability of therapists and peer support workers in inpatient settings.

The mental health workforce expansion we need to see over the next four years will be challenging for the system to deliver, with past issues exacerbated by the pandemic.

In July last year HEE published We are the NHS: People Plan which provides national and local steps to be taken through the remainder of 2020/21 to support NHS staff. The People Plan includes commitments for HEE to prioritise training the future mental health workforce to boost the number of advanced clinical practitioners, psychiatrists and mental health nurses. In 2020/21 this will include training and support for over 100 additional responsible clinicians. HEE has also developed the New Roles in Mental Health Programme, which includes support for mental health social work, AMHPs and Peer Support workers.

The taskforce for Children and Young People's inpatient care is also looking at driving up staff recruitment and ensuring that staff have the right qualifications and values to operate effectively in inpatient settings. They are also developing robust education programmes to upskill and improve retention of the current workforce, which will provide valuable lessons for staffing in adult inpatient settings.

Diversity of the workforce

The review identified issues around the mental health workforce failing to reflect the patient population, potentially leading to gaps in the delivery of meaningful support to people from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Within the NHS, we want to increase the number of people of black African and Caribbean descent, who are particularly poorly represented in senior mental health professions, most significantly in the fields of psychology and occupational therapy. The government has several programmes in place to improve the diversity of the workforce: the Preparation for Work scheme across the NHS aims to widen participation and employability programmes, and supported internships and traditional work experience programmes focus on improving the representation of ethnic minority groups. In addition, HEE is implementing actions to increase representation and inclusion in mental health professions, starting with clinical psychology, requiring all training courses to make specific progress in this area.

We also want to support the promotion of people of black African and Caribbean descent to senior levels in all mental health professions, especially psychiatry, clinical psychology, occupational therapy, mental health nursing and management, where this group is most underrepresented. The NHS Leadership Academy supports this endeavour with their Ready Now programme, which facilitates leaders from ethnic minorities to rise to senior levels within the NHS. HEE is also investing in a mentoring for leadership scheme for BAME psychological professionals to support equitable progression to leadership and management.

To understand whether these programmes and other similar work is having an impact, it is crucial that we have high quality ethnicity data on the workforce. HEE collates ethnicity data on students currently completing HEE's commissioned pre-registration Healthcare programmes and NHS Digital publishes data on the ethnicity of the NHS workforce, highlighting equality and diversity issues within the NHS.

While current work provides a good starting point for improving the diversity of our workforce, we know there is further to go to meet our ambitions, particularly in ensuring more people of black African and Caribbean descent are recruited into the skilled workforce and supported to rise to senior positions. The Interim NHS People Plan, published in July 2019, and the subsequent 2020/21 People plan both emphasise that the NHS must do more to advance equality and diversity and to develop leaders who have the knowledge, skills and behaviours to create and sustain cultures of compassion and inclusion.

The 2020/21 People Plan, along with the NHS COVID-19 phase three recovery guidance, set out the urgency required to intensify efforts across teams and organisations. They require all local areas to take action to identify a named executive board-level lead for tackling inequalities and to publish action plans to set out how their board and senior staff will at least match in proportion the BAME composition of their overall workforce or community, whichever is higher.

In social work, there is also action under way. The Chief Social Worker, Social Work England, the British Association of Social Workers, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the Local Government Association are committed to implementing improvements to race equality and diversity.

Improving staff morale

The review highlighted evidence supporting the link between positive staff experience and high-quality patient care and noted that this has not been sufficiently exploited in the mental health setting.

The government and NHS England agree that improving staff experience can have a significant impact on the quality of patient care, as well as boosting staff morale and retention. This is why improving the health and wellbeing of our staff was a commitment of the NHS Long Term Plan and is central to the 2020/21 NHS People Plan.

The NHS is striving to become a beacon of good practice in helping staff maintain and improve their physical and mental health and wellbeing through the Improving Health and Wellbeing programme. This programme embeds NHSEI's evidence-based NHS Health and Wellbeing Framework which provides trusts with diagnostic tools and suggested interventions to help them improve access to services for those staff who need this support.

The programme is being rolled out across 22 trusts delivering mental health services and aims to have a positive impact on staff morale in NHS trusts, thereby potentially improving the experience of all patients, including those who are detained. We are planning to roll out this programme across the remainder mental health trusts over the next 3 years.

The 2020/21 People Plan contains a chapter on staff wellbeing and support, which sets out the support NHS staff can expect from their employers, including safe spaces to rest, psychological support, sickness support and risk assessments for vulnerable staff, including BAME staff.

Further, the COVID-19 pandemic has presented a unique and unprecedented challenge for many health and social care staff, who are caring for people in unfamiliar and challenging clinical and support roles. It is therefore essential that staff have rapid access to mental health support when required. NHSEI has developed a specific national support offer, which is available at people.nhs.uk for NHS staff, which includes:

a dedicated health and care staff support service, including confidential support via phone and text message

a specialist bereavement support helpline for those who have sadly lost friends and family - whether from COVID-19 or otherwise

a specialist app for BAME colleagues, Liberate, to help manage anxiety and stress levels, and provide online resources, guidance and webinars

a pilot of a specialist relationship counselling service with the charity Relate

a partnership with the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS), to launch a financial wellbeing offer

A comprehensive mental health offer is also in development, following investment from NHSEI, to strengthen mental health support for healthcare staff in all local areas and ensure rapid access to evidence based mental health services. This includes:

a centrally commissioned service for people with complex needs: a national support service particularly for critical care staff who research suggests are most vulnerable to severe trauma

mental health and wellbeing hubs: nationwide outreach and assessment services, ensuring staff receive rapid access to evidence based mental health services

the development of wellbeing and psychological training, set to be rolled out this winter

Data and digital

We have set out plans to reform the act, and the care and practice around it. To support the implementation of these reforms we must also look at the infrastructure and processes which impact on the day to day operations of the act. The government is committed to working with all the organisations involved in the operation of the act to bring about improvements to data collection and to new digital approaches to service delivery.

This ambition has been accelerated during the pandemic period in 2020, with many staff and patients benefitting from a new focus on online and digital consultations and assessments. These have been used in some circumstances to mitigate impacts of the pandemic - not just in mental health but right across the health service.

The immediate implications for the act have been twofold.

Firstly, the government and NHSEI have had to consider whether digital and online methods can suffice for medical assessments made for the purposes of the act. NHSEI issued guidance on this matter in May 2020, which included the Department of Health and Social Care's view that the act may be interpreted to allow for this. The guidance, did however, state that it is always preferable to carry out a Mental Health Act assessment in person.

Secondly, there has been a long-standing desire among practitioners and Act administrators to remove the legislative barriers that prevent the greater use of digital means for the completion and communication of the act's various statutory forms. This requirement was made more acute by the pandemic, when staff have needed to work more flexibly to account for a reduced workforce and public health measures around social distancing and non-essential travel. The government amended legislation to allow for the electronic communication of forms through the Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Treatment) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 in October 2020, which came into force on 1 December 2020.

We anticipate that this change will enable staff to work more efficiently and, in doing so, ensure that patients access the care they need in a more timely manner.

We are now working to establish how the act's pathway may be modernised in other ways. We want to investigate service maturity across the act's pathway, map key information flows, and identify business and technical capability requirements so that we can eventually look to deliver a "digital first" approach to processes and procedures, governed by the act. This work is crucial to ensuring that people under the act can access the benefits of a modern, world-class health care system.

Finally, we agree with the review that improving data is a critical enabler to the wider system changes and ambitions set out in this White Paper. Better data supports transparency and scrutiny and is critical to informing ongoing reform and improvement, and to monitor the impact of change. The NHS Mental Health Implementation Plan 2019/20 to 2023/24 states NHSEI's commitment for substantially improved mental health data quality over the coming years. It will increase the coverage, consistency, quality and breadth of national data. Seeking improvements to Mental Health Act related data is a part of this plan.

NHS-led improvements provide a real opportunity for providers to take critical insights into their operation of the act, including trends in location assessment requests, time of day, length and reasons behind delays, assessment outcomes and demographic information. Service commissioning and provision could be better informed by better mental health data, which will support developments in care both to inpatients and within the community.

Impact assessment

Question

In the impact assessment we have estimated likely costs and benefits of implementing the proposed changes to the act. We would be grateful for any further data or evidence that you think would assist the departments in improving the methods used and the resulting estimates.

We are interested in receiving numerical data, national and local analysis, case studies or qualitative accounts, etc that might inform what effect the proposals would have on the following:

different professional groups, in particular:

how the proposals may affect the current workloads for clinical and non-clinical staff, independent mental health advocates, approved mental health professionals, Mental Health Tribunals, SOADs etc

whether the proposals are likely to have any other effects on specific interested groups that have not currently been considered

service users, their families and friends, in particular:

how the proposal may affect health outcomes

ability to return to work or effects on any other daily activity

whether the proposals are likely to have any other effects on specific interested groups that have not currently been considered

any other impacts on the health and social care system and the justice system more broadly

Please provide information (up to 500 words).

Alternatively, please email your response to mhaconsultation2021@dhsc.gov.uk and include what question you are responding to and your organisation (if appropriate).

Annex A: proposed changes to part 4 of the Mental Health Act

Table 2: when treatment can be administered under categories 1 to 3 and key changes from current provisions

Requirements for administering treatment under reformed part 4

Treatment can only be administered if the patient has capacity and is consenting.

Plus, a second opinion appointed doctor ( SOAD) needs to certify that the patient is capable of understanding the nature, purpose, and likely effects of the treatment, that the patient consents and that it is appropriate for the treatment to be given. The SOAD must consult with two others before certification can be given.

Treatment cannot be given to the patient with capacity who is refusing, or if they have refused in an advance choice document (ACD), unless s62(1)(a) and (b) urgent criteria are met. In this case, high court judge pre-approval must be secured, supported by two medical opinions (as per s58(3)(b) and (4)).

If the patient lacks capacity and has not refused the treatment in an ACD, treatment can be given where s62(1)(a) and (b) urgent criteria are met so long as the CQC is informed and the justification is recorded for scrutiny.

If the patient lacks capacity and urgent criteria is not met, then the wishes/preferences of the patient should be considered by SOAD with similar requirements to s58 (6)

If the patient with capacity refuses, or has refused in an ACD, and urgent criteria are not met, then a SOAD must certify that no other clinically appropriate treatment is available which is more acceptable to the patient. SOAD certification is at day 14 of detention (once care and treatment plan is signed off).

Treatment can be given to a patient with capacity, who is refusing treatment, without SOAD certification, if s62(1)(a) and (b) and (d) urgent criteria are met. Or, if the patient has refused in an ACD then treatment can be given without SOAD review where s62(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) urgent criteria are met.

If the patient is lacking capacity and does not have an ACD, then the wishes/preferences of the patient must be considered and treatment certified by SOAD at 2 months since treatment commenced.

Changes from current provisions

No substantive change from current section 57.

If patient refusing in an ACD, treatment cannot be given except with the prior approval of a judge where s62(1)(a) and (b) urgent criteria are met. The application to the court must be accompanied by two medical opinions.

When the patient lacks capacity and urgent criteria are not met, treatment decisions must consider patient's wishes and preferences.

When patient is not consenting to treatment, SOAD certification is earlier: day 14 of detention if the patient has capacity or is refusing in an ACD; at 2 months if patient lacks capacity and has no ACD.

The urgent criteria is different for patients with capacity, giving them the right to have their treatment refusal respected, even if this means that they experience serious suffering.

For people who lack capacity, have no ACD, and urgent criteria are not met, efforts must be made to understand their wishes/preferences and take these into account.

When treatment is given compulsorily, it should be in the smallest dose and over the shortest period possible, to be effective.

Category 1 treatments: most invasive

In line with the provisions within section 57 of the current Act, administering the most invasive treatments will require the patient to have the relevant capacity and to consent to the treatment. A SOAD will have to certify that the patient is capable of understanding the nature, purpose, and likely effects of the treatment in question, that the patient consents and that it is appropriate for the treatment to be given. The SOAD should consult with two other persons in accordance with section 57(3), before they can certify that the criteria are met.

Patients will not be able to consent to category 1 treatments through advance choice documents. They must have relevant capacity and be consenting at the time of the proposed treatment.

Category 2 treatments: invasive

If a patient has the relevant capacity , they must consent to this treatment before it can be administered. The clinician should confirm that the patient has relevant capacity to consent. If the patient has the relevant capacity and refuses to consent, but it is deemed that urgent treatment is necessary to save the patient's life or prevent a serious deterioration of their condition, as is currently described in section 62(1) (a) and (b) (Page 112) of the act, a High Court Judge would have to approve its administration. The application to court must be accompanied by two medical opinions.

If a patient lacks the relevant capacity to consent and has refused a category 2 treatment via an advance choice document, or if the treatment is in conflict with a decision made by a donee of a lasting power of attorney, a court-appointed deputy or the Court of Protection , the same process would have to be followed prior to administration, with a High Court Judge approving the necessity of urgent treatment (section 62(1)(a) and (b) would apply), with the application accompanied by two medical opinions.

The Mental Health Act 1983, Section 62(1) ...

(a) Which is immediately necessary to save the patient's life; or

(b) Which (not being irreversible) is immediately necessary to prevent a serious deterioration of his condition; or

(c) Which (not being irreversible or hazardous) is immediately necessary to alleviate serious suffering by the patient; or

(d) Which (not being irreversible or hazardous) is immediately necessary and represents the minimum interference necessary to prevent the patient from behaving violently or being a danger to themselves or to others.

Category 3 treatments: all other medication

This category represents the biggest change from current legislation. Currently, the vast majority of medical treatments for mental disorder can be administered for a period of three months without the need for consent, even if the patient has the relevant capacity to refuse treatment. We want to change this so that the administration of these treatments is subject to far greater legal requirements regarding the patient's consent and their right to refuse treatment.

Most crucially, we will bring forward the point at which a SOAD must certify a patient's treatment, from 3 months, to when their care and treatment plan has been signed off by the Clinical or Medical Director at day 14 of detention. This will apply to a patient with capacity who is refusing treatment or who has refused it in an advance choice document.

If a patient with the relevant capacity refuses to consent to a category 3 treatment, but it is immediately necessary to save the patient's life, to prevent a serious deterioration of their condition, or to prevent the patient from behaving violently or being a danger to themselves or others, as is currently described in section 62(1) (a), (b) and (d) the responsible clinician will be able to overrule this refusal and administer the treatment, without the approval of a SOAD.

If a patient lacks the relevant capacity to consent and has refused the treatment via an advance choice document, the responsible clinician will be able to overrule this refusal and administer the treatment if it is immediately necessary to save the patient's life, to prevent a serious deterioration of their condition, or to prevent the patient from behaving violently or being a danger to themselves or others, as is currently described in section 62(1) (a), (b) and (d), and when it was needed to alleviate serious suffering (as described in section 62(1) (c).

If in both of the above cases, the urgent criteria are not met , but the responsible clinician wishes to overrule the patient's refusal of treatment, then a SOAD will have to certify that they are satisfied that no other clinically appropriate treatment is available which is more acceptable to the patient. This brings forward the requirement for a SOAD from the current provision of 3 months, to the point at which their care and treatment plan has been signed off at day 14 of detention. Where medical treatment is given against the patient's wishes, it should be in the lowest dose, and for the shortest period necessary to be effective.

If the patient lacks the relevant capacity to consent but has not refused the treatment via an advance choice document , treatments in this category may be given following an assessment by the clinician, that as far as possible the treatment meets the wishes and preferences of the patient. As is now the case, the care and treatment of patients without the relevant capacity would then be subject to a review by a SOAD to certify that the treatment is appropriate and that it should be given. However, instead of that occurring at 3 months, we propose to bring this forward to 2 months.

Glossary

Advance choice document

A written statement that sets down your preferences, wishes, beliefs and values regarding your future care.

Advocacy

Activity by an individual or a group providing support to express the views and wishes and to stand up for the rights of people with mental health illness

Approved mental health professional

An approved mental health professional is a person qualified and authorised by the local authority to undertake assessments under the mental health act and decide whether detention under the act is appropriate

Attorney

A person (aged 18 or over) appointed under the Mental Capacity Act who has the legal right to make decisions on behalf of a person in relation to their welfare, property oy affairs of a person

Capacity

The ability to take a decision about a particular matter at the time the decision needs to be made. Some people may lack capacity to take a particular decision (for example to consent to treatment), because they cannot understand, retain, use, or weigh the information relevant to the decision

Care Act 2014

An act designed to improve people's independence and wellbeing. local authorities have a duty to assess people's wellbeing and care needs.

care and treatment plan

A document that sets out what a patient needs, and how this will be provided while detained under the MHA. This should include how regard has been taken for the known wishes and preferences of the patient, the aims of the assessment and treatment during detention, and any proposed timescales before improvement might be expected. The care and treatment plan should have a statutory footing and is critical to ensure the new treatment detention criteria is met. The care and treatment plan will be considered by the tribunal as part of any review of a detention.

Care Programme Approach

A care planning system used mainly with people in England who receive specialist mental health care services. This involves an assessment, care plan and a care coordinator to oversee it. People who receive care should be involved in their care.

Children Act 1989

An act relating to children and young people and those with parental responsibility for them.

Code of Practice

Shows professionals how to carry out their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Coercive Reward

Rewarding a patient to cooperate with mental health or other professionals involved with their care

community treatment order

Can be used when someone is discharged from detention in a hospital under the Mental Health Act, to ensure they undergo supervised community treatment.

Compulsory admission or treatment

Admission or treatment for mental disorder given under the Mental Health Act, which may be against the wishes of the patient.

Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Protects the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities

Coproduction

As defined in the Care Act - when you as an individual influence the support and services you receive, or when groups of people get together to influence the way that services are designed, commissioned and delivered.

Court of Protection

The specialist court, set up under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, to deal with issues relating to people who lack capacity.

Court Appointed Deputy

A court appointed person who legally takes care of health, wellbeing and finance for someone with health problems. Also referred to as deputyship.

Discharge

Unless otherwise stated, a decision that a patient should no longer be subject to detention, community treatment order, guardianship, or conditional discharge.

Dignity

The right to be valued, respected and treated ethically.

Deprivation of liberty

Depriving a person of their freedom to act in the way they choose, usually in a care home or hospital after completion of a statutory assessment process, which includes an assessment that the detention is in the best interests of the person.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards

An authorisation under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 given by a 'supervisory body' (a local authority or, in certain circumstances, the Welsh Ministers) which authorises a deprivation of liberty in a care home orhospital after completion of the statutory assessment process

European Convention on Human Rights

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The substantive rights it guarantees are largely incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998

Human Rights

Substantive rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, and largely incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998

Independent Mental Health Advocate

A person providing advocacy under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983

Informal admission

Admission of someone who is being admitted for a mental disorder and who is not detained under the Mental Health Act

Joint crisis plan

A plan to support people during future periods of mental health crisis

Liberty Protection Safeguards

The new process introduced by the Mental Capacity Act (Amendment) Bill to replace the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (see above)

Mental disorder

An illness of the mind. It includes common conditions like depression and anxiety and less common conditions like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, anorexia nervosa and dementia

Mental Capacity Act

The Mental Capacity Act 2005. An act of Parliament that governs decision-making on behalf of people, aged 16 years and over, who lack capacity, both where they lose capacity at some point in their lives, for example as a result of dementia or brain injury, and where the incapacitating condition has been present since birth

Mental Health Act 2007

Made several key changes to MHA 1983, laying down provision for the compulsory detention and treatment of people with mental health problems

Part 3 of the MHA

Part 3 of act, known as the 'Forensic Sections', deals with patients who have been involved in criminal proceedings.

Pain-based restraint

A type of restrictive intervention which refers to any direct physical contact where the intention is to prevent, restrict, or subdue movement of the body (or part of the body) of another person when pain is involved

Protected characteristics

It is against the law to discriminate against someone because of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. These are called protected characteristics.

Renewals

The process by which the period of detention under a section of the mental health act is renewed

Respect

Due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others

responsible clinician

The responsible clinician has overall responsibility for care and treatment for service users being assessed and treated under the Mental Health Act

Restraint

A type of restrictive intervention which refers to any direct physical contact where the intention is to prevent, restrict, or subdue movement of the body (or part of the body) of another person

Restricted patients

Patients who, following criminal proceedings, are made subject to a restriction order where it appears that it is necessary to protect the public from serious harm

Safeguards

The presence of specific measures within the MHA 1983 that provide an important protective counterbalance to the extensive powers that are inherent in the act.

Second opinion appointed doctor

The SOAD service safeguards the rights of patients detained under the Mental Health Act who either refuse the treatment prescribed to them or are deemed incapable of consenting. The role of the SOAD is to decide whether the treatment recommended is clinically defensible and whether due consideration has been given to the views and rights of the patient.

Section 2

Assessment, patients can be kept in hospital for up to 28 days to allow for medical assessment. An approved mental health professional ( AMHP) needs to apply to hospital. Patients have the right to appeal to a tribunal within 14 days, to appeal to hospital managers and to see an IMHA

Section 3

Treatment under section 3, patients can be detained in hospital for treatment for up to 6 months. An AMHP needs to apply to the hospital. Doctors may renew for 6 months then 12 months and patients appeals are allowed every 6 months

Section 117

Health, social care and support services in the community following discharge from hospital and to avoid future admission; especially the duty of the responsible health services and local authority to provide after care under section 117 of the act, following the discharge of a patient from detention for treatment under the act.

Section 135

Warrant enabling a police officer to enter premises to either: remove a person to a place of safety to make an application under part 2 or other arrangements for their care or treatment or take (retake) into custody someone liable to be detained under the act

Section 136

An emergency power which allows patients to be taken to a place of safety from a public place if a police officer considers that a person is suffering from mental illness in need of immediate care

Seclusion

Seclusion refers to the supervised containment and isolation of a patient, to contain behaviour that threatens harm to others

Tribunal

The First Tier Tribunal is an independent panel that can discharge you from the Mental Health Act. The tribunal hearings take place at the hospital. The tribunal has to decide if you meet the criteria for being sectioned. Tribunals have the power to: discharge you from your section, recommend that you get leave, recommend supervised community treatment instead of staying in hospital, decide on a delayed discharge or conditional discharge, transfer you to another hospital, or meet up again if their recommendations are not followed.

Part 3: The government's response to the Independent Review of The Mental Health Act

The Independent Review of the Mental Health Act reported in December 2018 and made 154 recommendations to the government. The review's findings and recommendations have led development of the government's plans to reform the act, and policy and practice around it, as set out in the White Paper.

Below we provide the government's response to each of the review's recommendations. Some of the recommendations have been grouped by theme, and so the order in which the responses are made sometimes departs from the review's original numerical listing.

Taking forward the commitments to reform, as set out in the White Paper and in the response below, is subject to consultation and affordability. The transformational proposals set out in this White Paper will therefore be subject to future funding decisions, including at Spending Review 2021.

New Mental Health Act purpose and principles

1. A purpose and a set of principles should be included in the act itself.

2. There should be four new principles covering: choice and autonomy, least restriction, therapeutic benefit, and the person as an individual.

The government agrees that the principles recommended by the review are the right ones. We have put these at the centre of our considerations of the reforms that we propose to make.

We want to set out these four principles up front in the act, as well as in the Code of Practice, to emphasise their centrality to the provisions. Moving forward, as we prepare to amend legislation through a new Mental Health Bill, the government's decisions will be guided by the new principles.

We also accept the recommendation to update the act's regulations and forms to ensure that the principles are embedded in day to day practice. We are consulting on where beyond the act and the Code of Practice people would like to see the principles to have the biggest impact and we will use this feedback to support the practical application of the principles and the translation of them into a reformed Mental Health Act and Code of Practice.

Making decisions about care and treatment

4. Shared decision-making between clinicians and patients should be used to develop care and treatment plans and all treatment decisions as far as is practicable.

5. It should be harder for treatment refusals to be overridden, and any overrides should be recorded, justified and subject to scrutiny

6. Statutory advance choice documents (ACDs) should be created that enable people to make a range of choices and statements about their inpatient care and treatment. These should be piloted to identify the detail needed to inform/impact practice.

7. Decisions about medication should, wherever possible, be in line with the patient's choice and patients should have a right to challenge treatments that do not reflect that choice.

8. Patients should be able to request a second opinion appointed doctor ( SOAD) review from once their care and treatment plan has been finalised or 14 days after their admission, whichever is the sooner; and again, following any significant changes to treatment.

We accept the review's recommendations to support the guiding principle of patient choice and autonomy. This government has committed to seek to legislate so that patients have greater control over their treatment. We intend for care and treatment plans to become a statutory requirement for any patient detained under the act. The Plan should reflect the patient's preferences and, as far as possible, demonstrate shared decision making between clinician and patient. This should happen whether or not the patient has capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment. Where a patient's wishes or preferences have been overruled, this must be recorded by the responsible clinician, including the justification for doing so. This will be subject to scrutiny.

We have already accepted the review's recommendation to introduce statutory advance choice documents. These will allow people to set out in advance the care and treatment they would prefer, and treatments they wish to refuse. An individual's advance choice document will be followed if they later lack the relevant capacity to express their wishes at the time, unless the act specifies otherwise.

We agree that decisions about medication should, wherever possible, be in line with the patient's choice. We intend to amend part 4 of the act to create a new framework for consent and refusal of medical treatment, which will enable patients to have a greater say in their treatment and ensure that their wishes and preferences are upheld as far as possible and are more difficult to overrule.

We accept the recommendation to give patients the right to challenge treatment decisions at a much earlier point in detention. Patients, or their nominated person or Independent Mental Health Advocate ( IMHA) acting on their behalf, will be able to request a review by a second opinion appointed doctor ( SOAD), if the patient's care and treatment plan does not reflect their wishes and preferences. This right will be available from day 14 of detention, when the care and treatment plan must be finalised.

Where the patient has not consented to treatment because they lack the relevant capacity to do so, the current requirement for a SOAD to review their treatment will be brought forward from 3 months to 2 months.

11. The government should consult upon:

whether the MHA should provide that a person can consent in advance to confinement for medical treatment for mental disorder, or to empower an attorney or court appointed deputy to give consent on their behalf; and

what safeguards would be required.

Advance consent can already legally be given in certain situations but is not widely recognised or implemented in psychiatric hospitals. We therefore accept this recommendation and will seek views on whether the act should be amended to more clearly provide the ability to consent in advance. This would mean that people could consent in advance to being treated informally at a point in the future when they become unwell, rather than be made subject to the act, if that is what they would prefer. The review recommended that the government consults on this matter and we are doing so.

12. Mental healthcare providers should be required to demonstrate that they are coproduced mental health services, including those used by patients under the MHA.

The government accepts this recommendation. All providers of mental health care, including those which detain people under the act, should have a process in place that ensures that health services are co-produced. Developing the model of care in partnership with service users should not only lead to higher quality, more responsive and accountable services but should also have a therapeutic benefit for individual patients. Both providers and commissioners should be able to demonstrate that this is happening.

Currently the CQC puts the onus on providers to demonstrate this and asks a number of key questions, under the umbrella question, 'Are the people who use services, the public, staff and external partners engaged and involved to support high-quality sustainable service?'

NHSEI have also commissioned a toolkit for commissioners and providers to support meaningful and effective co-production which services can readily access.

In addition, DHSC is considering this recommendation with NHSEI to identify further system support that might be required to enable providers to effectively co-produce services. It is expected that this could include training for both staff and experts by experience and the development of expert-by-experience leadership roles within providers and local systems.

Nominated person

13. Patients should be able to choose a new nominated person ( NP) to replace the current Nearest Relative ( NR) role under section 26 of the MHA.

14. A new Interim nominated person ( INP) selection mechanism should be created for those who have not nominated anyone and do not have capacity to do so.

15. Patients should have greater rights to choose to disclose confidential information to additional trusted friends and relatives, including through the NP nomination process or advance choice documents.

16. NPs should have the right to be consulted on care plans.

17. Patients under Part III of the MHA who are not currently eligible to have a NR should have limited eligibility for a NP/ INP in relation to care planning.

19. NPs and INPs should be consulted about a renewal of a patient's detention, extension of a community treatment order, transfer from one hospital to another, and discharge, rather than simply notified.

20. NPs should have a power to challenge treatment before the MHT where the patient does not have capacity to do it themselves.

The government accepted the recommendation for patients to be able to choose a nominated person ( NP) on publication of the review in December 2018. This will replace the current Nearest Relative provisions.

As per the Code of Practice, patients will also be able to identify other individuals who can receive information about their care and treatment, either by expressing their wishes and preferences while detained or in their advance choice document.

We agree with the review's recommendations to provide the NP with further powers (recommendations 16, 19, 20). NPs should have the right to be consulted on statutory care and treatment plans, the power to challenge treatment on the patient's behalf, and the right to be consulted rather than notified on changes concerning the patient's detention under the act. As this gives additional powers to the nominated person with regard to an individual's detention, we are consulting on these changes.

We accept the review's recommendation to introduce limited eligibility for Part III patients to have an INP/ NP, in relation to care planning.

21. NPs should be given improved support, which could include courses provided by recovery colleges, support lines or online materials.

We agree in principle with the review's recommendation to provide improved support to NPs and we will look at how we can do this through the Code of Practice.

18. The county court power to displace a NR should be replaced with an MHT power to overrule or displace a NP, and only contested nominations should be heard in court.

The government agrees in principle with the review's recommendation. However, we wish to first understand how this would work in practice and whether it is proportionate in terms of the implications for the Mental Health Tribunal and Legal Aid Agency.

We will also be taking into consideration implications for the legal aid fund, which currently pays for representatives of patients in these proceedings before the County Court on a means tested basis. Tribunal proceedings are not means tested and so we need to explore whether legal aid will remain means tested if the proceedings are transferred to the tribunal. This will be considered further as part of our Means Test Review, which will look at the thresholds and criteria for legal aid entitlement. The review is due to report in 2021 with a public consultation to follow.

Advocacy

22. The statutory right to an Independent Mental Health Advocate ( IMHA) should be extended so that it includes:

a) all mental health inpatients, including informal patients

b) patients awaiting transfer from a prison or an immigration detention centre

c) people preparing their advance choice documents (ACDs) that refer to detention under the Mental Health Act

24. The statutory definition of IMHA advocacy should be amended to cover advocacy around care planning and advance choice documents.

We accept the review's recommendations that the right to an IMHA should be extended to all inpatients (22a), recognising how important it is for all patients to understand and exercise their rights in mental health inpatient settings and we will expand the role of IMHAs to support patients to access additional safeguards set out in the White Paper, including: helping patients to inform their statutory care and treatment plan and prepare their advance choice document (22c and 24); supporting patients to exercise their increased rights to challenge detention; and supporting patients to appeal treatment decisions.

In addition, we plan to extend the statutory eligibility to access an IMHA to informal inpatients, recognising how important it is for all patients to understand and exercise their rights in mental health inpatient settings (22a).

Taking forward these ambitions will be subject to securing funding, as they represent a new cost for local authorities. A burdens assessment process is underway with the Local Government Association.

We agree in principle with the recommendation to expand advocacy support to patients awaiting transfer to hospital from a prison or an immigration removal centre (22b). We have considered this recommendation alongside the recommendation to create a new statutory, independent role to manage transfers from prisons and immigration removal centres (131), and their responsibility in considering a least restrictive option for immigration detainees (140). We are consulting on how we should approach introducing a new role for managing transfers and we will await responses before deciding on how to take forward these closely linked recommendations on advocacy and support.

We wish to see more people accessing advocacy support. We will continue to work with local authorities and advocacy providers with the view to making IMHA services available to everyone. We will consider making advocacy services 'opt out' and, as part of this, whether funding is needed or if there is capacity within the system to manage additional uptake of IMHAs among patients.

25. Further consultation should be undertaken on the training of advocates and quality standards, balancing the requirement for better quality services overall with the need for tailored interventions for specific groups.

26. Commissioning by local authorities should be strengthened, so that:

a) guidelines make it clear that IMHAs are best placed to provide support in cases where there is an overlap with Care Act / MCA advocacy

b) services are commissioned on the basis of existing quality standards

c) providers are required to provide quarterly reports to their commissioners about issues and trends, incorporating input from trust staff, families/carers and clients

d) the requirement for IMHAs to be available to meet the needs of different groups, particularly ethnic minority communities, is strengthened, in light of the Public Sector Equality Duty

We accept the review's recommendation to consult further on the training of advocates and quality standards and how these can be improved. We will be working closely with colleagues in the Local Government association and ADASS to develop guidance on this. We have also committed to launch a pilot programme of culturally sensitive advocacy in partnership with local authorities and others, to identify how advocacy can respond appropriately to the particular needs of individuals from BAME backgrounds.

We accept the recommendation to strengthen the commissioning of advocacy services. We will work with LAs and organisations such as ADASS, the LGA and the association of mental health providers to review and strengthen commissioning guidelines for advocacy services to reflect the key role of IMHAs, ensure services are commissioned in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty and have effective performance reporting to support continuous improvement and delivery against quality standards. We would suggest that as a minimum an annual report should be prepared by providers, with the opportunity for quarterly exception reporting as required.

We will also be working closely with local authorities to develop the commissioning arrangements for organisations providing IMHA services and the training and support expectations for advocates to ensure that inpatients are also supported to access their rights under the Care Act and Mental Capacity Act.

Additionally, we will work with NHSEI to undertake a review of the current advocacy provision for people with a learning disability and autistic people to identify areas for improvement.

Complaints

27. Section 132 of the MHA should be amended to require managers of hospitals to provide information on making complaints to patients and their nominated person.

28. Staff dealing with complaints should have an understanding of the MHA so they are aware of the particular impact of detention.

29. Information going to hospital boards should be separated between complaints made by patients detained under the MHA and complaints made by informal patients.

30. The government and CQC should take steps to improve the systems that handle complaints from patients and their carers across providers, commissioners, police and local authorities to improve transparency and effectiveness across the system.

We accept that section 132 should be amended in line with the review's recommendation and that staff dealing with complaints should have an understanding of the act so they are aware of the particular impacts of detention.

We agree in principle that information going to hospital boards should be separated by complaints from formal and informal patients, however, we need to explore how we can operationalise this.

The government agrees in principle with the recommendation to improve the systems that handle complaints. Further work is needed to establish what steps need to be taken to achieve this and we will work with the CQC to look at the Mental Health Act complaints process.

31. Local Safeguarding Adult Boards should ensure that safeguarding arrangements support organisations to discharge their safeguarding duties and ensure that there are effective processes in place to identify, investigate and take action on safeguarding issues.

We accept this recommendation. We are committed to preventing and reducing the risk of harm to people in vulnerable situations. We want to see a focused and effective safeguarding system including inpatient units, where harm or risk of harm is identified, acted upon effectively and ultimately prevented.

The Care Act 2014 placed adult safeguarding on a statutory footing for the first time, empowering local authorities to investigate and take action where they have reason to suspect that an adult in their area with care and support needs is at risk of abuse or neglect.

In addition, the Care Act requires each local authority to set up a Safeguarding Adults Board (SAB) in order to provide assurance that local safeguarding arrangements and partners are acting to help and protect adults who may be at risk of abuse or neglect.

We are working with the Local Government Association and others to understand how central Government can best support local authorities in discharging this duty.

Deaths in detention

32. A formalised family liaison role should be developed to offer support to families of individuals who die unexpectedly in detention.

We agree in principle with this recommendation, but we are exploring a different approach. The government agrees that there is a need to better support families and carers of those who are bereaved, and that a family liaison service is a good way to do this. National Guidance on Learning from Deaths (NQB, March 2017) and Guidance for trusts on engaging with bereaved families and carers (NQB, July 2018) recommends that trusts should engage meaningfully and sensitively with bereaved families and carers, and that developing a well-trained, supported and motivated family liaison service is an effective way to provide a compassionate service to them. The NQB's guidance of July 2018 states that this should be a distinct service and points towards examples of trusts which have successfully implemented this service as demonstrating good practice. The government does not intend to make the provision of a family liaison service a requirement of trusts.

When someone dies by suicide while detained, as set out in the NHS Long Term Plan, suicide bereavement support services to families and staff will be rolled out in every area of the country by 2023 to 2024.

33. Families of those who have died should receive non-means-tested legal aid.

In February 2019, the Ministry of Justice ( MoJ) published its Review of Legal Aid for Inquests. This concluded not to introduce non-means tested legal aid for bereaved families to attend inquest hearings. The evidence gathered as part of this review on financial eligibility will be considered as part of our wider Means Test Review, looking at the thresholds and criteria for legal aid entitlement. It was initially intended that this review would conclude in summer 2020, but it has been delayed due to the COVID-19 outbreak. The intention is that this review will now conclude in Spring 2021. We will then publish a full consultation paper setting out future policy proposals in this area and will seek to implement any final recommendations as soon as practicable.

The changes made on 3 April 2017 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, by section 178 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, provide that the death of a person subject to DoLS is not considered to be a death in state detention for the purpose of a coroner's investigation. This means that there is no statutory requirement for such deaths to be reported to the coroner (unless there are other complicating factors). The Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 will maintain this position for Liberty Protection Safeguards when it is implemented.

Therefore, while we do not accept the review's recommendation to amend guidance, as this would be contrary to the legislation, the introduction of medical examiners will strengthen safeguards by providing independent scrutiny of the death certification process and ensuring that, where appropriate, deaths under DoLs/ LPS are referred to coroners. This will improve the quality of death certification by providing expert advice to doctors based on a review of the relevant health records. The medical examiner will allow the concerns of bereaved families and carers to be considered from the start and avoid unnecessary distress for the bereaved that can result from unanswered questions about the certified cause of death or from unexpected delays when registering a death. All deaths going forward will, therefore, be reviewed either by the medical examiner or the coroner.

Mental health services and preventing detention

35. There should be more accessible and responsive mental health crisis services and community-based mental health services that respond to people's needs and keep them well.

37. The government should resource policy development looking into alternatives to detention, and prevention of crisis.

74. There should be better access to long-term support for everyone to keep them well and prevent admission.

We accept these recommendations. Since the review was published, the NHS Long Term Plan has set out an ambitious agenda to transform mental health care in the community. This will see an expansion in mental health services for people with severe mental illnesses, to support them to maintain their independence for as long as possible. We want to shift the focus from reactive care to prevention and early intervention in the community. This is crucial to delivering on the principle of least restriction and preventing avoidable detentions under the Mental Health Act. Where an urgent response is needed, this should be provided by enhanced crisis teams, which the NHS is now working to put on a 24/7 footing. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ambition to have 24/7 publicly available phone lines for urgent mental health support was brought forward to May 2020. The wider objective remains that by 2023 to 2024, the whole country will have crisis care support available at all times of the day and night, for people of all ages, fully accessible via NHS 111.

36. Research should be carried out into service models and clinical/social interventions that affect rates of detention.

We accept this recommendation and in December 2019, the National Institute for Health Research launched an open call for evidence, which takes forward this recommendation. The application process took place earlier last year. Proposals have been reviewed and an announcement on those projects that will be funded under this programme will be made in due course.

38. There needs to be a concerted, cross-organisation, drive to tackle the culture of risk aversion. This will need to include the Chief Coroner, CQC, NHSE, NHSI, ADASS, LGA, patients, carers and provider boards, to understand the cultural drivers behind their different conceptualisations of risk and how they can be harmonised.

We agree with the principle of this recommendation.

The main driver of reform in this area will be our proposals to clarify and strengthen the detention criteria to make more explicit how serious the harm must be to justify detention and/or treatment, or how likely it is that the harm will occur. If there is a culture of risk aversion as the review argued, these changes would do much to address it. For example, requiring that the risk of harm posed by the individual is also evidenced and recorded, will encourage professionals to focus on more than the individual's presenting behaviour and their perceived likelihood and severity of the harm.

On the matter of a wider cross-agency review of how different sectors consider risk, we agree that it is important that this should happen, and we will undertake further work to develop the appropriate mechanism and consider further which agencies or officials might be involved. This would, however, only involve the Chief Coroner if the discussions were around deaths in mental health detention.

Criteria for detention

39. People should be treated as an inpatient with consent wherever possible. In order to give the informal admission more prominence section 131 of the MHA should be moved so that it sits above sections 2 and 3 of the act.

We agree with this recommendation in principle, and we will seek to take this forward as we bring forward a Bill to amend the act.

40. A patient's capacity to consent to their admission must always be assessed and recorded, including on the application form.

The government accepts this recommendation. The Code of Practice already states that practitioners "need to be familiar with the principles and main provisions of the Mental Capacity Act to understand when a person may lack capacity to make a particular decision". We will revise the relevant statutory forms so that a patient's capacity to consent to their admission must always be assessed and recorded at the admission stage.

42. Detention criteria concerning treatment and risk should be strengthened to require that:

a. Treatment is available which would benefit the patient, and not just serve public protection, which cannot be delivered without detention; and

b. There is a substantial likelihood of significant harm to the health, safety or welfare of the person, or the safety of any other person without treatment.

We accept the review's recommendation to strengthen and clarify the detention criteria. We will seek to make legislative changes that clarify the reasons for detention, ensure that detention only occurs when it is absolutely appropriate, and to influence decisions so that people receive care in the least restrictive way possible, as well as to make a clear requirement that a therapeutic benefit is needed to justify detention.

However, we also need to ensure that any changes to the detention criteria do not make them so stringent that people who need the protection of the act can no longer be legally detained. We are therefore consulting on these proposals.

Statutory care and treatment plans

43. Detention should require a comprehensive statutory care and treatment plan (CTP) to be in place within 7 days and reviewed at 14 days. This should set out:

a) the full range of treatment and support available to the patient from health and care organisations

b) any care which could be delivered without compulsory treatment

c) why the compulsory elements are needed

d) what is the least restrictive way in which the care could be delivered

e) any areas of unmet need (medical and social)

f) planning for discharge (including a link to the statutory care plan recommended in the Care Planning and Aftercare chapter)

g) how specifically the current and past wishes of the patient (and family carers, where appropriate) have informed the plan

h) any known cultural needs

73. Discharge planning should be improved, as part of the care and treatment plan during detention, to ensure it is being considered from day one, and should be recorded and updated in the SCP post detention.

We accept these recommendations. When a patient is detained, we agree that their Statutory care and treatment plan should be in place by day 7 and reviewed by day 14. We agree with the proposals put forward by the review for the contents of the care and treatment plan, and we are consulting on whether anything else should be included.

Better discharge planning is critical to ensuring people are not detained for any longer than is necessary and are supported to settle back into the community. Planning for discharge and estimated discharge dates will both be required elements of statutory care and treatment plans as will ensuring that their rights under the Care Act are assessed.

Length of detention

44. The Code of Practice should be amended so that, where 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.

45. The Code of Practice should make it clear that section 3, rather than a section 2, should be used when a person has been already subject to section 2 within the last twelve months.

We agree with the objectives of this recommendation, however, the Code of Practice already states that section 3 should be used in cases where "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 section 2".

The government will review the Code of Practice in full in due course and will seek to further clarify these requirements.

46. The detention stages and timelines should be reformed so that they are less restrictive through:

a) introducing a requirement for a second clinical opinion at 14 days of a section 2 admission for assessment

b) extending the right of appeal for section 2 beyond the first 14 days

c) reducing the initial maximum detention period under section 3 so that there are three detention periods in the first year of 3 months, 3 months and 6 months

d) introducing a new time limit by which a bed must be found following an order for detention

e) requiring the responsible clinician and the approved mental health professional ( AMHP) to certify 10 days in advance of a Tribunal hearing for section 3 that the patient continues to meet the criteria for detention

We accept these recommendations and we have set out our intention to reform the process for detention and give patients better support to challenge detention. Increasing the scrutiny of detention is a critical element of this reform agenda.

We will make care and treatment plans a statutory requirement of detention. The Plan will be subject to internal scrutiny and approval by the Medical or Clinical Director or equivalent within the first 14 days of detention. For patients detained for assessment under section 2 of the act, the care and treatment plan will understandably be less clearly developed at the 7-day and 14-day stages, but we propose that it should be complete enough to inform decisions on whether to detain the person further or to discharge.

We agree that the right to appeal for section 2 patients should be extended to within the first 21 days, to give the patient greater opportunity to appeal the decision for detention and to ensure that there is sufficient time for the hearing to be listed and conducted before the section expires. The Tribunal Procedure Committee ( TPC) commenced a consultation on 11 February 2020 on revising the time limit in which a tribunal must be held after receiving an application. Feedback in response to this will be taken into account as part of our response to this recommendation.

The TPC considers it appropriate to delay making a decision on a permanent change so that the effects of temporary changes introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic can be monitored and the results assessed before it makes a final decision. Accordingly, the TPC will return to this matter in due course. We will increase the requirements for scrutiny of detention for patients under section 3, in line with 46c. This will mean that the patient's case for detention will be more regularly subject to scrutiny by the responsible clinician and other decision makers. The patient will also have an additional opportunity to access the tribunal, as this can be exercised once in each detention period.

We agree that detention should be certified ahead of a Tribunal, and we will be introducing the requirement that certification is provided to show that the patient continues to meet the detention criteria 10 days in advance of a Tribunal hearing, but we think that the responsible clinician alone should do this, rather than it also being an additional duty for AMHPs. This is because the responsible clinician is already required to make the case to the tribunal that the detention criteria continue to be met as part of the tribunal process. We do not think it is necessary to make this a duty of the AMHP as well as we are concerned that to do so might delay the patient's access to the tribunal.

We agree in principle with the recommendations to limit the delay between assessment and finding a bed. However, the NHS plans to go beyond the recommendation to introduce a time limit by which a bed must be found and will introduce appropriate access and waiting time standards for urgent and emergency mental health care.

Field testing of access and waiting time standards for urgent and emergency mental health care with 11 sites as part of the clinical review of standards began in October 2019, with much of the work paused by COVID-19. Standards for people with mental health needs in A&E are expected to be included in any new roll out of new A&E access standards. Testing and engagement on new access standards for community crisis services will continue through 2020/21, with an intention to carry out sector engagement on potential new standards during 2021/22.

The NHS Mental Health Implementation Plan 2019/20 to 2023/24 states that all local areas have a workplan and trajectories in place to reduce Out of Area Placements, which will deliver improvements to local systems/bed capacity management. To support sustainable local capacity management beyond 2020/21 and ensure that acute mental health care remains therapeutic and purposeful from the outset, new funding has been secured to increase the level and mix of staff on acute inpatient wards.

Challenging detention

47. The Tribunal should have the power, during an application for discharge, to grant leave from hospital and direct transfer to a different hospital, as well as a limited power to direct the provision of services in the community.

We accept in principle the review's recommendation that the tribunal should be able to grant leave from hospital or direct a transfer to a different hospital when considering a patient's case and we will seek to ensure that this is given effect in the legislation.

Furthermore, in line with the review's recommendation, we want to reflect in legislation that this is not a new appeal right but extends the tribunal's powers, when considering a patient's discharge under their existing rights of appeal.

However, we understand that it may not be possible for health and local authorities to give effect to the tribunal's direction in relation to provision of services in the community. We therefore intend to reflect in legislation that there is an obligation on authorities to take all reasonable steps to follow such a direction and to provide an explanation to the tribunal if they are unable to do so. We propose that healthcare bodies and local authorities should be given a period of 5 weeks to do this.

48. Where the tribunal believes that conditions of a patient's detention breaches the Human Rights Act 1998 they should bring this to the attention of the CQC (or HIW in Wales).

We agree in principle with this recommendation. There is already a process that outlines how a Tribunal judge who believes that the conditions of a patient's detention breach the Human Rights Act 1998 should bring this information to the attention of the CQC (or HIW in Wales). This guidance, published on the judicial intranet, is currently being reviewed by the judiciary. Tribunal medical members are also duty bound by the General Medical Council's 'Good Medical Practice' guidance to "take prompt action" if they believe that a patient's safety, dignity or comfort is being compromised.

49. The Tribunal should be given performance information by their local providers.

We do not accept the recommendation that the tribunal should be provided with performance information about the performance of their local providers.

The Tribunal already receives an extensive documentation to inform their decision making. While the information provided will vary on a case by case basis, in all cases the tribunal will receive a statement of information about the patient, the Responsible Clinician's report and the Social Circumstances report.

We do not consider that receiving general performance information would assist the tribunal in carrying out its legal function in considering whether or not an individual patient meets the statutory criteria for detention or in considering whether appropriate treatment is available for the patient.

50. A statutory power should be introduced for IMHAs and nominated persons to apply for discharge to the tribunal on behalf of the patient.

We accept this recommendation and will introduce a new statutory power for Independent Mental Health Advocates ( IMHAs) to exercise a patient's right to apply on their behalf. This would be in addition to the powers currently held by a patient's Nearest Relative, which we intend will transfer to the new nominated person role.

51. A power should be introduced for SOADs and the CQC to refer a patient to the tribunal following a change in circumstances. This would expand, but not replace the current powers of the Health Secretary under section 67 of the act.

We agree that SOADS should be able to refer patients to the tribunal. We believe that the current powers under section 67 are sufficient to allow SOADs and CQC to do this, by application to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

52. There should be an automatic referral to the tribunal 4 months after the detention started, 12 months after the detention started, and annually after that.

53. For part III patients, automatic referrals should take place once every 12 months.

We agree with the review's recommendations that raising the frequency of automatic referrals would help further ensure that patients have their case heard. We plan to put in place the necessary legal framework to allow the time periods for automatic referrals to change, by introducing a power in the act to do so.

However, this policy, when considered alongside the increased right to apply to the tribunal for patients detained under section 3, and the expansion of Tribunal's function to considering treatment challenges and cases relating to the NP, will place significant additional strain on the tribunal. Making too many requirements on the system at once could lead to delays and long waits to have appeals heard, which risks reducing patients access to the tribunal, rather than increasing it. Prior to making changes to automatic referrals, we therefore need to ensure that the new timeframes for automatic referral proposed by the review are appropriate and ensure there is sufficient capacity in the system to take them forward. We therefore wish to consult on whether the timeframes proposed by the review are appropriate.

Deprivation of liberty: MCA or MHA?

55. A patient could be held in hospital for a statutory period of up to 72 hours under MCA LPS amendments while it is determined whether the person is objecting.

We agree that emergency powers are needed, and particularly in accident and emergency departments. We are consulting on which would be the most suitable legal route to achieve this - either section 4B of the Mental Capacity Act, as recommended by the review, or section 5 of the Mental Health Act.

The review recommended in particular that, because there is no time limit specified under the amended section 4B, that the Department of Health and Social Care place a 72-hour limit in the MCA, which was being amended by Parliament at the time of publication. In the event, this change was not made, but section 4B is available for use when circumstances demand it.

56. Amendments to the MCA, the Codes of Practice, and relevant procedures before the Court of Protection and Tribunal should be made to clarify the position in relation to those in the community subject to both the MCA and the MHA. Dual authorisation under s.17 MHA and DoLS/ LPS should not be required.

We agree with the aims of this recommendation to clarify the procedures of the Court of Protection and the tribunal, but significant work is required to address operational issues. A working group will be established to consider the possibility of cross-ticketing judges to determine issues under both the MHA and DoLS/ LPS regime, where a person is in the community and subject to both the MCA and MHA. We agree also that dual authorisation under section 17 of the act and DoLS/ LPS should not be needed and will clarify in the Code of Practice that this should be the expected approach.

Community treatment orders

57. The criteria for community treatment orders ( CTOs) should be revised in line with detention criteria.

58. The onus should be on the responsible clinician to demonstrate that a CTO is a reasonable and necessary requirement to maintain engagement with services and protect the safety of the patient and others. The evidence threshold should be raised for demonstrating that contact with services has previously declined, and that this led to significant decline in mental health.

We think that these changes will ensure that CTOs are used in a more targeted way and only when patients are likely to genuinely benefit from the structure they provide to help support continued engagement with mental health services.

60. The nominated person/ Interim nominated person will have the power to object to both applications and renewals of CTOs.

We agree with the recommendation that, as well as being consulted on the use of the CTOS, the nominated person or Interim nominated person should have the power to object to their use on behalf of the patient. We are consulting on this and the other proposed additional powers of the nominated person or/ Interim nominated person.

62. CTOs should end after 24 months, though the responsible clinician should be able to make a new application.

We agree with these recommendations. As is the case today, a CTO will be reviewed 6 months after it is made and will then be extendable for a further period of 6 months, and after that point for a further period of 12 months.

64. If no appeal is made to the tribunal in each time period there will be an automatic referral.

As above, we agree that raising the frequency of automatic referrals would help further ensure that patients have their case heard. We plan to put in place the necessary legal framework to allow the time periods for automatic referrals to change, by introducing a power in the act to do so.

However, this policy alongside the increased right to apply to the tribunal for patients detained under section 3, and the expansion of Tribunal's function to considering treatment challenges and cases relating to the NP, will place significant additional strain on the tribunal. Making too many requirements on the system at once could lead to delays and long waits to have appeals heard, which risks reducing patients access to the tribunal, rather than increasing it.

Prior to making changes to automatic referrals, we therefore need to ensure that the new timeframes for automatic referral proposed by the review are appropriate and ensure there is sufficient capacity in the system to take them forward. We therefore wish to consult on if the timeframes proposed by the review are appropriate.

The review, in an unnumbered recommendation, said that patients should be able to 'opt out' of their case being automatically referred to the tribunal, to prevent patients having to go through the tribunal process if they do not feel ready to be discharged. While we can see the value of introducing an opt-out model, we are concerned that an opt-out model could conflict with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires that a system is in place to enable a person or someone on their behalf to access a court for a review of their detention even if they do not object to their detention. For patients who do not want to engage with the tribunal proceedings, perhaps because they might find the process distressing, they are not obliged to do so. We therefore do not intend to take forward this recommendation.

65. The recall criteria should be updated and the process should be reformed to make it simpler.

66. Recall to alternative locations should be considered.

We accept these recommendations. We will seek to revise the criteria for recalling service users on CTOs to reflect our wider changes around detention criteria, so that recall will only be possible when it is needed because there is otherwise a substantial risk of significant harm.

The revised detention criteria would draw on changes to section 3 on which we are consulting.

We agree with the review that the process for recalling service users to hospital must be updated to make it more efficient, transparent and to ensure that this important decision receives appropriate consideration.

We agree that the legislation should broaden the appropriate locations that a patient can be recalled to, in such cases where treatment in a hospital is not needed. Currently, the legislation requires the patient to be recalled to a hospital if they need medical treatment in a hospital setting and if the responsible clinician finds that they have not complied with the conditions of their CTO. We think that when the patient does not require hospital treatment, the location should not be limited to a hospital and should be at the discretion of the responsible clinician.

67. Independent Mental Health Advocate services should be commissioned specifically for people on CTOs that requires providers to proactively approach the patient and offer their services.

We agree with the need to make reforms to CTOs and to review progress. We will seek to make the reforms recommended by the review and to monitor their effects over an initial five year period. We will further review and update Government policy on the use of CTOs in line with the emerging evidence.

Inpatient settings and ward environment

69. Wards should not use coercive behavioural systems and restrictions to achieve behavioural compliance from patients, but should develop, implement and monitor alternatives.

70. Providers should take urgent action to end unjustified use of 'blanket' restrictions applied to all patients.

We accept both of these recommendations. There is a significant cross-Arm's Length Body (ALB) programme of work aimed at reducing restrictive interventions within all NHS commissioned mental health, learning disability and autism services. The programme has been underpinned by three workstreams, which together go some way to addressing the review's recommendations regarding the reduction of coercive behavioural systems and restrictions. While NHS England and NHS Improvement provided the overarching leadership to this programme, the CQC, HEE and Royal College of Psychiatrists were all key players in delivering the individual workstreams, set out below along with progress made to date:

Data definitions and recording - led by NHSEI, the CQC and NHS Digital - which delivered a national set of definitions for restrictive practices and required mandated reporting through the Mental Health Services Data Set (MHSDS) from 2019.

Work continues to improve the data quality of Provider submissions. Revised definitions and new data items have been implemented in Version 4 of the Mental Health Service Data Set (MHSDS) to ensure there is a clear and consistent approach to measuring use of restraint and key related information. Further additions to the data set are expected in Version 5 from October 2021. This will bring reporting in line with the requirements of the Use of Force Act 2018 which include statutory obligations for providers to collect and submit data about their use of restrictive interventions; ensure their staff receive certified training in the use of restrictive interventions; and develop, publish and review a Restrictive Interventions Reduction Programme. Findings from the data collection will inform the next phase of work to reduce restrictive practice.

Training and accreditation: all training providers, commissioned by the NHS to deliver training on use of restraint to mental health and learning disability services, are required to be certified in line with standards developed by the Restraint Reduction Network. These standards have been developed to ensure training promotes human rights and supports necessary cultural change to reduce reliance on restrictive practices, ensuring focus is not purely on technical skills.

Certification of training suppliers commenced in April 2020 with an accredited certification route for Training Providers established with the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS). Work is ongoing to ensure the new training requirements are embedded in future iterations of the NHS Standard Contract, meaning that from April 2021 all providers will be expected to roll out certified training to all staff. Compliance will also be included in CQC regulation.

Quality improvement offer : the Reducing Restrictive Practice ( RRP) collaborative, established in October 2018 by NHS Improvement in partnership with CQC, as part of a wider Mental Health Safety Improvement Programme ( MHSIP), aimed to reduce restrictive practice (measured by number of restraints, seclusions and rapid tranquilisations) in the participating wards. This was delivered through collaboration with experts and experts by experience; the development of tools and resources; testing approaches to deliver trauma informed care; and supporting wards to develop and carry out their own quality improvement plan. 38 wards in hospitals across the country became involved in the collaborative. Each ward had its own QI coach, supported by bimonthly learning sets, with access to specifically designed support materials. Over an 18-month period, there was a 15% reduction in the overall use of restrictive. The collaborative recently published a resource booklet detailing learning to date on reducing the use of restrictive practices.

The cross-ALB programme is now reviewing the plans for national workstreams and developing a refreshed plan of action for 2020-2022. The CQC has recently published a report detailing its findings into a thematic review of restraint, seclusion and long-term segregation. DHSC, NHSE, providers and CQC are developing responses to the recommendations made following this review.

In addition to the specific work underway to reduce restrictive practice, the NHS Long Term Plan also made a funded commitment to improve the therapeutic offer from inpatient mental health settings. Underpinning this commitment is new investment in interventions and activities in hospital, through increased access to multi-disciplinary staff groups such as peer support workers, psychologists, occupational therapists and other allied healthcare professionals throughout an inpatient admission. New funding for this was first made available from March 2020 and will continue to increase until 2023 to 2024. This process will take the interface with the existing Restrictive Interventions Programme into account and identify how improving the therapeutic offer in hospital can contribute to further to reducing coercive behavioural systems and restrictions.

NHSEI will also lead additional scoping with ALB colleagues to identify if further work is required and with which national body this would best sit. This will specifically consider further actions to support ending the use of blanket restrictions by providers, which would build on the existing expectations set out in the act's Code of Practice, that blanket or global restrictions in particular settings should be avoided without very clear justification. There may also be a need to strengthen the existing text on restrictions within the Code of Practice and the CQC's role in monitoring its implementation.

Care planning/aftercare

71. There should be a statutory care plan ( SCP) for people in contact with CMHTs, inpatient care and/or social care services.

The NHS has held a longstanding ambition to support and treat people in the right place, at the right time, shifting more care from acute settings into the community and people's homes. In practice, this means shifting from reactive care towards a focus on prevention, services in place based around early intervention and support in the community. Within social care, there has been a similar development and focus on personalised and strength-based care and support planning since the introduction of the Care Act in 2014.

To enable this, more planned and personalised packages of care are required that can meet the needs of individuals. High-quality care and support plans are the key to delivering this, as they enable people to set their own aims and goals, so they can secure the support and care required to achieve them.

We fundamentally agree with the review's recommendation that all people in contact with community mental health teams, inpatient care and/or social services should have a high quality care plan that identifies their rights and needs from both health and care services. We wish to ensure that this joined-up care plan encompasses the new Statutory care and treatment plan, alongside existing rights under the Care Act, NHS Continuing Healthcare and personalised budgets (and section 117 entitlements if someone has been detained on an eligible section). Prior to placing this on a statutory footing, further work is required to establish how we can best bring the necessary elements of the care plan together.

Currently, the majority of people already receiving a service from secondary mental health services, or receiving social care services, should already have a care and support plan in place, under the Care Programme Approach or the Care Act. Further work is required to understand the reasons why these plans can vary in both quality and frequency and to develop integrated care planning that ensures all areas are covered in one plan. Overcoming these issues will be crucial to delivering high quality care plans to all patients. There have been important developments in personalised health budgets, with a legal right to these under section 117 aftercare, designed to work alongside personal social care budgets.

We intend to explore how the existing care plans interlink to understand how any new statutory care plan could work in practice, while also conducting work to explore how we can ensure that quality of care planning is consistently high, with variation limited. The roll out of the community mental health framework, which supports local areas to develop new models of personalised care and support planning that incorporate the Care Act, will be an important part of this research.

We will also be exploring what further information, guidance and support we can provide to commissioners on care planning and the practicalities and implications that placing care planning on a statutory footing would have on the workforce. This work is ongoing, and we will keep this recommendation under review as this work progresses.

72. There should be a statutory duty for CCGs and local authorities to work together to deliver the SCPs.

77. The effectiveness of joint working arrangements should be subject to monitoring and review by the Care Quality Commission.

Strong co-operation and joint working between local authorities and Clinical Commissioning Groups is essential when delivering both health and social care strategic commissioning plans to meet the needs of their populations, and statutory care plans for individuals. However, we consider that these duties are already in place.

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 established that each Health and Wellbeing Board 'must, for the purpose of advancing the health and wellbeing of the people in its area, encourage persons who arrange for the provision of any health or social care services in that area to work in an integrated manner.' In addition, both the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, specify that local authorities and respective partner CCGs have a duty, through Health and Wellbeing Boards, to prepare Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNAs) and Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies (JHWSs). Statutory guidance on JSNAs and JHWSs, published in 2013, states that JSNAs 'must assess current and future health and social care needs within the health and wellbeing board area and it is important to cover the whole population, and ensure that mental health receives equal priority to physical health'. The membership of Health and Wellbeing Boards must also include representatives of the relevant local authority and a representative of each relevant local CCG, and both must have regard to the JSNA and JHWS as part of their commissioning planning.

Given this, although we agree in principle with the recommendation to create a new statutory duty on joint-working, specifically around statutory care plans, we think this is already covered within existing duties and responsibilities.

Similarly, while we fully agree that the effectiveness of joint working arrangements should be subject to monitoring and review, we believe that this is already possible via existing mechanisms, so we do not think it is necessary to take forward this recommendation. For example, NHSEI has a duty to complete an annual assessment of CCGs, which includes assessing joint working. This is done through the NHS Oversight Framework, which replaced the CCG Improvement and Assessment Framework (IAF) and the provider Single Oversight Framework from 2019/20 and will inform assessment of CCGs going forwards. Similarly, the CQC has previously conducted a series of local system reviews, to assess how services and organisations are working together to care for certain cohorts of people and it has recently launched Provider Collaboration Reviews to identify themes and learning to help providers of local health and care systems work more effectively together.

While we fundamentally agree with this recommendation, it is our view that existing mechanisms in place largely cover this. The focus of our work will therefore be on how we consolidate and strengthen the existing mechanisms in place to assess the effectiveness of joint working arrangements, while exploring further opportunities to enhance this as policy progresses.

However, there is potentially scope to strengthen these duties in the future. For example, if we legislate for integrated personal budgets, which combine social care and health funding around the bespoke needs of an individual, both local authorities and CCGs will have responsibilities to work together to deliver that plan and support the individual, as they currently do for personal budgets and personal health budgets. As work around these areas progresses, we will keep this recommendation under review.

75. There should be a clear statement in the new Code of Practice of the purpose and content of the SCP and section 117 aftercare.

76. There should be national guidance on how budgets and responsibilities should be shared to pay for section 117 aftercare.

We accept these recommendations. We will work in close collaboration with local authorities, ADASS, ADCS, NHSEI and service users to update national guidance so that there is greater clarity on how budgets and responsibilities should be shared to pay for section 117 aftercare. We will also develop a clear statement in the new Code of Practice of the purpose and content of section 117 aftercare.

Hospital managers

78. The managers of the hospital should continue to have the duty to scrutinise applications for detention, and should have a duty to scrutinise renewal documents.

81. The managers of the hospital (those who actually manage the hospital) should continue to have the power to discharge a patient where fundamental errors have been made in either the admission or renewal paperwork.

We accept these recommendations. We agree that hospital managers should continue to scrutinise applications for detention and retain their duty to scrutinise renewal documents. They should also continue to exercise the power to discharge a patient where there are fundamental errors in the admission or renewal paperwork.

79. The power of associate hospital managers to order discharge following a hearing should be removed.

Although we agree with the review that removal of this right would be compensated for by improving the patient's access to the tribunal, we have heard differing views from stakeholders on the effectiveness of Associate Hospital Manager hearings. We therefore wish to consult on whether we should remove the power of Associate Hospital Managers to discharge patients from detention or from a CTO as part of managers' panel hearings.

80. The government and the CQC should consider developing a new independent 'Hospital Visitors' role, the main purpose of which is to monitor day-to-day life in the hospital and ensure that patients are treated with dignity and respect.

We agree with the objective of this recommendation. Instead of creating a new 'Hospital Visitors' role, we wish to look to existing organisations to provide this additional scrutiny.

There are already several established roles which have a duty to monitor services and to support individuals when detained or on a ward. These include IMHAs, peer support workers, CQC's Mental Health Act reviewers and complaints teams.

We are currently considering how to involve the CQC, patients, carers and providers in the next steps we will take to achieve the aims of this recommendation.

Inpatient social environments

82. The CQC should develop new criteria for monitoring the social environments of wards. These criteria should be the yardstick against which wards are registered and inspected and this should be reflected in ratings and enforcement decisions.

The government accepts this recommendation. The CQC is undertaking a programme of work to improve how it assesses the quality (including safety) of inpatient wards. Key topics include ensuring wards are high-quality, safe environments which support recovery, and which are well-led and promote a culture of engagement and co-production.

The CQC has committed to changing its methodology, updating internal guidance and inspection assessment frameworks so that its inspectors focus on the quality of ward social environments, and assess whether wards are therapeutic environments which promote recovery. Further, the CQC is reviewing how it assesses all wards in mental health and learning disability services, informed by its own findings on the quality of inpatient care, as well as the ambitions of the Long Term Plan and the recommendations of the review.

Work will continue with the MH Directors of Nursing forum to communicate changes in guidance and processes to the mental health hospitals sector.

This work, along with the CQC's findings about the quality (including safety) of mental health wards, are intended to be a prominent part of the improvement plan agreed with NHS Mental Health trusts that participate in the Mental Health Safety Improvement Programme led by NHSEI.

83. Patients should have a daily one-to-one session with permanent staff in line with NICE guidelines.

The government agrees with this recommendation. NHSEI acknowledges that daily one-to-one contact with staff is an important part of therapeutic care while in hospital.

Delivery of this recommendation will be supported by NHSEI's Long Term Plan commitment to improve the therapeutic offer of acute inpatient care. To support these improvements in inpatient care, new funding has been secured to increase the level and mix of staff on acute inpatient wards. Increased access to multi-disciplinary staff groups such as peer support workers, psychologists, occupational therapists and other allied healthcare professionals throughout an inpatient admission, will be key to ensuring everyone receives at least daily one-to-one support from ward staff. The commitment is supported by a funding commitment of £46 million by 2023 to 2024.

However, in line with the wording of the review's original report and recognising that clinical teams usually comprise a mixture of permanent and locum staff, contact should not be limited to permanent staff only.

Inpatient physical environments

84. The physical environment of wards needs to be improved, through co-design and coproduction with people of relevant lived experience, to maximise homeliness and therapeutic benefit and minimise institutionalisation.

85. The prompts and guidelines currently used for inspections in the assessment frameworks specific to mental health inpatient care should be reviewed with input from patients and their carers.

87. A review should be undertaken of the physical requirements for ward design for mental health units (for example the building notes, regulatory standards). The design of this review should be co-produced with people with lived experience.

The government agrees with the review's findings that the physical ward environment needs to improve in some local areas.

We will improve the physical environment of hospitals, making them far better places to stay and to work within, and will increase the quality of inpatient care and to nurture a positive staff culture.

Subject to funding, we will explore whether a review of the guidelines could be undertaken. The basis for this review will be informed by the co-production approach established by the Sexual Safety Collaborative, work led by Royal College of Psychiatrists, the CQC, and NHSEI.

86. Risk assessments of issues such as infection control should be designed specifically for mental health inpatient care, and not lifted from other health settings. The unintended psychosocial effects must also be considered.

We accept this recommendation. Ward culture is a vital consideration of how to achieve therapeutic social environments that help people get well. Risk assessments should consider unintended psychosocial effects.

The COVID-19 pandemic has however shown the vital importance of getting infection control right on wards. The safety and the lives of patients must always be the paramount concern of all health services.

88. The backlog of maintenance and repairs needs to be addressed so that mental health facilities are brought up to standard.

89. The government and the NHS should commit in the forthcoming Spending Review to a major multi-year capital investment programme to modernise the NHS mental health estate.

90. All existing dormitory accommodation should be updated without delay to allow patients the privacy of their own room.

91. The definition of single sex accommodation should be tightened up to ensure a genuinely single sex environment with separate access to any shared daytime space.

We agree with these recommendations. The need to improve the physical ward environment has been echoed in the NHS Long Term Plan and the government has responded with a major programme of new investment in psychiatric hospitals. This is a major contribution to our commitment to pursue the most ambitious transformation of mental health care England has ever known.

We have already taken steps to introduce significant new investment to transform the mental health estate so that inpatients can have the privacy and dignity of their own rooms. We are investing over £400 million to rid the estate of dormitory provision and will look to replace 1,200 dormitory beds with new en suite single rooms for patients.

We will build new mental health hospitals. Two new two schemes were approved in October 2020, one in St Ann's in Poole, Dorset, and another in Northgate in Morpeth, Northumberland. There will be more announced in the future. The government has announced investment of over £400 million in improving mental health estate since July 2017, and as set out in the Health infrastructure Plan on 30 September 2019, the government is committed to making further strategic investments to modernise mental health facilities.

Examples of funded projects include:

£72.3 million for Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust to develop a new adult mental health inpatient unit

£33 million to Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust for a 40-bed low secure unit for people with learning disabilities

Both were included in the £850 million capital funding for 20 hospital upgrades announced by the Prime Minister in August 2019.

The government will also tackle the maintenance work that the estate needs.

NHSEI will work with stakeholders from across the sector, including experts by experience, to review whether the guidance and data collection on mixed sex accommodation is adequate for mental health settings. This process will enable us to determine whether the existing guidance needs to be revised, better communicated or measured differently.

Person-centred care

93. Reasonable adjustments should be made to enable people to participate fully in their care, including in relation to communication abilities.

95. The CQC should pay particular regard to obtaining patient (and carer) input from those who might find it difficult to articulate their views, including those in secure and out-of-area placements, those with learning disabilities or autism, children and young people.

We accept this recommendation and the CQC already focuses on this area under its caring domain.

The CQC also looks at the empowerment and involvement principle in detail on their monitoring visits. Over the next year the CQC will be working with people who use services, families, providers, frontline staff and other stakeholders on improving the way that they regulate services where there is a closed culture, or high risk of this developing. This will include making reasonable adjustments for people with communication difficulties.

In addition to the commitments in this White Paper to improve care and treatment, as part of the CQC's work on closed cultures, over the next year it will be working with people who use services, families, providers, frontline staff and other stakeholders to improve the way that they regulate services where there is a closed culture, or a high risk of a closed culture developing.

The CQC's Equality Objective 2 sets out the importance of accessible information and communication.

The CQC is also working to establish ways to strengthen the involvement of patients and carers in inspection assessment frameworks. This includes their inspection and Mental Health Act monitoring methodology.

We are considering the following options for strengthening this and to inform a new coproduction strategy for the act:

greater involvement and scoping new roles for service users and carers in Act monitoring and inspection processes

new roles for Experts by Experience to monitor services outside of inspections, by using local community groups to feed information back on local health and care services

inviting patients and carers to be members of the CQC's internal governance activities to shape our assessment frameworks

expanding current digital methods to engage with service users and carers more frequently

The CQC renewed their Experts by Experience contract in April 2020 which has increased flexibility and scope to use Experts by Experience in inspections, Mental Health Act monitoring visits and in methodology development. The CQC continues to work with their Experts by Experience team to consider how to improve the use of Experts by Experience in their work.

94. A patient's physical health should be monitored, so that physical illness and conditions (for example diabetes and asthma) can be identified and treated.

We accept this recommendation. As part of the NHS Long Term Plan, the NHS has committed to ensuring that 390,000 people with severe mental illness receive a comprehensive physical health check and follow-up intervention annually in line with NICE guidance. CCGs have increased baseline funding over the course of the NHS Long Term Plan to support systems to commission physical health checks and follow up intervention services which span primary and secondary care and the voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector where relevant.

Following the success of the secondary care CQUIN (Commissioning for Quality and Innovation framework) in 2014/15 which incentivised the completion of comprehensive assessment and follow-up interventions in line with the Lester Tool, the requirement to deliver physical health monitoring is now included in the NHS Standard Contract, which states, "The provider must monitor the cardiovascular and metabolic health of Service Users with severe mental illness, in accordance with: NICE clinical guidance CG178 and the Lester Tool and if a need for further treatment or care is indicated, take appropriate action in accordance with Service Condition 8".

Recognition of patient individuality at the tribunal

96. Training should be developed for panel members in specialisms including children and young people, forensic, learning disability, autism, and older people.

We accept this recommendation in principle. The individual needs of the patient should be recognised. Training is currently available to tribunal panel members in a number of specialist areas: autism, risk (including forensic risk), and mental health services for children and young people. From 2020 there will be on training on LGBT issues relevant to the tribunal.

Over the next 3 years, the mandatory training for all judicial office holders will also include modules relating to transcultural psychiatry and the specific issues arising from mental disorders in older people. Any decisions relating to this recommendation are for the judiciary to take forward, through the Judicial College, which is responsible for setting and developing the training for panel members.

97. Statistics should be collected on the protected characteristics of those applying for a Tribunal hearing, and their discharge rates.

We accept this recommendation in principle and it is already being considered as part of the wider HMCTS Reform Program.

HMCTS have committed to collect data on the protected characteristics of people accessing reformed services. This will support the evaluation of reform and help HMCTS meet the public sector equality duty. Work to enable the collection of this data is underway and is taking place in consultation with the Office for National Statistics and other Government departments such as the Race Disparity Unit and Government Equalities Office.

The experiences of people from ethnic minority communities

98. An Organisational Competence Framework and Patient and Carer (Service User) Experience Tool should be implemented across health and care services. This should build upon ongoing work by NHS England to develop the Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework ( PCREF).

We accept this recommendation. The government set out our commitment to introduce a new PCREF in summer 2019. This will support NHS mental healthcare providers to work with their local communities to improve the ways in which patients access and experience treatment. Key to this is monitoring data on equality at board level to facilitate appropriate action.

The PCREF is expected to identify core competencies for culturally aware services and opportunities to advance them. At a local level it will also support services to engage with people from BAME backgrounds to identify which competencies should be prioritised, and whether there are additional localised competencies local services wish to develop and measure.

92. The CQC should review and update their inspection and monitoring of individual treatment and care to provide assurance that it meets the needs of people in different equality groups.

99. Regulatory bodies such as the CQC should use their powers to support improvement in equality of access and outcomes. The EHRC should make use of their existing legal powers to ensure that organisations are fulfilling their Public Sector Equality Duty.

We accept these recommendations and the CQC are working to establish ways to strengthen the involvement of patients and carers in inspection assessment frameworks. This includes the inspection and Mental Health Act monitoring methodology. Through their new equality objective, 'Equal access to care and equity of outcomes in local areas', they aim to focus on the longstanding issue of lack of access to preventative and appropriate mental health services for some BAME people, which may contribute to higher rates of compulsory detention under the Mental Health Act.

CQC has also set out that they will work with EHRC to consider how they can use their regulatory powers to better support improvement in equality of access and outcomes.

EHRC is an independent body and will respond in their own capacity to this recommendation.

100. Culturally appropriate advocacy should be provided consistently for people of all ethnic backgrounds and communities, in particular for individuals of black African and Caribbean descent and heritage.

We accept this recommendation and we have committed to launching a pilot programme of culturally-sensitive advocates in partnership with local authorities and others, to identify how best to represent the mental health needs of ethnic minority groups. The scoping work concluded in summer 2020 and a full pilot programme will follow.

101. Safeguards should be created so that patients are able to continue religious or spiritual practices while detained in hospital. These should prevent the use of restrictive practices that limit a person's access to religious observance.

We accept this recommendation, and staff awareness of religious and spiritual practices is expected to be embedded in the PCREF, as a means of improving the cultural responsiveness of mental health services.

CQC will also take action, if this is not taken into account, as part of its review and inspection process.

102. In line with the NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard programme, greater representation of people of black African and Caribbean heritage should be sought in all professions, in particular psychology and occupational therapy.

103. People of black African and Caribbean heritage should be supported to rise to senior levels of all mental health professions, especially psychiatry and psychiatric research, psychiatric nursing and management.

We accept these recommendations. The government fully supports the need to improve the diversity of the workforce and has a number of programmes to address this.

The Preparation for Work scheme across the NHS aims to improve the representation of people from BAME backgrounds through employability programmes, supported internships and traditional work experience programmes. The NHS Leadership Academy has also developed a programme, Ready Now, to support leaders from ethnic minorities to rise to senior levels within the NHS.

To understand whether these programmes and other similar work is having an impact, it is crucial that we have high quality ethnicity data on the workforce. Health Education England collates ethnicity data on students currently completing HEE's commissioned pre-registration Healthcare programmes and NHS Digital publishes data on the ethnicity of the NHS workforce, highlighting equality and diversity issues within the NHS.

While current work provides a good starting point for improving the diversity of our workforce, we know there is further to go to meet our ambitions, particularly in ensuring more people of black African and Caribbean descent are recruited into the skilled workforce and supported to rise to senior positions. The Interim NHS People Plan, published in July 2019, and the subsequent 2020/21 People Plan both emphasise that the NHS must do more to advance equality and diversity and to develop leaders who have the knowledge, skills and behaviours to create and sustain cultures of compassion and inclusion.

The 2020/21 People Plan, along with the NHS COVID-19 phase three recovery guidance, set out the urgency required to intensify efforts across teams and organisations. They require all local areas to take action to identity a named executive board-level lead for tackling inequalities and to publish action plans to set out how its board and senior staff will at least match in proportion the BAME composition of its overall workforce or community, whichever is higher.

The Mental Health Workforce Equalities Subgroup, set up by HEE in 2019, aims to address the issues raised by the review. The Subgroup, in collaboration with NHSEI's Advancing Mental Health Equalities Taskforce, is working to address the workforce priorities outlined in the NHS Long Term Plan, to develop and implement strategies to enable a more diverse and inclusive mental health workforce that is reflective of the population it serves. This includes workstreams to increase fairness of access to, and inclusion in, mental health training programmes.

HEE is taking steps to improve representation and inclusion in mental health professions, starting with clinical psychology. From 2021, training in clinical psychology will be commissioned so that courses are held to account on targeted improvements in representation, such as the introduction of contextual recruitment processes and positive action initiatives.

The Chief Social Worker, Social Work England, the British Association of Social Workers, the association of Directors and Social Services and the Local Government Association are also committed to supporting the implementation of the recommendations relating to race equality and diversity that affect social work and AMHPs. Scoping work is being undertaken by Skills for Care on workforce race equality to improve the oversight and leadership of this area in social work and social care. The AMHP workforce plan, new AMHP service standards and draft race equality guidelines, which have also been produced, outline how these ambitions can be met by local authorities and principal social workers.

104. Behavioural interventions to combat implicit bias in decision-making should be piloted and evaluated.

106. Funding should be made available to support research into i) the issues that lead to mental disorder in people of a wider range of ethnic minority communities, in particular African and Caribbean individuals; and ii) interventions which improve outcomes.

107. A call for research should be made into tailored early interventions for African and Caribbean children and young people, particularly those at risk of exclusion from school.

In December 2019, the National Institute for Health Research launched an open call for research proposals to take forward these recommendations. Proposals have been reviewed and an announcement on those projects that will be funded under this programme will be made in due course.

105. Data and research on ethnicity and use of the MHA should be improved, with all decisions being recorded and reviewed consistently by organisations involved in the process - in particular criminal justice system organisations and tribunals.

Children and young people

108. Legislation and guidance should make clear that the only test that applies in relation to those aged 16/17 to determine their ability to make decisions in relation to admission and treatment is that contained in the Mental Capacity Act.

The Mental Health Act's Code of Practice's existing guidance allows for the test contained in the MCA as well as for other considerations, but we will look to make improvements to the guidance in future. We are actively considering this recommendation as part of current work to review and update the Mental Capacity Act's Code of Practice.

109. In young people under 16, competence should be understood in this context as the functional test under the Mental Capacity Act, although without the presumption of capacity that applies in relation to those over 16.

For children aged under 16, in all matters of clinical decision making, practitioners need to assess whether a child has 'Gillick competence', which involves considering whether the child has sufficient understanding, maturity and intelligence to enable him or her to fully understand what is proposed and to make a decision about consent.

The review took the view that this professional judgement would benefit from a formal test. It recommended that, although the MCA does not apply to children aged under 16, its functional test, as set out in section 3 of the MCA, could be used as a framework to assess capacity. This would have the advantage of bringing together the same test for all children and young people and would provide a clearer basis of evidence for decisions made on their capacity.

As the review noted, the Code of Practice already takes the principles contained within the section 3 MCA test and recommends that practitioners use them. The government appreciates that there are different opinions about matters to do with children and young people's rights, and for under 16s on the best approach to assess their capacity and competence. These matters are ultimately for the Code of Practice rather than the act itself and will form a particular focus for consultation when we come to review the Code.

111. Government should consult on the ability of parents to consent to admission and treatment for those under 16.

The government agrees with the review's recommendation that young people aged 16 and 17 should not be admitted on the basis of parental consent. Recently, in the case of Re D the Supreme Court held that a parent should not be able to consent to a deprivation of liberty on behalf of their 16 or 17-year-old child.

For those under 16 who lack competence or capacity, parental consent to admit is possible, but is a complex matter about which the courts have ruled that there are limits to the types of decisions that can be made by those with parental responsibility on behalf of their child, and the circumstances in which these decisions can be made. The government is not minded to consult on this complex matter, which it believes is best left to the courts. The Code of Practice currently does not rule out relying on parental consent, but states that it is not advisable. The government will return to this issue in future when it consults on the Code.

112. Every inpatient child or young person should have access to an IMHA who is trained to work with young people and their families.

Patients are eligible for support from an IMHA, irrespective of their age. The commitment to expand advocacy provision to all patients, including informal patients, will likewise apply to all ages. We will explore IMHA training needs as part of the wider commitments to improve advocacy.

113. Every inpatient child or young person should have a personalised care and treatment plan which records the views and wishes of the child or young person on each issue. The government should consider whether there should be a statutory duty for such a plan where the child or young person does not already have either a statutory care plan or a care and treatment plan under the MHA.

114. Initial reviews should take place within 5 days of emergency admission (or 3 days if it is to an adult facility) and at a minimum of 4- to 6-weekly intervals after that.

The government and NHSEI agree with these recommendations. Both relate to service specifications which are already requirements of contracts for the provision of tier 4 children and young people's mental health services. We will legislate to put these on a statutory footing as compulsory elements of such contracts, though this will be taken forward through an alternative legislative route, rather than through the act.

118. The local authority for the area in which the child or young person ordinarily lives should be notified if a child or young person is placed out of area or in an adult ward or if admission lasts more than 28 days. For 'looked after children', paragraph 14.97 of the Code of Practice will continue to apply.

The government agrees that the local authority should be notified when a child or young person is placed in an adult ward or out of area or if an admission lasts more than 28 days. This will be made clear in the Code of Practice.

Where providers are required to notify the CQC, for example where a child/young person is placed in an adult unit, we believe that the current requirement of 48 hours is sufficient.

CQC inspectors, when these notifications are received, contact the provider and/or the CCG to find out more about the care plan including how the patient will be protected and kept safe in an adult environment, how regularly the placement will be reviewed and what plans are in place to make sure the patient is moved on to an appropriate placement as swiftly as possible.

This information is also recorded by NHS Digital. NHSEI, NHS Digital and CQC will keep this issue under review to ensure the most effective process for recording such instances and to ensure that appropriate steps are taken as soon as possible to end such placements.

NHSEI is working to minimise the number of children and young people requiring inpatient care, using new intensive resources more effectively to increase access to services in the community.

Following extensive engagement, NHSEI has identified a need to improve the national distribution of inpatient beds, address urgent gaps as well as a need to provide more effective integrated treatment pathways. Its regional specialised commissioning teams are delivering the Accelerated Bed Programme, which provides a national overview of planned changes to inpatient beds across the seven regions. The programme aims to improve patient outcomes and experience by eliminating inappropriate out of area placements; improving local bed availability aligned with community services; and eliminate inappropriate under-18 placements in adult beds.

116. Government should consider making it a requirement that the parents and families of young people placed out of area are supported to maintain contact.

We agree parents and families should be supported to maintain contact, and the Code of Practice sets out that families should let commissioners know if they are struggling to do so. When next revising the Code of Practice, we will seek to improve guidance in regard to supporting families to maintain contact.

For children who are considered to be accommodated within the meaning of section 85 of the Children Act 1989, that is those who have been placed in hospital for three months or longer, 8A of Schedule 2 of the act places a duty on local authorities to make provision for such services as they consider appropriate, including (at para. 8A(4)(b)) services necessary to enable the child to visit, or to be visited by, members of the family.

117. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 should be amended to clarify that any child or young person admitted to a mental health facility is regarded as a 'child in need' so that parents can ask for services from their local authority.

The government does not accept this recommendation. Section 17 of the Children's Act already covers children or young people who are in need due to mental health needs or related issues. Working Together to Safeguard Children (the statutory guidance for all agencies) is clear that health services should refer cases to children's services where they believe there is a risk to that child's health or development, and that local authorities are responsible for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in their area, regardless of where they are educated or resident.

However, local authority children's services are responsible for setting a local threshold at which individual cases will meet S17 and for assessing cases against that threshold to be deemed a 'child in need'. Disabled children are currently the only group of children in S17 who are deemed to be 'in need' (that is, they are automatically classified as "in need" by virtue of their disability). The definition of disability includes children suffering from a mental disorder of any kind. For any child, being 'in need' under S17 does not bring any guarantee of services - the LA decides what any services will be. There is only a general legal duty to provide appropriate services, rather than an obligation to deliver services of a particular nature.

The government therefore believes that the proposed change would not meet the stated goal. Firstly, this is because a child admitted to a mental health facility will by definition be suffering from a mental disorder and should therefore already be considered to be "in need". Secondly, as the duty owed to children in need under section 17 is a general one, local authorities would not be obliged to provide specific services requested by parents. It may put increased pressure on children's services which are already stretched. Nevertheless, the Department for Education has reviewed the language in Working Together to Safeguard Children to ensure it is clear that hospitals which are responsible for children in this situation should consider whether a referral to children's social care is necessary, and to reinforce local authorities' existing duties to safeguard all children, including those in mental health inpatient settings. Also, this revision will seek to reinforce local authorities ' existing duties to safeguard all children, including those in mental health inpatient settings.

119. Where data is recorded it should be split into age groups.

We agree with this recommendation. The Mental Health Services Data Set (MHSDS) already collects data on the use of the act by age group, and publishes this data annually.

People with learning disabilities and autistic people

120. Health and social care commissioners should have a duty to collaborate to ensure provision of community based support and treatment for people with a learning disability, autism, or both to avoid admission into hospital and support a timely discharge back into the community.

We agree with this recommendation and will consult on new duties to make sure local authority and Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) commissioners ensure an adequate supply of community services for people with a learning disability and autistic people. To give this additional impact, we will also consult on a duty on commissioners to monitor those who are most at risk of admission through the use of dynamic 'risk' or 'support' registers.

In addition, there may be more that can be done specifically in relation to pooling budgets for services for people with a learning disability and autistic people. This consultation will provide an opportunity to explore the challenges around their use and reporting spend on services for people with a learning disability and autistic people.

We agree with this recommendation and are consulting on proposals to limit the scope to detain people with a learning disability or autistic people under the act.

We want to ensure that people receive high quality and safe care that is the most appropriate for them, recognising that learning disability and autism cannot be removed through treatment while some people with a learning disability and autistic people may require treatment for a mental illness. We propose that the Mental Health Act be revised to make clearer that for the purposes of the act autism or a learning disability are not considered to be mental disorders warranting compulsory treatment under section 3 of the act.

The revisions would allow for people with learning disability and autistic people to be detained for assessment under section 2 of the Mental Health Act where their behaviour is so distressed that there is a substantial likelihood of significant harm to self or others (as for all detentions) and there is probable mental health cause to that behaviour that warrants assessment in hospital.

We envisage that the process of admission for assessment of people with learning disabilities and autistic people should be very different in future reflecting its use only when other options have been tested and with a presumption that detention should be avoided wherever possible. Detention for assessment should only be considered after all alternatives to de-escalate have been exhausted. The assessment should be reasonably adjusted to accommodate the sensory and specific needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people.

We propose to introduce these changes only for civil patients under Part II of the act. This is to ensure that accused people and offenders whom the courts or the Secretary of State might currently divert to an inpatient mental health setting are not forced into the criminal justice system which is not able, or indeed intended, to cater for their needs.

Assessment under section 2 should seek to identify the driver of this behaviour. If it is identified that a mental health condition is the driver, there may be continued justification for detention under section 3 of the MHA. Where the driver of this behaviour is not considered to be a mental health condition, for example due to an unmet support need, unmet social or emotional need, or an unmet physical health need grounds for a detention under the MHA would no longer be justified and the detention should cease.

We would expect that a community Care, (Education) and Treatment Review ( CETR) is carried out in advance of a detention and that evidence from such a CETR is considered as part of any decision to admit.

122. care and treatment reviews should be given statutory force in the MHA.

We agree that care and treatment reviews (CTRs) should be given statutory force. The responsible clinician will be required to take into account the findings and recommendations made as part of CTRs in the patient's statutory care and treatment plan, including any explanation as to why the CTR recommendations have not been followed.

123. The Mental Health Services Dataset should include specific data to monitor the number of detentions and circumstances surrounding that detention of people with autism, learning disabilities or both.

We agree that we should continue to improve the MHSDS in this respect. There is a single flag for learning disabilities and autism in the MHSDS data. The quality of this data will continue to improve over time, as NHS Digital continues to make wider data quality improvements to the MHSDS, as well as improvements to the methodology of tagging of learning disabilities and autism data. We will work towards splitting of learning disabilities and autism so that both are separately identifiable in the data. We will continue discussions on this matter as part of wider conversations on future MHSDS work packages. We will also consider how activity related to recommendation 146 might be able to support these ambitions in the longer term.

Policing

124. By 2023 to 2024 investment in mental health services, health-based places of safety and ambulances should allow for the removal of police cells as a place of safety in the act and ensure that the majority of people detained under police powers should be conveyed to places of safety by ambulance. This is subject to satisfactory and safe alternative health based places of safety being in place.

The government accepted this recommendation in June 2019 and committed to take further steps to end the use of police cells and remove them from the definition of a 'place of safety' under the act by 2023 to 2024.

Before we can do this, we want to ensure that the health system is ready. This may require new capital funding to be available to provide the estate needed, including additional health-based places of safety in areas that need it.

125. Ambulance services should establish formal standards for responses to section 136 conveyances and all other mental health crisis calls and ambulance commissioners and ambulance trusts should improve the ambulance fleet, including commissioning bespoke mental health vehicles.

We agree with this recommendation. A national programme to develop standards and specifications where required, and to provide implementation support, is under way as new funding became available in CCG baselines from 2020/21. There is a specific focus on defining and sharing good practice and ensuring that the improvements made to ambulance response align with the overarching Long Term Plan vision for integrated urgent care and a universal single point of access.

The NHS Long Term Plan has committed to a dedicated national investment programme to improve the capacity and capability of the ambulance service to meet mental health demand. This will see £70m additional revenue investment by 2023 to 2024 for additional mental health professionals to deliver mental health specific initiatives and extra capacity in ambulance services, such as having mental health staff based in NHS 111/999 (Integrated urgent care) control rooms to improve telephone triage and support, as well as a national programme to increase mental health training and education of ambulance staff.

The Long Term Plan also outlines its commitment to introduce new mental health transport vehicles to reduce inappropriate ambulance conveyance or by police to A&E, subject to future decisions on capital investment.

126. The responsibilities of NHS commissioners under section 140 of the act must be discharged more consistently and more effectively, so that emergency beds are available.

We agree with this recommendation. The Chief Social Worker's office has written to all Directors of Social Services to ask them to work with their colleagues in the local CCG or Integrated Care System (ICS) to ask them to develop local guidelines in relation to the availability of inpatient beds in cases of special urgency. We will be reviewing progress on this issue.

127. NHS England should take over the commissioning of health services in police custody.

Each police force is legally responsible for procuring their own healthcare provision for people in police custody. Following Dame Elish Angiolini's report on serious incidents and deaths in custody, which originally recommended this, we are currently exploring various options for raising the healthcare standards in all police custody suites so that they are in-keeping with national NHS standards and are appropriately monitored.

Work in respect of the future of healthcare commissioning is being taken forward as part of the programme being overseen by the Ministerial Deaths in Custody Board. We are considering two options; transfer to NHSEI, or adding health specialist support to the police commissioning process. These options have also been consulted on with the National Police Chiefs Council, and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners.

This is also subject to wider decisions around police budgets and funding.

128. Equality issues, particularly police interactions with people from ethnic minority communities under the MHA, should be monitored and addressed. This should be under the proposed Organisational Competence Framework where possible.

The police currently employ a range of mechanisms and monitoring to ensure effective engagement with people from BAME backgrounds. The Home Office and police will await the development and implementation of the new NHS Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework and consider whether this provides a model for helpful enhancements to police systems.

Patients in the criminal justice system

We recognise that the powers available in the magistrates' court to divert defendants towards appropriate support are currently limited. We will consider the proposed changes alongside the wider reforms suggested by the Law Commission in their 'Unfitness to Plead' report. This recommended greater alignment between the Crown Court and magistrates' courts in managing defendants who lack capacity to participate effectively in a criminal trial. We need to consider both sets of recommendations together, as such, we will defer our final decision on this to a later date.

130. Prison should never be used as 'a place of safety' for individuals who meet the criteria for detention under the Mental Health Act.

The government agrees with the review that prisons should not be used as a place of safety in cases where courts divert defendants requiring care and treatment in an inpatient setting to prison, because there is no hospital bed available. However, further work is needed before we can take this forward.

We will work with sentencers, health service commissioners and clinicians to ensure that there is a clear, timely pathway in which sentencers have confidence to transfer people directly from court to a healthcare setting where a mental health assessment and treatment can be provided, under the relevant section of the act. Before moving to amend the legislation to embed these changes we will need to ensure that viable alternatives are properly established and commissioned. We will consider introducing guidance for the courts and will ensure that the necessary adaptations and investment are in place before legislative changes are commenced as a final step to delivering this objective.

131. A new statutory, independent role should be created to manage transfers from prisons and immigration removal centres.

132. The time from referral for a first assessment to transfer should have a statutory time limit of 28 days. We suggest that this could be split into two new, sequential, statutory time limits of 14 days each: i) from the point of initial referral to the first psychiatric assessment; ii) from the first psychiatric assessment until the transfer takes place (this incorporates the time between the first and second psychiatric assessment and the time to transfer).

We accept the time limit set out by the review (28 days), and agree that this should be statutory, but do not plan to legislate in relation to this immediately, to allow time for the new NHSEI guidance on secure transfer and remission to be properly embedded. We are consulting on what other safeguards need to be in place before we can implement this.

We will also develop a stronger monitoring system to enable us to better understand and provide greater transparency on how the transfer process is working.

133. Decisions concerning leave and transfer of restricted patients should be categorised by the Ministry of Justice according risk and complexity. Straightforward and / or low risk decisions should be taken by the responsible clinician. The Ministry of Justice would have 14 days to override this decision.

We accept the goals of this recommendation to speed up decisions on leave and transfer of restricted patients, but we think that this is best achieved through work that is already underway and is delivering significant progress. While the Independent Review of the MHA was in progress, the MHCS in HMPPS took significant steps to reduce the length of time it takes to consider applications for consent from responsible clinicians.

The backlog which existed during the early stages of the review was eradicated by May 2018 through additional resource and process improvements.

In July 2019 MHCS published, for the first time, targets for timeliness of decisions and during their first year in place; nine out of thirteen targets were met. MHCS were clear from the outset that these were challenging targets and continue to work with partners and stakeholders to make further improvements to performance.

134. The new statutory care and treatment plan should include a plan for readmission and consider what factors should be taken into account concerning use of informal admission, section 2 and recall.

We agree and propose including this in care and treatment plans. We are consulting on the proposed content.

135. The powers of the tribunal should be expanded so that they are able, when deciding not to grant an application for discharge, to direct leave or transfer.

This recommendation was made in regard to restricted patients only. We do not believe that it is in line with principles of the Restricted Patient regime to empower the tribunal to direct leave or transfer. The Justice Secretary's role is to oversee the safe management of mentally disordered offenders diverted into hospital for treatment and ensure the right balance is struck between public protection and the patient's right to treatment. However, we do consider that it would be appropriate to empower the tribunal, to make a statutory recommendation in relation to community leave or transfer to a different hospital, which the Justice Secretary must consider when taking such decisions

136. The government should legislate to give the tribunal the power to discharge patients with conditions that restrict their freedom in the community, potentially with a new set of safeguards.

Further work is needed to identify the best way to take this forward and we are using the consultation to inform our approach. We are seeking views on the introduction of a new power to discharge a specific group of restricted patients (who are no longer therapeutically benefitting from detention in hospital, but whose risk could only be managed safely in the community with constant supervision), with conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty, in order to adequately and appropriately manage the risk they pose.

137. There should be an automatic referral for people on conditional discharge to the tribunal after 12 months and at regular intervals after that for patients who have not applied directly.

We think that an automatic referral at 12 months after receiving the conditional discharge, as recommended by the review, is too soon. We propose instead automatic referral at 2 years following receipt of the conditional discharge would be more reasonable. We also propose that 4 years would be a reasonable 'regular interval' for conditional discharge patients to be automatically referred to the tribunal. We are consulting on whether these timelines are appropriate.

138. The government should consider giving the Parole Board Tribunal status and combining hearings where appropriate. At the very least the government should streamline processes so that hearings could be convened back to back.

Consideration of the Parole Board's status and whether it should be part of the unified tribunals system will now be fully addressed in the government's 'root and branch' review of the parole system.

The government accepts the second part of the recommendation and cross-agency work is underway to test options to streamline processes where an individual is subject to both a Tribunal and a Parole Board hearing.

139. There should be a common framework for assessment of risk across criminal courts, clinicians and the Justice Secretary. The assessment needs to be regularly reviewed (at least annually and before every Tribunal hearing). Every patient should have written into the care and treatment plan what their risk levels are.

The government does not believe that a common framework for risk is appropriate across courts, clinicians and the Justice Secretary, as we think that the different approach they take is legitimate. The primary concern of the Criminal Courts and the Secretary of State for Justice is the protection of the public from serious harm. Clinical assessments are primarily concerned with the best interests of the patient and their recovery and consider both harm to self as well as harm to others.

It is the design and purpose of the restriction order that recognises the possibility that the Secretary of State will come to a different conclusion than the responsible clinician as to whether the likelihood of the risk of harm can be safely managed, or indeed the seriousness of the harm that could be caused. We do not therefore consider it appropriate to harmonise the approach to risk.

Immigration detention

140. The new statutory, independent role for prison transfers should be extended to consider the least restrictive option for immigration detainees, including treatment in the community, informal admission and civil sections of the MHA.

We agree that any role created to oversee prison transfers should also apply to Immigration Removal Centres. We are considering how we take this recommendation forward, along with recommendations 22b) and 131, which are closely related.

Victims

141. In accordance with the review, we wish to ensure victims of serious offences committed by offenders suffering from a mental disorder receive the information to which they are entitled. This should deliver equity of rights for victims of mentally disordered offenders ( MDOs) comparable to those of victims of offenders in the prison system.

The UK government's Victims' Strategy committed to reviewing and improving the processes by which victims of mentally disordered offenders ( MDOs) are given information. We're aware that there is currently inconsistent provision of information to victims of those offenders who become subject to the act without a restriction order (unrestricted patients) whom courts do not consider to represent a serious risk of harm to the public (and so need not be subject to a restriction order). This is true both in the level of information and the way it's provided. Informed by responses to the public consultation in 2019 and 2020 on a revised Victims' Code, government considers it appropriate to offer the services of VLOs to victims of unrestricted patients. This is reflected in the new Victims' Code published on 18 November and which comes into force on 1 April 2021.

Victims in England and Wales are currently unable to submit a VPS to the tribunal. The government is continuing to engage with key stakeholders on whether it would be appropriate to give victims this right. We are continuing to engage with key stakeholders on options that would enable policy change to allow victims to submit a VPS to the tribunal.

System-wide enablers

Data

142. An agreed, accurate national baseline of use of the MHA should be established following a pilot programme to develop robust methodology.

We and delivery partners agree and fully support the idea of developing a baseline of act data. This must cover both overall use of the act and issues of equality. The key indicators that should be baselined and the data required to report that, will be informed by the consultation.

143. A new official national dataset of AMHP activity should be created and integrated into the NHS Digital Mental Health Services Data Set.

A comprehensive review of AMHP and assessment activity under the act was recommended by the review and by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Mental Health Social Work in 2018.

Skills for Care have updated their AMHP data collection process and are due to publish a more comprehensive annual picture of the AMHP workforce than was previously available.

However, there is no annual national data on the number of Mental Health Act assessments, the details of MHA activity and the outcomes of these assessments. Much of the data is available locally but is collected and maintained in a variety of settings and formats.

We will seek to commission work, to be developed in partnership with the sector, NHSX, NHSD and other stakeholders, on an appropriate data collection. This work needs to include (but not be limited to), defining a data specification, collection mechanism, exploration of synergies with existing collections and technology, appraisal of technical and governance challenges to flowing data across traditional domain boundaries and an assessment of the wider strategic fit with the evolving national data strategy within social care and beyond.

144. Key data from the NHS Digital Mental Health Services Data Set should be published monthly, as close to real time as possible.

The government has acted on this recommendation. NHS Digital now publishes, as of October 2020, monthly data on the uses of the act. This includes new measures on the number of detentions, number of short term orders, number of uses of section 136 and number of CTOs.

Data on people subject to the act is published monthly via the Mental Health Services Data Set.

145. Data on police use of detention powers under the MHA (sections 135 and 136) should be published on a quarterly basis as close to real time as possible and include new data on delays.

While recognising the potential value of being able to obtain current data to inform service development, this would entail significant additional bureaucratic burdens on police forces and the quality assurance and auditing processes associated with the current annual publication. The Home Office therefore considers that the disadvantages of the administrative efforts involved would outweigh any potential benefits of a more frequent collection, and does not propose, routinely, to increase the current frequency of police data reporting.

However, to assist health partners, where there is a specific need for s135 or s136 data to inform upcoming health services policy or operational decisions, police forces will, to the best of their ability, collate and share from their data bases, available data to assist with this.

While we are supportive of the ambition to do more to bring together and link different datasets, given the complexity of the act's data landscape (with a number of different sources held by different delivery partners) further consideration is required to decide how best to do this. Options could include a dedicated data hub as recommended, expanding an existing data tool to incorporate data on use of the act, or lighter touch options such as a cross-data sharing model drawing on the powers from the Digital Economy Act or indirect linking of information through overlapping of data. The type of data that should be included will influence and shape which option might be most appropriate.

Delivery partners are fully engaged and committed to exploring the options and working collaboratively to improve collective understanding of the MHA user data.

147. The NHS, Home Office / policing and local authorities should work towards standardising ethnicity categories. This could be extended to all public sector reports including ethnicity.

We agree in principle with this recommendation. As part of wider work on harmonising ethnicity classifications, the Race Disparity Unit ( RDU) is working with the Office for National Statistics ( ONS) to align the government's approach to collecting ethnicity data with the proposed classification to be used in the 2021 Census.

The RDU and the ONS are engaging with departments and agencies so that those responsible for administrative systems that record ethnicity can set out their commitment to use the 2021 Census classification. This will include supporting the NHS, police, criminal justice systems and Tribunals to work towards their respective ethnicity reporting systems reflecting the 2021 Census classifications (for example the NHS Data Dictionary).

The RDU and the ONS are engaging with departments and agencies so that once the Census Order is approved, those responsible for administrative systems that record ethnicity can set out their commitment to use the 2021 Census classification. This will include supporting the NHS, police, criminal justice systems and Tribunals to work towards their respective ethnicity reporting systems reflecting the 2021 Census classifications (for example the NHS Data Dictionary).

Digital

148. NHS England should build on the work of the Mental Health Trust Global Digital Exemplars and other trusts to test, evaluate and roll-out a fully digitised, consistent approach to the MHA.

149. Work should be carried out to streamline activity undertaken between NHSE, NHSD, NHSI, CQC, Tribunals and providers, to include improved digitisation of notifications such as early discharge to avoid late cancellation of tribunal hearings.

Digital transformation is at the heart of the NHS Long Term Plan and is a key enabler for high quality personalised, mental health care. This includes the delivery of a modern Mental Health Act. The changes we have made in legislation to allow for the digitisation of statutory forms under the MHA, pave the way for the significant transformation committed to in the Long Term Plan. It is through the wider digital transformation agenda that all mental health providers are expected to progress to core levels of digitisation by 2024.

While digital change typically flourishes under local leadership, it is clear a consistent, standard approach is required to the Mental Health Act pathway. Delivery partners across DHSC, NHSX and NHSEI are fully committed to progressing this recommendation. Guidance to support this is in development, but our expectation is that this will include:

In addition, we are also piloting a digital solution to improve communication between MH wards and MHA tribunals in a local area. If successful, innovation will be shared with other trusts.

Quality improvement (QI)

150. NHS Improvement and NHS England should fund the establishment of a national Quality Improvement (QI) programme relating specifically to the Mental Health Act.

The scoping phase will identify the specific Act reforms which are most likely to benefit from a QI approach, but areas of focus may include improved care planning, reducing inequalities, improved partnership working, improved assessment processes, greater levels of safety, and the dignity and respect experienced by service users.

The QI programme will seek to empower clinicians, ward staff and people with lived experience to take ownership of, and benefit from positive change, through improving people's experiences of assessment and detentions under the act.

Once developed and tested, subject to funding, the programme will be rolled out to support all mental health providers and local systems, nationally.

We support this recommendation in principle and would like to explore how extending the monitoring role of the CQC to cover how the act and Code is working could improve the quality (including safety) of care delivered, with due consideration given to the roles of other national bodies.

We expect the recommendations to complement the wider work being taken forward to improve the quality (including safety) of patient care.

Staffing

152. The factors that affect the timely availability of section 12-approved doctors and AMHPs should be reviewed and addressed.

Research has also been commissioned to explore the factors promoting and inhibiting the accessibility of S12 Approved Doctors to participate in Act assessments in England and Wales.

HEE has commissioned NHS Benchmarking to undertake a review of the mental health social work workforce (including AMHPs) across NHS MH trusts, CCGs and local authorities. The findings have been published and are available via the HEE website.

153. The government should consider introducing a minimum waiting time standard for the commencement of an MHA assessment.

The NHS Long Term Plan set out that field testing of appropriate waiting time standards for urgent and emergency mental health will inform publication of national standards.

As highlighted in the response to recommendation 46, field testing of access and waiting time standards for urgent and emergency mental health care, with 11 sites as part of the clinical review of standards began in October 2019, much of the work paused by COVID-19. Standards for people with mental health needs in A&E are expected to be included in any new roll out of new A&E access standards. Testing and engagement on new access standards for community crisis services will continue through 2020/21, with an intention to carry out sector engagement on potential new standards during 2021/22.

154. NHS England and NHS Improvement should consider the implications of the evidence linking staff morale and patient experience in the context of detained patients, and take action accordingly.

The government and NHSEI agree that improving staff experience can have a significant impact on the quality of patient care, as well as boosting staff morale and retention. This is why the NHS is striving to be a beacon of good practice in helping staff maintain and improve their physical and mental health and wellbeing through the Improving Health and Wellbeing programme. This programme embeds NHSEI's evidence-based NHS staff health and wellbeing framework which provides trusts with diagnostic tools and suggested interventions to help them improve access to services for those staff who need this support.

The programme is being rolled out across 22 NHS trusts delivering mental health services and aims to have a positive impact on staff morale, thereby potentially improving the experience of all patients including those who are detained. We are planning to roll out this programme across the remainder mental health trusts over the next 3 years.

Further, the COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique and unprecedented challenge for many health and social care staff, who are caring for people in unfamiliar and challenging clinical and support roles. It is therefore essential that staff can get rapid access to mental health support when required. NHSEI has developed a specific national support offer which is available at people.nhs.uk for NHS staff which includes the following:

a dedicated health and care staff support service including confidential support via phone and text message

a specialist bereavement support helpline for those who have sadly lost friends and family - whether from COVID-19 or otherwise

a specialist app for BAME colleagues, Liberate, to manage anxiety and stress levels

online resources, guidance and webinars

piloting a specialist relationship counselling service with the charity Relate

partnered with MaPS to launch a financial well-being offer

A comprehensive mental health offer is also in development, following investment from NHSEI to strengthen mental health support for healthcare staff in all local areas, and ensure rapid access to evidence based mental health services, this includes the following:

centrally commissioned service for people with complex needs: a national support service particularly for critical care staff who research suggests are most vulnerable to severe trauma

mental health and wellbeing hubs: nationwide outreach and assessment services, ensuring staff receive rapid access to evidence based mental health services; developing wellbeing and psychological training, set to be rolled out this winter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is two years since Professor Sir Simon Wessely delivered his landmark Independent Review of the Mental Health Act. This set out what needs to change in both law and practice in order to deliver a modern mental health service that respects the patient's voice and empowers individuals to shape their own care and treatment.

# data[].attributes.headline
2022 Webinar - Barriers to user involvement in mental health policy and provision

# data[].attributes.subject
2022 Webinar - Barriers to user involvement in mental health policy and provision

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Challenging barriers to user involvement in mental health policy and provision

# data[].attributes.headline
LGA Standards for Employers of Social Workers.

# data[].attributes.subject
LGA Standards for Employers of Social Workers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Why do we need the Standards for Employers?

Good social work can transform people's lives and protect them from harm. In order to achieve consistently high-quality outcomes for service users and their carers, social workers must have and maintain the skills and knowledge to establish effective relationships with children, adults and families, professionals in a range of agencies and settings, and be the key connectors in communities.

Employers should implement a whole systems approach to supporting the social work profession. These Standards set out the key components of whole systems approaches, and employers can use them, along with an appropriate supervision framework, to help develop a working environment where social work practice and social workers can flourish, in turn supporting recruitment and retention.

What are they?

These are Standards, which set out the shared core expectations of employers which will enable social workers in all employment settings to work effectively and safely. These expectations are being incorporated within self-regulation and improvement frameworks for public services. All employers providing a social work service should establish a monitoring system by which they can assess their organisation's performance against this framework, set a process for review and, where necessary, outline their plans for improvement.

Strategic lead social workers/principal social workers must understand and manage the organisational responsibility across all Standards. Employers should ensure their systems, structures and processes promote equality and do not discriminate against any employee.
Who do they apply to?

The Standards are relevant to all employers of social workers. They relate to all registered social workers employed within an organisation, including managers and social work students. Though the landscape in which social work is delivered is changing, it is expected that these Standards will be relevant in all settings and however social workers are employed as well as applying to social workers within the education and training sector. More information on how these Standards apply to health and care organisations is available from Health Education England.

How were they developed?

Partners across the sector developed these Standards between 2009 and 2012 as part of the Social Work Reform Board. The LGA hosts the Standards on its website on behalf of the sector and continues to work with stakeholder partners on their regular review through the Standards for Employers Working Group. The Group membership in March 2020 is listed in the Stakeholder section. The Standards have been refreshed in May 2014 and March 2020.

Standards at a glance

Standard 1 - Strong and clear social work framework
Standard 2 - Effective workforce planning systems
Standard 3 - Safe workloads and case allocation
Standard 4 - Wellbeing
Standard 5 - Supervision
Standard 6 - Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
Standard 7 - Professional registration
Standard 8 - Strategic partnerships

Standard 1 - Strong and clear social work framework

This Standard is about promoting a clear statement about the principles that constitute good social work practice, and how those principles function across the full range of social work settings.

It outlines the ways in which each organisation can achieve and maintain the theories, skills, research and evidence that underpin it at strategic and operational levels.

Employers should have in place a strong and clear social work accountability and assurance framework that promotes reflection and learning from experience, evidence and research of outcome-focused social work practice and from the voices of children, adults and families.

Social work is a difficult and challenging activity that involves working with uncertainty and complexity. Social workers need a supportive environment in which to work where learning and reflection upon practice is fundamental.

Strategic accountability

All employers should:

1. develop, maintain and review regularly a statement setting out the purpose, vision, values and outcomes sought for social work in the organisation

2. establish and communicate a clear model for social work practice based on evidence of what works, setting out how the organisation will work.

3. ensure the model considers issues such as balancing strengths, needs and uncertainty and how social workers are supported to exercise professional judgement and creativity

4. ensure that this approach is developed and regularly reviewed with its workforce and with those who use its service.

5. ensure the approach is shared with, discussed and understood by partner organisations and by people who use the services

6. ensure that leaders and senior managers are held to account for ensuring that the right conditions exist in the organisation to support and allow the delivery of excellent social work in line with the agreed approach.

Operational accountability

All employers should:

1. ensure that the culture of the organisation promotes learning and accountability through high support and high challenge that encourages a safe place for reflection and continual improvement

2. put in place a system to gather, collate, analyse and act upon the views of children, families and adults who experience social work intervention so that learning and feedback about impact and outcomes informs continuous development, refinement and improvement of practice and services

3. ensure that mechanisms are in place to listen to and respond to the views of practitioners on a regular basis, including undertaking an annual health check to ensure the organisation remains a place where the right environment and conditions exist to support best social work practice

4. ensure that there is a principal social worker or similar senior leader who promotes and develops best practice while ensuring that employer standards are maintained and enhanced, and can report concerns or barriers to good social work direct to senior leaders

5. ensure a strong focus on social work recruitment, retention and workforce planning and development so that the organisations seek the necessary social work skills, capacity and expertise to meet the needs of those it serves

6. ensure that systems are in place so that regular performance data (qualitative and quantitative), learning from case audit, peer review and inspection, as well as the voices of those using the service and practitioners are considered and acted upon by senior leaders

7. ensure that there are effective opportunities for social workers to learn and develop including bespoke ASYE support and a career progression scheme based on evidenced good practice

8. promote understanding about the unique and complex role of social work to partners, politicians, the public and practitioners in all public services such as schools, NHS and Police

9. support social workers to access courses and development opportunities, including time to undertake CPD (Standard 6), and support them to engage with professional bodies and trade unions

10. provide planned support to help social workers return to work after a period of long absence

Useful resources

Standard 2 - Effective workforce planning systems

This standard is about using effective workforce planning systems to make sure that the right number of social workers, with the right level of skills and experience, are available to meet current and future service demands. Employers should have a strategy to promote, and take concrete steps to improve, diversity across all levels through the organisation.

Employers should be able to show that they have appropriate workforce planning systems in place in order to meet the needs of local communities now and in the future.
Effective workforce planning systems should both determine immediate staffing requirements and help to ensure that sufficient numbers of social workers are trained to meet future demand. These should be based on an understanding of the factors that influence need and demand, including the size and specific circumstances of the local population. Workforce planning procedures should be regularly monitored and reviewed.

Employers should:

1. undertake an assessment of current and future need and feed this data into local, regional and national workforce planning

2. ensure that workforce planning systems involve strategic partnerships with higher education institutions and other agencies

3. ensure that social workers have the right knowledge and skills at practitioner, practice supervisor and practice leader levels, as required under the Post Qualifying Standards for Social Work in Adult Social Care and the post-qualifying standards: knowledge and skills statements for child and family social workers.

4. build a clear practice methodology based on an up to date understanding of the required knowledge and skills base for social workers

5. provide good quality practice placements and practice educators as well as other types of practice learning, and effective workplace assessment to help ensure that the right numbers of new social workers of the right calibre are trained

6. engage the social work education sector in order to facilitate exchanges of personnel and expertise

7. facilitate further learning and development across partner agencies.

Useful resources
Practice Educator Professional Standards Refresh
Social Work England placement guidance
Guide to integration
KSS

Standard 3 - Safe workloads and case allocation

This Standard is about ensuring employees do not experience excessive workloads, resulting in unallocated cases and long waiting times for individuals.

All employers should:

1. use a system which has been agreed jointly with social work practitioners and line managers to set transparent safe working levels in each service area and enhances more direct relationship-based practice

2. ensure each social worker's workload is regularly assessed, with the social worker, to take account of work complexity, individual worker capacity and time needed for supervision (Standard 5) and CPD (Standard 6)

3. ensure that cases are allocated transparently, with prior discussion with the individual social worker, and with due consideration to experience and existing caseloads.

4. ensure that a social worker's professional judgment about workload capacity issues is respected in line with the requirements of their professional registration (Social Work England professional standards) which refer to the requirement for a social worker to declare to the appropriate authority anything that might affect their ability to carry out their role competently to avoid affect -their fitness to practise

5. take contingency action when workload demand exceeds staffing capacity and report regularly to strategic leaders about workload and capacity issues within services.

6. publish information about average caseloads (and their complexity) for social workers within the organisation as part of the SW Health Check (Standard 1)

Useful resources

Standard 4 - Wellbeing

This Standard is about promoting a positive culture for employee wellbeing and supporting social workers to have the practical tools, resources and the organisational environment they need to practice effectively and safely.

Employers should create and encourage a culture of wellbeing and self-care that is available for all social workers, including preventative strategies, information about a range of wellbeing tools and work based wellbeing activities available to them. Induction, team meetings and organisational communication sources should be used not just to offer support when difficulty arises but also to signpost what is available to support social workers to thrive.
Employers should be committed to breaking down mental health stigma in the workplace and managers should use wellness action plans or alike that offer the possibility of discussion about what helps people keep well, what supports their wellbeing and resilience at work and where to get help.
Employers need to be consciously aware of the emotional demands inherent in social work and how they can affect wellbeing. Employers need to understand the ways in which work-related stress can impact on employees' emotional resilience when working within complex systems and with people, children, families and carers at times of crisis.

Reflective supervision can enable staff to process the complex emotional demands that they may experience and can be used to understand which cases or circumstances may be impacting on the social workers wellbeing. Supervision should be utilised to encourage open conversations with consideration of action, appropriate adjustments and an offer of support.

Employers need to champion wellbeing in the workplace and develop a culture where open discussion about the emotional demands of the work is normalised and peer to peer support activities are facilitated. Employers should develop policies that support those with mental health problems and support them to come forward and offer appropriate support. Initiatives such as the introduction of Wellbeing Champions and peer support groups in the workplace have been used in other sectors to great effect.

Strategic accountability

All employers should:

1. foster a culture of openness and inclusion in the organisation that empowers social workers to make appropriate professional judgements within a supportive environment. (Standard 5)

2. be responsive to workforce needs and be proactive and creative by working with social workers and others in their organisation to develop a wellbeing framework that supports social workers to thrive at work.

3. enable social workers and managers to raise concerns about inadequate resources, operational difficulties, workload issues or their own skills and capacity for direct work with children, adults and family without fear of recrimination.

4. enable social workers to engage with their professional association, regulator and trade union (if a member)

5. put in place and support flexible working arrangements

6. promote learning and development opportunities including, for example, secondments with relevant partner organisations

Work environment

All employers should:

1. make quality time and a confidential, private space available for formal supervision, informal confidential professional discussions between colleagues, break-out areas and team meetings (this includes how you operate telephone and video-conferencing)

2. have a suitable space for confidential interviews with adequate safety measures to protect practitioners.

3. have in place caring and effective systems for reporting and responding to concerns raised by social workers and managers so that risks are assessed, and preventative and protective measures are taken to ensure the social worker is keeping safe and well.

Safety

Employers should provide a safe and effective working environment for social workers where the safety and welfare needs are met. They should:

1. have robust violence, aggression and lone worker policies and guidance to ensure that social workers can do their jobs safely. Employers and managers along with social workers should ensure that the risks of violence, harassment and bullying are assessed, minimised and prevented. Where such instances do occur, there should be clear procedures in place to address, monitor, resolve and review the situation so that social workers are aware of how to raise and report concerns. (Social Work England Professional Standard 6)

2. ensure awareness of violence aggression and lone working so that social workers know the local policy and steps needed so that employers can protect employees from exposure to foreseeable violence and aggression at work and other risks arising from lone working.

3. ensure that support services, such as Occupational Health, Employee Assistance programmes and Human Resources are available and that social workers who fall victim to violence and aggression at work are actively signposted to these services recognising that the extent of that support will depend upon the particular circumstances of the case.

Tools and support to do the job

All employers should:

1. provide social workers with appropriate practical tools to do their job including effective case recording systems, business support, access to the internet and information and communication technologies, and ensure that social workers are trained to use them effectively.

2. work with social workers to identify ways in which they can deliver better support to people using digital services, both through training and through the adoption of digital technologies by employers.

3. ensure social workers have safe means of transport for visiting service users and for field work and are aware of safe social media policies.

4. provide administrative support to social workers and help to maximise the time social workers can spend working directly with the children, adults and families who use services.

5. provide social workers with access to fellow professionals including legal advisors, translators and interpreters.

Useful resources

LGA Wellbeing guide for managers
Toolkit by Bath Spa Uni and BASW
One you - resources tips, tools, support and encouragement to help improve your health
University of Bedfordshire Organisational diagnostic wellbeing and workbook and action plan
Wellness Action Plans by MIND
Time to Change - Breaking down mental health stigma in the workplace
Working alone - UNISON health and safety guide
Suzy Lamplugh Trust - tips and advice on personal safety issues
HSE tools for stress
See Social Work England Standard 6.6
BASW - The Code of Ethics for Social Work The Code of Ethics states the values and ethical principles on which the profession is based
BASW/IFSW Policy on Effective and Ethical Working Environments for Social Work
International Federation of Social workers Ethical Principles (IFSW 2004)
BASW Human Rights Policy
HSE tools for stress
BASW: UK supervision policy
Its not part of the job - UNISON Health and Safety Guide on Tackling Violence at Work
Bargaining on hot desking policies - UNISON guide

Standard 5 - Supervision

This standard is about making sure students and qualified practitioners can reflect critically on their practice through high quality, regular supervision being an integral part of social work practice. This will start with students on placement, continue with the ASYE, and then throughout the individual's social work career. Supervision should challenge and foster an inquisitive approach to social work.

Supervisors' practice and skills should adhere to the Post Qualifying Standards for Social Work Practice Supervisors in Adult Social Care or the Post-qualifying standard: knowledge and skills statement for child and family practice supervisors. Practice Educators supervising student social workers should adhere to the Practice Educator Professional Standards (PEPS).

Frequency of supervision

All employers should:

1. ensure that supervision takes place regularly and consistently and lasts for an uninterrupted duration of at least an hour and a half.

2. make sure that supervision takes place:

for students on placement - as agreed with students and programme providers

for newly qualified social workers - at least weekly for the first six weeks of employment of a newly qualified social worker, at least fortnightly for the duration of the first six months, and a minimum of monthly supervision thereafter

for social workers who have demonstrated capability at ASYE level and above - in line with identified needs, and at least monthly

3. ensure that they have a policy in place which governs supervision, and which

locates responsibility for that policy with the Principal Social Worker or other appropriate senior manager

requires the actual frequency and quality of supervision to be monitored against clear expectations.

Quality of supervision

All employers should:

1. ensure that social work supervision is not treated as an isolated activity by incorporating it into the organisation's social work accountability framework. (Standard1)

2. promote continuous learning and knowledge sharing through which social workers are encouraged to draw out learning points by reflecting on their own practice in the light of experiences of peers. (Social Work England professional standard 4)

3. promote the use of supervision as an opportunity for social workers to critically reflect on, and identify their learning needs, using evidence, research and other social work frameworks where appropriate.

4. actively use Social Work England's professional standards as the basis for supervision, including evaluating capability and identifying development needs, ensuring that social workers are able to draw on and use additional resources such as the Professional Capabilities Framework and Knowledge and Skills Statements to develop their day-to-day practice and skills base

5. ensure that supervision supports students and qualified social workers to meet Social Work England's Professional Standards.

6. encourage social workers to plan, reflect on and record learning activity, including logging CPD on their Social Work England online account.

7. ensure that coaching and action learning opportunities are core components of the supervision offer to social workers.

8. provide regular supervision training for social work supervisors.

9. assign explicit responsibility for the oversight of appropriate supervision and for issues that arise through supervision

10. provide additional professional supervision by a registered social worker for practitioners whose line manager is not a social worker.

Useful resources

Post-qualifying standard: knowledge and skills statement for child and family practice supervisors
Post-qualifying Standards for Social Work Practice Supervisors in Adult Social Care
SCIE supervision guides
BASW supervision policy
SCIE Research briefing 43: Effective supervision in social work and social care
Reflective supervision: resource pack

Standard 6 - Continuing professional development (CPD)

This standard is about social workers being provided with the time and opportunity to learn, keep their knowledge and skills up to date, and critically reflect on the impact this has on their practice. They are required to demonstrate this learning as part of their regulatory requirement to meet Social Work England's professional standard relating to CPD. (Social Work England professional standard 4).

Employers should provide opportunities for regular and effective CPD

CPD is the reflection and learning activity that social workers undertake throughout their career to maintain and improve their practice. It is an important part of a social worker's professional standards. By undertaking and recording CPD, a social worker demonstrates to the public, their regulator and their employer that they uphold those professional standards.

It is important that employers provide their social workers with time and opportunities to carry out regular and effective CPD, fostering an open learning culture where social workers are supported through supervision to carry out learning activities that they feel benefit them and their practice.

Supporting staff development

All employers should:

1. have effective induction systems for all social workers

2. put in place tailored support for newly qualified social workers through an Assessed and Supported Year in Employment (ASYE) programme, including protected development time, a managed workload, tailored supervision and personal development plans

3. have an appraisal or performance review system which assesses how well professional practice is delivered, that includes the feedback of people with lived experience of the social worker's practice, and identifies a learning and development plan to support the achievement of objectives

4. provide dedicated time, resources, opportunities and support for social workers to carry out CPD and record their learning in line with Social Work England's regulatory requirements

5. have fair and transparent systems to enable social workers to develop their professional skills and knowledge throughout their careers through an entitlement to formal and informal CPD, specialist training and development as appropriate

6. provide support and information to enable social workers to progress through post-qualifying specialist training and access national funded development and support programmes that will allow them to develop their knowledge, skills and practice and, in some cases, annotate their registration to reflect a specialism

7. encourage social workers to work towards and maintain professional accreditation where it is available

8. encourage social workers to think creatively about their CPD activity, consider learning they already undertake, online resources, and to draw from their work towards post-qualifying frameworks and accreditations

9. encourage social workers to consider their ethics and values in relation to their practice (Social Work England professional standard 4) and emphasise the importance of reflecting on the impact of their learning.

Useful resources
Social Work England continuing professional development guidance for social workers 2019
Workload Management for Social Work
BASW Professional Capabilities Framework

Standard 7 - Professional registration

This Standard is about supporting social workers to maintain their professional registration with Social Work England so that they can continue to practice as a social worker.

All employers should:

1. be familiar with Social Work England's professional standards for safe and effective practice, and understand a social worker's regulatory requirements to maintain their professional registration

2. recognise that carrying out and recording CPD (Standard 6) is a condition of a social workers registration renewal with Social Work England

3. support social workers in upholding Social Work England's professional standards, which are specialist to social work, ensuring effective CPD opportunities and supervision are provided

4. take appropriate steps to inform the regulator, co-operate with investigations and hearings carried out by the regulator, and respond appropriately to its findings and decisions if there are concerns about an employee's fitness to practice

5. be clear about the circumstances in which social workers should be referred to the regulator, and when they shouldn't

6. promote and encourage ethical practice so that social workers have the support and confidence to challenge unsafe practice and report concerns, in accordance with Social Work England's professional standards.

7. proactively engage Social Work England's regional engagement leads.

Useful resources
Social Work England professional standards for social workers 2019
Social Work England professional standards guidance for social workers 2019
The Social workers Regulations 2018
Social Work England (registration) rules 2019
Social Work England - regional engagement

Standard 8 - Strategic partnerships

This Standard is about creating strong partnerships and good collaboration between employers, higher education institutions and other training providers. Strong partnership working will continue to support the training of high-quality social workers, resulting in improved services for children, young people, adults, families and local communities.

Developing strategic leadership and existing staff

All employers should:

1. engage with local, regional and national social work partners, including regional alliances, safeguarding partners, Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission and national social work bodies, to encourage and implement continuous improvement across the organisation.

2. ensure that strategic lead social workers/principal social workers who are appointed, understand and manage the organisational responsibility for this standard PSW

3. implement formal partnership arrangements with social work education providers that promote and enable effective joint planning (in particular for the provision of placements in a statutory social work setting), shared communication and activities to further the delivery of social work education and (Standard 6)

4. engage in networks to promote and share best practice and develop opportunities for joint research and evaluation, and which enables social workers to participate in research-based activity, grounded in the principles of the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research.

5. have a clear policy for recruiting, training and supporting practice educators and practice supervisors.

6. support staff to access qualifying social work programmes.

7. provide support to newly qualified social workers, ensuring their Assessed and Supported Year in Employment (ASYE) programme is subject to robust quality assurance processes

Developing future social workers

All employers should:

1. provide high quality placements and support for social work students on those placements.

2. contribute to the recruitment and retention of social work students.

3. work collaboratively with partner organisations to develop the skills and knowledge required to deliver high quality social work education.

Useful resources
UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Standards for Employers of Social workers in England 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Good social work can transform people's lives and protect them from harm. In order to achieve consistently high-quality outcomes for service users and their carers, social workers must have and maintain the skills and knowledge to establish effective relationships with children, adults and families, professionals in a range of agencies and settings, and be the key connectors in communities.

# data[].attributes.body
2020 Joint Committee on Human Rights - HoC, HoL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Videos about our work on mental health policy and practice in the UK. We cover criminal justice, employment, recovery and early years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tell us whether you accept cookies

We use cookies to collect information about how you use GOV.UK. We use this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve government services.

The Independent Review of the Mental Health Act 1983 has set out recommendations for government on how the Act and associated practice needs to change.

Details

The final report sets out recommendations covering 4 principles that the review believes should underpin the reformed Act:

choice and autonomy - ensuring service users' views and choices are respected

least restriction - ensuring the Act's powers are used in the least restrictive way

therapeutic benefit - ensuring patients are supported to get better, so they can be discharged from the Act

people as individuals - ensuring patients are viewed and treated as rounded individuals

The review looked at:

rising rates of detention under the Act

the disproportionate number of people from black and minority ethnic groups detained under the Act

processes that are out of step with a modern mental health care system

This page includes Easy Read and summary versions of the report plus an analysis of the survey data. The summary version also includes an illustrative guide to the review's recommended changes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Modernising the Mental Health Act - final report from the independent review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We use cookies to collect information about how you use GOV.UK. We use this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve government services. The Independent Review of the Mental Health Act 1983 has set out recommendations for government on how the Act and associated practice needs to change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This new study has identified difficulties with the Nearest Relative role under the Mental Health Act 1983 (the Act). The research was conducted by an inter-disciplinary team of researchers from the Universities of Bristol, Bath and the University of the West of England.

About the research

The study adopted a two-stage design, drawing on online surveys and focus groups with Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs) to examine how they interpreted their legal duties towards Nearest Relatives (NR) under the Act. Detention under the Act allows people with mental health problems to be given compulsory treatment in hospital. The research focused on how AMHPs, who are responsible for coordinating compulsory Mental Health Act (MHA) assessments prior to detention, engaged with NRs during the process.

Nearest Relatives have three key areas of responsibility under the Act:

* the right to object to longer term compulsory admission of their relative under the Act;

* the right to request that mental health professionals conduct an assessment of their relative, to see whether they should be detained in hospital;

* the right to apply to have their relative detained in hospital (although this power is seldom used in practice).

The identity of the NR is currently determined by an AMHP using a hierarchical list of relatives given in the Act. Concern has been expressed that people being assessed under the Act are not currently able to choose at the outset who their NR should be. For example, a recent Independent Review of the Mental Health Act (December 2018) found that the role was problematic because it offered those being detained no choice about who should be consulted about their care. Following this Review, the Government pledged to replace the NR with a new Nominated Person role, which would give people with mental health problems greater choice about who should represent them.

Policy implications

* A new Nominated Person (NP) role is needed in legislation to provide greater choice for patients about who should be consulted about their care.

* The powers which NRs currently have should be retained by the NP (in contrast to the Scottish system where NPs are given fewer powers).

* AMHPs should ensure that patient consent is explicitly sought, in line with legal expectations and human rights principles, rather than being assumed or implied.

* AMHPs should ensure that they do not discount the advocacy role of relatives (acting as a NR/NP) in cases where the relatives are lobbying for a MHA assessment. While AMHPs are required to assert a social care perspective by relevant MHA Approved Mental Health Professional Regulations, they are also required to consider carer perspectives on the nature of mental disorder and treatment.

* AMHPs should ensure that they do not make any distinctions in consulting the NR/NP between assessments conducted following detention of the patient under section 136 (which gives police the power to take someone appearing to be mentally disordered to a place of safety) and other routes for civil detention (under sections 2 or 3) of the Act.

Key findings

* AMHPs saw the NR role as offering an important 'safeguard' on the basis that NRs could provide information about the person being assessed and could advocate on their behalf.

* A high proportion of AMHPs had spoken to NRs for background information when assessing people with mental health problems under the Act. However, they were less likely to ask the person being assessed about their views of involving the NR prior to assessment.

* AMHPs found it challenging to interpret existing law. They reported facing problems knowing when to consult with NRs and in managing confidentiality issues.

* AMHPs in some focus groups identified that they would delay consulting with NRs in cases where a patient was detained under section 136 of the Act in order to avoid embarrassing them.

* AMHPs identified practical difficulties in balancing their legal obligations towards NRs and patients; particularly where issues of abuse were raised or where patients had identified that they did not want their relative involved.

* AMHPs stated that they sought to prioritise the wishes of the person being assessed regarding confidentiality. However, practice examples given within the research identified that the wishes of the person being assessed were sometimes implied rather than explicitly sought.

* The findings reinforce the conclusions of the recent Independent Mental Health Act Review that NR provisions as they stand are 'outdated, variable and insufficient'.

One of the AMHPs in the study likened the balancing nature of their role to treading a tightrope:
"Sometimes you literally have to say look, I'm really sorry, I can't share some of the things [information about the patient] with you because we've been asked not to, but I'm here and whatever you tell me I'll listen. So you're not actually giving information out, you're on that tightrope sometimes" (AMHP 3, Focus Group 3)."

Authors

Professor Judy Laing (University of Bristol), Dr Jeremy Dixon (University of Bath), Dr Kevin Stone (University of the West of England), Dr Megan Wilkinson-Tough (Avon & Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust)

Contact the Researchers

Further information about the research is available from:

Key Terms
Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) - a mental health professional (usually a social worker) who has responsibility to assess and coordinate the compulsory assessment and admission process under the Mental Health Act. A Social Perspective - AMHPs are trained to consider the patient's social circumstances and needs, and to take account of factors such as gender, culture, ethnicity, age, sexuality and disability in their assessments. Nearest Relative (NR) - a family member who is given certain rights and powers under the Mental Health Act during a relative's compulsory assessment and detention process.

Further information

Full details of the study and discussion of the key findings can be found in Health & Social Care in the Community available here.

Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to thank all the AMHPs who generously shared their expertise and devoted time to take part in the study.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Approved Mental Health Professionals' views on the role of relatives in compulsory mental health admissions: Challenges and opportunities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This new study has identified difficulties with the Nearest Relative role under the Mental Health Act 1983 (the Act). The research was conducted by an inter-disciplinary team of researchers from the Universities of Bristol, Bath and the University of the West of England.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies

Forms for use in connection with compulsory admission to hospital, community treatment orders, guardianship and treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Electronic forms for use under the Mental Health Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Forms for use in connection with compulsory admission to hospital, community treatment orders, guardianship and treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An inaugural conference was held in May 2019 which had as its theme research informed practice; practice informed research. The aim of this conference was to encourage practitioner researchers to engage with and share research from their own practice, in this instance exploring various aspects of one particular role undertaken by social workers, the Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) of England and Wales and of equivalent roles in other countries in the United Kingdom namely the Mental Health Officer in Scotland and the Approved Social Worker in Northern Ireland (the AMHP role is also undertaken by other non-medical professionals, but the uptake is low). The conference proved to be hugely successful, feedback indicating that it was very inspiring for all delegates who attended because it provided a positive environment for AMHP research informed practice to be debated which in turn supported good practice.

It was anticipated that the joint university funded conference would offer potential for ongoing collaborations to be forged through the establishment of mutual interests and so it has proved; there has been a steady momentum building around AMHP practice and research amongst practising AMHPs, AMHP doctoral and academic researchers, and key stakeholders within the Department of Health and Social Care, the AMHP leads network, and British Association of Social Workers. The guest editors of this issue, also the conference organisers, were especially keen to build on this momentum and set out to collate and publish papers. As a result, we are delighted to offer this special issue. Such contributions also echo the themes of this journal which are: to translate practice-based research into a format relevant to practising social workers, whatever their role and task.

Debate is current regarding the ongoing need to support these roles. In England, for example, the Chief Social Worker for adults highlighted in her annual report 2017-18 an ambition to support the development of the AMHP role (Department of Health 2018b). In addition, that same year, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) published a briefing report on the pressures of the AMHP role (CQC, 2018) providing an in-depth study into the AMHP role in twelve different geographical areas. One of the issues this report highlighted was the lack of regular data about the AMHP role and of the need to address well documented workforce issues. Moreover, the independent Review of the Mental Health Act commissioned in 2017 and whose final report was published in late 2018 highlighted the role of AMHPs (Department of Health ). At the time of writing the Department of Health and Social Care is coordinating the development of a national plan for the AMHP workforce to support the development, recruitment and retention of AMHPs (Department of Health and Social Care, 2019) A key element of the review is ensuring the AMHP workforce are competent to undertake their Mental Health Act duties. A requirement of the AMHP training is that AMHPs are 'able to draw on, and evaluate critically, a range of research relevant to evidence-based AMHP practice' as part of their informed decision making (Schedule two of the Mental Health (AMHP) (Approval) (England) Regulations 2008; Key Competence 2 (g) (Statutory Competences 2019: Regs 2 g) The workforce plan also wishes to maintain alignment to the competences throughout practice. The AMHP Workforce plan recommends that the AMHP workforce is supported to maintain alignment to the AMHP competencies throughout its practice (Department of Health and Social Care, 2019, 31). The conference was organised and partially aligned to some of the national workforce context for AMHP practice. However, importantly, the conference organisers sought to move the agenda beyond workforce issues to enable an exploration of AMHP research informed practice and practice informed research.

The special issue call attracted twelve papers, which is testament to the interest generated from the inaugural conference, from which four have been peer reviewed and accepted. These now make up this special issue. Each of the four nations of the United Kingdom has a legislative framework and role whose responsibility it is to exercise within the civil law the functions of that law. In Northern Ireland Approved Social Workers fulfil their functions under the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (MH(NI)O 1986), similarly in England and Wales the Approved Mental Health Professional exercises their duties under the Mental Health Act 1983 and in Scotland Mental Health Officers under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (MH(S)A 2003) and the Criminal Procedures (Scotland) Act 1995 (CP 1995). Functions of these roles relate to decisions made about individuals with mental disorders, including the decision to apply for compulsory admission to hospital. Also involved is the assessment of individuals experiencing mental disorders who may need compulsory measures of care, treatment and, in some cases, detention. These roles carry considerable autonomy and responsibility and involve working alongside medical and legal professionals. Our special issue has three papers which explore AMHPs and a fourth the MHO.

Our first and insightful paper by Simpson explores the factors influencing AMHPs' decisions about detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 (amended 2007). Twenty-five papers relating to ASW and AMHP decisions were analysed thematically and risk, accountability and morality were dominant themes. Decisions about risk, rather than being technical judgements, are subjective, interpretive and 'infused with morality' in the way they draw together AMHPs' personal and professional domains, using themselves to understand service users when making decisions. 'Sub-themes' include emotions, intuition, uncertainty and coercion and these further influence ideas about accountability and its juxtaposition with fear of responsibility. Given this sharper focus on morality and the self in practice - an area hitherto relatively unexplored - Simpson questions whether services support this. Here, he engages with contemporary developments around the advancing of AMHP professionalism (Department of Health and Social Care, 2019).

Next, Rooke's article provokes critical debate on whether the authority of section 115 can be utilised by AMHPs under the least restrictive option and maximising independence principle. This is an important focus due to the limited research on the application of section 115 from either an AMHP or a service user perspective. Through the utilisation of section 115 via two illuminative case studies, she convincingly makes the case for its application to promote and recognise the preventative work undertaken by AMHPs, sharing good practice. A reflective examination ensues of the extent by which the AMHP role is applied to avert a deeper, more acute mental health crisis. The recent review of the Act made recommendations to facilitate 'least restriction' (Department of Health , 23) but without reference to how AMHPs may affect this in their wider role. Section 115 is clearly a contested power that some argue reduces rights, due to the absence of legal safeguards. Rooke's argument on applying section 115 poses ethical and practice dilemmas that will stimulate debate on issues of care, coercion and control when supporting individuals in mental health crises. This should help AMHPs to reflect on the complexities involved when working within legally contested boundaries.

The third paper written by Allen considers the impact of professional fear in the context of mental health decision-making in high risk scenarios relating to compulsory detention under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. The study draws on data from eight semi-structured interviews with Mental Health Officers (MHO). Narrative enquiry was used to consider any factors which were felt to mitigate, control or heighten fear, alongside a vignette to explore the emotions that were experienced. The findings indicated that fear was a factor that had a marked impact on the decision making of Mental Health Officers. They conclude that both intrapersonal and wider structural influence for contributing factors arising from doing harm, to fear of scrutiny by the public or other bodies if harm should occur. The study highlights that the quality of MHOs' relationships with healthcare professionals and support from managers and colleagues also emerged as key factors capable of increasing or relieving fear in the assessment process. The findings raise a number of recommendations for policy and practice in the statutory mental health field, in particular, the importance of acknowledging fear and identifying strategies to manage fear in training and post qualifying practice for MHOs and equivalent roles in the UK and other jurisdictions.

Our last paper ends as we began, with a literature review. In it Buckland explores a range of literature specifically to explore multiple perspectives and experiences of power within Mental Health Act assessments. This she does by relating it to the usual participants within MHA assessments including the person assessed, friends and relatives, AMHPs, doctors and others such as police and ambulance personnel. Through this review Buckland aims to reflect on how power relationships within these assessments have been conceived and highlights that MHA assessments and their wider contexts are often deeply unequal and experienced as such. This she suggests is at odds with a broader rhetoric of collaboration and recovery for service users and concludes that the main preoccupations of the different groups of people at MHA assessments are vastly different; for example, risks associated with admission to hospital are central for service users and carers, whereas risk for professionals, and particularly doctors, is generally interpreted as risks associated with not going to hospital. The article considers the implications of these different perspectives in relation to the contemporary context of MHA assessments.

In terms of research informed practice, it is evident that AMHP practice needs to be supported and informed by relevant research. Yet very little published material or empirical research is available to support AMHPs in their articulation of the role and demonstrating good practice that moves beyond a legalistic framework, although this is now starting to increase as this special issue attests. AMHP trainees and practising AMHPs (and equivalents) are asked to undertake ongoing critical analysis and to demonstrate that their practice is informed by a research evidence base. In view of these two interrelated issues, the conference organisers will now build a yearly conference on specialist themes that invite contributions that seek to address the practice/research gap. Sadly, the current pandemic has meant that this year's 2020 conference is now delayed. Nonetheless, the publication of this special issue is, we hope, testament not only to the success of our inaugural conference but a way of accessing unmined practice based expertise that advances the recognition and importance of research to inform practice, as is also the remit of this journal. We hope it provides inspiration to other groups of practitioners in social work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Informed Practice; Practice Informed Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An inaugural conference was held in May 2019 which had as its theme research informed practice; practice informed research.

# data[].attributes.body
(YouTube - longer version)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National AMHP Leads Network Virtual Conference

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rates of detention in psychiatric hospital have more than doubled in England since 1983 and risen faster than almost anywhere else in Europe during the past decade.Reference Sheridan-Rains, Zenina, Dias, Jones, Jeffreys and Branthonne-Foster1 Detention in hospital is inherently coercive: it is experienced by most patients as such,Reference Sheehan and Burns2,Reference Akther, Molyneaux, Stuart, Johnson, Simpson and Oram3 and 3 months after detention many patients still disagree with the decision to detain them.Reference Priebe, Katsakou, Glöckner, Dembinskas, Fiorillo and Karastergiou4 Involuntary hospital admissions are typically longer and more costly than voluntary admissions. Patients experience only limited improvements in health and social circumstances following detention.Reference Priebe, Katsakou, Yeeles, Amos, Morriss and Wang5 Understanding and addressing the rising rate of detentions is therefore a priority for mental healthcare in England, which prompted the recent Independent Review of the Mental Health Act (MHA Review), which reported in December 2018. To support the review, an expert topic group was convened, supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Mental Health Policy Research Unit (MHPRU). This group was tasked with exploring why rates of detentions in psychiatric hospital in England have risen since the introduction of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA), and most rapidly over the past decade. This work is reported here.

We sought to identify hypotheses for the rise in detentions in England, test their plausibility in relation to available evidence, and then develop an explanatory logic model for the rise in detentions in England between 1983 and 2016. The term 'detentions' is used here to include compulsory admissions to psychiatric hospital and detentions of people in psychiatric hospital following a voluntary admission, including civil and forensic MHA detentions, for people of all ages. We excluded uses of the MHA that direct conveyance to a place of safety or to permit short-term detention (72 h or less) for the purpose of assessment only.

Method

The study comprised: (a) generating hypotheses to explain the rising rate of detentions; (b) rapid scoping for evidence relevant to each hypothesis; (c) testing each hypothesis (in so far as data permitted) and rating its plausibility as an explanation for rising rates of detention; and (d) developing an explanatory model of the rising rate of detentions in England.

Hypothesis generation

A list of potential explanatory factors for the rising rate of detentions was generated from three sources.

1. (a) Reports and literature, chiefly the recent report from the Care Quality Commission and the evidence submitted to the MHA Review, which included over 50 focus groups with patients and carers, evidence submissions from over 200 mental health organisations, practitioners, patients and carers, and seven public workshops across England.

2. (b) Consultation with an expert topic group convened for the MHA Review. This comprised eight academics, six of whom were psychiatrists, one a social worker and one a researcher with lived experience. The group included two women and two members of Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities, one of whom co-chaired the Mental Health Act Review African and Caribbean Group (MHARAC), which supported the MHA Review.

3. (c) Consultation with 14 members of the Lived Experience Working Group of the Mental Health Policy Research Unit (MHPRU), all with lived experience as a mental health patient or family carer. All members of this group were adults; the group was demographically varied with respect to age, gender and ethnicity.

Through discussion in the MHA Review topic group, all proposed explanations were considered and clarified into hypotheses where necessary, describing how proposed explanatory factors might contribute to an increase in detentions. Types of information that could support or contradict each hypothesis were agreed.

Evidence gathering

Relevant data sources were sought for variables relating to each hypothesis, with advice from academics with epidemiology, health economic and health services research expertise. We investigated the relationship of each variable to the rising rate of detentions in England through the following process.

First, an ecological study explored the associations over time between national population-level indicators for a range of explanatory variables and the rate of detentions. Where more than one relevant data source was identified for a proposed explanatory variable, the most appropriate variable was selected through discussion in the study team, with priority given to well-established measures used in previous research or national reports, and variables with the most years of data available. Annual data for all explanatory variables were collected from 1983 onwards, where available. Descriptive data from each variable were reviewed to assess whether exposure to the explanatory variable appeared to have changed over time (in the direction compatible with contributing to a rise in detentions). The association between each indicator variable and rates of involuntary hospital admission was assessed using regression analyses. Following guidance,Reference Harrell, Lee and Mark8, only indicator variables with at least 10 years of annual data were included in the analyses, to avoid reporting imprecise statistical results based on limited data. Breusch-Godfrey tests were used to identify the presence of serial correlation (in which the model residuals are correlated over time). Such correlation can be present in time series data and can result in biased estimates if inappropriate regression methods are used. When there was evidence of serial correlation, Prais-Winsten regressionReference Prais and Winsten10 was used; otherwise simple linear regression was used. Analyses were performed using Stata version 15 for Windows. The outcome variable in all analyses was annual number of detentions per 100 000 population, derived from publicly available English KP90 detentions data. If prevalence of exposure to an explanatory variable was unchanged or was not associated with detention rates in the expected direction, it was considered less plausible as a contributory factor for the rise in compulsory admissions.

Second, available research was scoped by MHPRU researchers (L.S.R., N.L., L.M.) for additional evidence relevant to our hypotheses, including: studies exploring predictors of detention at individual patient, local area or international level, and qualitative literature regarding perceived changes in explanatory factors over time. Relevant literature was identified through: (a) a programme of systematic reviews and data analysis conducted for the MHA Review by the MHPRU. These provided a range of types of evidence from quantitative and qualitative research, and included systematic reviews of social and clinical predictors of detention, interventions to reduce detention, qualitative literature on patients' and carers' experience of detention, an international comparison of detention rates and factors associated with detention rates, and an analysis of routine health records data regarding the nature of changes over time in patterns of detention in two London National Health Service (NHS) trusts; (b) keyword searching for relevant terms in electronic databases (MEDLINE and PsycInfo); and (c) asking subject experts in the MHA Review topic group, authors of this paper and others (acknowledged at the end of this paper) to identify other relevant literature.

Assessing the plausibility of hypotheses

Findings for each hypothesis were synthesised and summarised. The likelihood of any hypothesised or observed ecological relationship between explanatory variables and rates of detentions being causal in nature was assessed, where applicable and as far as evidence was available, with regard to established criteria for causality, including the strength and consistency of associations, their perceived plausibility as causal mechanisms and, where possible, the specificity of relationships to populations at increased risk of detention, and temporality, i.e. evidence that rises in explanatory factors preceded rises in detentions. Hypotheses were then graded by the study team for plausibility as a contributory factor to the rising rate of detentions in England: 0, contradicted by available evidence; 1, lack of evidence or available evidence is ambiguous or mixed; 2, supported by the balance of available evidence. Two factors were considered in grading each hypothesis: evidence for change over time in the direction expected; and evidence, or self-evident face validity, that the hypothesised factor was causally related to risk of detention. Ratings were made initially by the lead authors of this paper (L.S.R, B.L.-E.), then reviewed by all authors and revised if necessary following discussion.

Logic model development

Following guidance,Reference Harries, Hodgson and Noble13 we developed a visual logic model to show how plausible proposed contributory factors (i.e. hypotheses rated as 1 or 2 for plausibility) might contribute to the rising rate of detentions in England and might interrelate. In developing the model, we worked backwards from the final outcome to be explained (the rising rate of detentions) to identify proximal outcomes, mental health service activities, inputs and contextual factors. We differentiated elements of this explanatory model that were supported by available evidence from hypothesised elements with ambiguous or absent evidence. Proposed causal pathways and mechanisms of change in the rate of detentions were illustrated in the model with arrows. An initial draft of the logic model was developed by B.L.-E., informed by a preliminary draft of relevant data tables and evidence reviews (supplementary Appendices 1 and 2, available at https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2020.64). This was then discussed with the study co-authors and revised with feedback and reference to additional retrieved evidence in five iterative stages.

Results

Rates of detention in England

Data for the number of detentions in England were not available from NHS Digital before 1988. National detention data collection methods changed from April 2016, so data after this point are not comparable with previous data.

The annual rates of detentions per 100 000 population in England from 1988 to 2016 are shown in Fig. 1. Detention rates more than doubled during this period, from 52 to 114 per 100 000 population. A 1-day census of the number of people per 100 000 population detained at year-end each year also rose, from 26.0 in 1998 (the first year for which data are available) to 36.5 in 2016. The rise in the rate of detentions was steepest in the periods 1988-1996 and 2011-2016, plateauing in between. Increases in detentions were greatest at the point of admission. Overall detention rates, and detentions for assessment (section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983, MHA), rose significantly during the study period. Rates of detention for treatment (s.3 MHA) and use of forensic detentions did not change significantly (supplementary Appendix 1). Use of legal powers by the police to bring people to a hospital-based place of safety (s.135 or s.136 MHA) for assessment - which were not included in our overall detention rate variable - also increased significantly during the study period. Individual patients are not distinguished in government KP90 detentions data, which therefore cannot distinguish to what extent the rise in detentions reflects more people being detained, or the same number of people being detained more frequently. The data also cannot identify in which clinical or demographic groups the rise in detentions occurred.

Proposed explanations for the rising rate of detentions in England

Seventeen hypotheses for the rising rate of detentions in England were generated. These are presented in the Appendix (immediately preceding the References), with a brief description of the proposed mechanisms of effect on detention rates. Consistent with previous work we have grouped the hypotheses as: social factors, service provision, legal factors and data recording problems.

Available data relevant to each hypothesis are summarised in Table 1, along with results of statistical tests of association with detention rate, where undertaken. Serial correlation was present for all but one indicator variable, so Prais-Winsten regressions were used. Full descriptive data and illustrative graphs showing change over time for each explanatory variable are provided in supplementary Appendix 1. Research evidence regarding the nature of the relationship of each of these factors to detention rates is summarised below and reported fully in supplementary Appendix 2.

Social factors

We considered whether the rise in detentions was related to: increased social and economic hardship, reduced social support, demographic change, increasing psychiatric morbidity, and increasing drug and alcohol use in the population.

Internationally, wealthy countries tend to have higher rates of detention.Reference Sheridan-Rains, Zenina, Dias, Jones, Jeffreys and Branthonne-Foster1 However, at individual level, poverty and economic hardship, and lack of social support, are associated with increased risk of detention.Reference Walker, Mackay, Barnett, Sheridan-Rains, Leverton and Dalton-Locke32 The two periods of economic recession in the UK during the study period (1991 and 2008-2009) coincide with or immediately precede periods of steepest rise in detentions in England. However, many established markers of economic hardship, including unemployment rate, poverty/relative poverty and income inequality, do not show clear evidence of change nationally over the study period ( Table 1). Evidence of reduced informal social support or increased social discord during the study period is also limited: median scores for social fragmentation - an established indicator of informal social support, collected every 10 years through national census data - have changed little. More specific indicators of social discord and discrimination, such as recorded hate crimes and racist incidents, have available data only for recent years and provide an inconclusive picture. Public attitudes to mental illness also appear to be unchanged or to have become more positive, based on available data from 1994 to 2014 ( Table 1).

Men, younger adults (age 18-35) and people from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups are at increased risk of detention in England.Reference Weich, McBride, Twigg, Keown, Cyhlarova and Crepaz-Keay35,36 The proportion of the population in England from all BAME groups has more than doubled between 1988 and 2016, as has the proportion of non-UK-born people in the population. The proportion of the population who are male has risen marginally. These rises may contribute to a rise in detentions ( Table 1). Conversely, the proportion of the English population who are adults aged 18-35, the highest-risk age group for detentions, has fallen as the number of older adults has increased.

Available data suggest that psychiatric morbidity in England has increased during the study period, consistent with our fourth hypothesis. Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS) data collected every 7 years indicate a consistent rise in prevalence of people with common mental disorders with severe symptoms from 1993 to 2014, and a possible recent rise in prevalence of people with psychosis. A clear causal pathway between increased overall psychiatric morbidity and more detentions is lacking, however. The increasing number of people seen in secondary mental health services ( Table 1) may reflect increased numbers of people with a severe mental health problem, who are also at risk of detention. Alternatively, however, it could reflect increases in help-seeking or service accessibility, which do not influence rates of detention.

Contrary to our hypothesis, rates of drug and alcohol use in the general population in England have fallen over the past 20 years). However, psychiatric hospital admissions for people with substance use disorders have risen since 2010 (supplementary Appendix 1), with a significant association with detention rate across the whole study period for cannabis use ( Table 1). Three potential, not mutually exclusive, explanations for this discrepancy are: (a) drug use has increased among people accessing mental health services, in contrast to the general population; (b) the greater availability of potent drugs, including forms of cannabis such as skunk,Reference Freeman, Groshkova, Cunningham, Sedefov, Griffiths and Lynskey37 and novel psychoactive substances with mental health risksReference Mdege, Meader, Lloyd, Parrott and McCambridge38 has increased the risk of detention among drug users with mental health problems; and (c) changing attitudes among mental health practitioners to risk and safety and perceived treatability have led to more detentions of people with mental health problems who use drugs, independent of changes in patterns of drug use. We lack evidence to definitively support or reject any of these explanations, and the causal association of drug use and detention rates is uncertain (supplementary Appendix 2, section 2).

Service provision

Changes in the availability or quality of (a) in-patient care, (b) community crisis care, (c) longer-term community care, (d) reduced continuity of care during assessment for compulsory admission, (e) staff attitudes to risk and safety and (f) changes in prescribing practice were all considered as potential contributors to the rising rate of detentions.

In-patient care

The rise in detentions has coincided with a dramatic reduction in NHS psychiatric beds in England ( Table 1). Plausible mechanisms have been proposed for why reduced bed availability may lead to more detentions.Reference Keown, Weich, Bhui and Scott39 Offer of in-patient admission may be delayed until illness becomes more acute. Relapse and re-detention may be more likely if patients are discharged prematurely because of bed pressures. Patients may not accept voluntary admission if the only available beds are far from home or because levels of disturbance in in-patient wards have increased, as only the most severely unwell, mainly non-consenting patients are admitted. Some psychiatrists report a perceived need to (unlawfully) detain patients who could have been voluntarily admitted, in order to secure prompt access to a bed. P.K. and colleaguesReference Keown, Weich, Bhui and Scott39 found that the association between bed reductions and detention rates at local level in England was strongest with a 1-year time lag, i.e. increases in detentions follow bed cuts. This suggests a possible causal relationship.

However, the same study found that a moderate correlation remained between NHS bed reductions and rises in detentions, both contemporaneously and with a time lag in the other direction, i.e. bed reductions following rises in detentions,Reference Keown, Weich, Bhui and Scott39 which less clearly indicates that bed reductions cause detentions. Increasing use of private beds ( Table 1) and increasing access to community crisis alternativesReference Lloyd-Evans, Lamb, Barnby, Eskinazi, Turner and Johnson41 may mitigate some pressures caused by NHS bed reductions. A recent systematic review found no studies that had demonstrated a relationship between detention rates and bed occupancy rates, another indicator of pressures on available beds.Reference Walker, Mackay, Barnett, Sheridan-Rains, Leverton and Dalton-Locke32 An even more recent study has reported no significant association between in-patient bed numbers and detention rates in a multivariate model, for the period from 1999 to 2016.Reference Smith, Gate, Ariyo, Saunders, Taylor and Bhu42 Internationally, greater in-patient bed availability is associated with higher, not lower, rates of compulsory admissions.Reference Sheridan-Rains, Zenina, Dias, Jones, Jeffreys and Branthonne-Foster1

Community crisis care

Specialist community crisis care has proliferated in England following the national mandate in 2000 to introduce crisis resolution teams in the NHS Plan, and the accessibility of community crisis care may have increased further since 2011.Reference Lloyd-Evans, Lamb, Barnby, Eskinazi, Turner and Johnson41 However, no community crisis service models have been shown to reduce compulsory admissions.Reference Bone, McCloud, Scott, Machin, Markham and Persaud44 Improvements in service quality in crisis resolution teams had no impact on rates of compulsory admissions in a recent English trial.Reference Lloyd-Evans, Osborn, Marston, Lamb, Ambler and Hunter45 Hypotheses that reduced availability or quality of community crisis services has contributed to rising detention rates are not supported by available evidence.

Longer-term community care

We have limited evidence about how the quality of care in community services has changed since 1983. Over the past 15 years, the number of patients seen by mental health services has increased substantially, while overall mental health funding has increased only slightly and community mental health service staffing has remained relatively stable. Similar resources, spread across a larger patient group, have therefore led to a reduction in mental health spend per patient in secondary care, and in the number of contacts provided per patient in recent years in some service settings, for example community mental health teams ( Table 1).

The extent and quality of community mental health service provision may relate to rates of detentions, although the relationship is complex. Interventions delivered in longer-term community care are best supported by current evidence as promising means to reduce detentions.Reference Bone, McCloud, Scott, Machin, Markham and Persaud44 Weich and colleaguesReference Weich, McBride, Twigg, Keown, Cyhlarova and Crepaz-Keay35 found that higher spending on community mental health teams in England was associated with lower local detention rates, but that health service areas with community teams assessed as lower quality than others also had lower rates of detention. As their reach increases, community mental health services, especially higher-quality teams, may be getting better at detecting the need for detention, but at the same time becoming less able to provide intensive support to individuals where necessary to prevent detentions, as their resources are spread more thinly across a larger patient group. Adult social care spending has fallen since 2010-2011:Reference Bottery, Ward and Fenney46 this could further reduce available support to prevent mental health crises and subsequent detentions.

Changes in prescribing practice

Regarding prescribing practice, reductions in use of clozapine and depot injections were proposed as factors that might increase patients' risk of relapse and therefore of detention. However, there has been no clear reduction in the prescription of clozapine since 2007.Reference Roberts, Neasham, Lambrinudi and Khan47 National prescription cost data suggest that the number of items of depot antipsychotic medication prescribed has reduced marginally since 2000. However, although the association between depot prescriptions and (reduced) detentions was in the anticipated direction, this association was not statistically significant ( Table 1). Furthermore, given variable dosing schedules, fewer prescriptions do not necessarily reflect a reduction in the number of people for whom depot medications are prescribed. Finally, there is some evidence that depot injections may not increase adherence in any case.Reference Sendt, Tracy and Bhattacharyya48

Staff attitudes to risk and safety

Risk and safety are important considerations for mental health staff,Reference Szmuckler and Rose49 and clinicians' attitudes and responses to risk are highly variable and subjective.Reference Robertson and Collinson50,Reference Stone51 Perceived risk has consistently been identified as the strongest predictor of outcome of assessments for involuntary admission in English studies.Reference Singh, Burns, Tyrer, Islam, Parsons and Crawford52-Reference Wickersham, Nairi, Jones and Lloyd-Evans54 The amendments to the MHA in 2007 extended the reach of coercion in response to perceived risk by broadening legal definitions of mental disorder and treatability, and introducing community coercion through community treatment orders, and has been characterised as reflecting a more general societal preoccupation with risk minimisation. Szmukler & RoseReference Szmuckler and Rose49 identify an increasing salience for risk assessment in mental healthcare internationally. It is plausible that increasing focus by mental health staff on risk and safety may have contributed to the rise in detentions since 1983. The increase in detentions for assessment under section 2 of the MHA, rather than treatment under section 3, may be consistent with an increasing willingness by mental health staff to detain people in the context of potential perceived risks, not just established known risks. However, we cannot quantify any such change in attitudes or its impact on detention rates.

Continuity of care

We found little evidence regarding how changes in the continuity of care at MHA assessments may affect the outcome of assessment and thus detention rates. One small study suggests that presence of a community professional, such as the patient's care coordinator, may reduce the risk of a formal assessment for compulsory admission resulting in detention.Reference Wickersham, Nairi, Jones and Lloyd-Evans54 However, we lack information about the extent of any changes over time in the involvement in MHA assessments of practitioners, including general practitioners, who know the patient being assessed.

Legal factors

Three legal factors potentially relevant to detention are: (a) changing legislative approaches to patients who lack decision-making capacity but do not actively object to hospital admission; (b) the introduction of compulsory community treatment; and (c) the police's use of legal powers to bring people with suspected mental health problems to a place of safety for assessment.

Capacity and consent to treatment

Since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force in England in 2000, enshrining the European Convention on Human Rights, it has been unlawful to admit anyone to psychiatric hospital on a voluntary basis who lacks the capacity to consent to this treatment. This requirement has been reinforced by subsequent English case law, most notably the 'Bournewood judgment' in 2004 and the 'Cheshire West' case in 2014. Deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) were introduced in 2008 as an addition to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA): DoLS provide a legal framework for approving in-patient admission and treatment for people who lack decision-making capacity, without using detention under the MHA. It is hypothesised that the rising rate of detentions in England may reflect increasing compliance with human rights law through the application of the MHA rather than DoLS to those who might previously have been admitted voluntarily.

Available research suggests that, prior to the introduction of DoLS, as many as 20% of in-patients were non-objecting and voluntarily admitted, but lacked capacity to consent to admission.Reference Owen, Richardson, David, Szmukler, Haywood and Hotopf56 In 2017-2018, however, fewer than 4000 DoLS applications were completed for patients in psychiatric hospitals, i.e. only about 4% of roughly 100 000 admissions per year in total. The uncertainty in extrapolating from one small research study's findings is acknowledged, and we do not know whether, in practice, some non-objecting patients who lack decision-making capacity may still be (unlawfully) admitted to hospital voluntarily. However, if detention under the MHA is always now used to admit the remaining non-objecting patients who lack capacity but are not subject to DOLS, this could explain a substantial proportion of the rise in detentions in the past decade.

Compulsory community treatment

The introduction of community treatment orders (CTOs) in 2008 has been proposed as a potential contributor to the rising rate of detentions, either by lowering the bar for readmission of patients subject to a CTO (through the use of recall to hospital) or by increasing the risk of relapse by facilitating earlier, premature hospital discharge following the index admission leading to the CTO. The use of CTOs in England increased year on year from 2008 to 2016, with the numbers of people readmitted to hospital from a CTO rising correspondingly ( Table 1). However, a recent systematic reviewReference Barnett, Matthews, Lloyd-Evans, Mackay, Pilling and Johnson59 provides clear evidence that internationally and in England, compulsory community treatment has no effect on raising or reducing readmission rates. This hypothesis is therefore not supported by available evidence.

Police use of place of safety powers

Police use of legal powers (s.135 or s.136 MHA) to convey someone to a health-based place of safety has risen markedly during the study period. This has led to a corresponding increase in the number of people admitted to psychiatric hospital following use of a police place of safety order ( Table 1). It is unknown what proportion of these people might otherwise have been detained via a different pathway, but it is plausible that police are becoming better at identifying people who meet criteria for detention in hospital and bringing them to the attention of health services. Some of those who are now detained via a place of safety order may previously have been arrested or left in public spaces or at home.

Data recording

The Care Quality Commission proposed that more complete reporting of detentions by provider organisations may have led to an artefactual rise in recorded detentions over the study period. An analysis of patient records from 2007 to 2016 in six London boroughsReference Oram, Colling, Pritchard, Khondonker, Fonseca de Freitas and Ter-Minassian60 found substantially lower increases in detention rates in these boroughs than those observed nationally. However, the extent of missing data in the routine nationally collected KP90 data on detentions, and whether this has changed over time, are unknown.

'Double-counting' in official statistics may contribute to a rise in the recorded rate of detentions. Detention episodes within one provider organisation are reported in the KP90 data used for this paper as a single detention, even if a person is transferred from one form of detention to another during this episode (e.g. transfers from a MHA section 2 detention for assessment to section 3 detention for treatment). However, recorded detentions in the KP90 data are inflated by double-counting of transfers in care, where a patient is moved during detention from one hospital to another run by a different provider organisation. This may account for between 12 and 20% of all detentions recorded in the data, and accounts for the big drop in English national detention records in 2017, when a new reporting system was adopted. The increase in the use of private hospitals during the study period is associated with the rise in detentions ( Table 1) and suggests that transfers of care during detentions might have increased, leading to more double-counting and an artefactual rise in reported detentions. However, the extent of any such rise over time is unknown.

Development of an explanatory logic model

From the evidence summarised above, and presented more fully in supplementary Appendices 1 and 2, ratings were made regarding the strength of evidence for each proposed hypothesis to explain the rise in detentions ( Table 2).

An explanatory logic model was then developed (supplementary Appendix 3). Hypotheses contradicted by available evidence were excluded from the model. Bold and dashed text boxes were used to distinguish components of the model supported by available evidence, and those for which available evidence was ambiguous or lacking. Arrows highlighted possible relationships between components of the model.

Following reviewers' feedback on the full logic model described in supplementary Appendix 3 and the initial paper draft, we decided to develop a second visual explanatory model for the observed rise in rates of detentions from 2010 onwards. The rationale for this second model is that more data are available for potential explanatory factors in this period. This complementary but simpler and clearer explanatory model distinguishes two overarching pathways to the rise in detentions during this decade: an increase in perceived need for detention; and an increase in actual need. This second model is shown in Fig. 2.

Discussion

Main findings

Our explanatory model shows that societal, service-related and legal factors may all contribute to the rise in detentions in England since 1983. Changes in legal approaches to safeguarding the rights of patients who lack decision-making capacity are a probable major contributor to the rapid increase in detentions in this decade. Rising levels of mental illness and demographic change in the population may both contribute. Mental health services and the police may be getting better at identifying people who meet criteria for detention, while in some community mental healthcare settings, increasingly stretched resources may reduce the availability and intensity of the preventive support that can be provided to patients to avert relapse or subsequent detention.

Other factors may be important, but we lack confirmatory evidence. These include: increased exposure of vulnerable groups to economic and social hardship, reduction of available informal social support, changes in drug use among the patient population, changes in public and practitioners' attitudes to risk and safety, and reduced NHS in-patient bed availability. The reported rise in detentions may have been inflated by the unreliability of available data.

Available evidence suggests that reductions in the availability or quality of community crisis care and the introduction of community treatment orders have not contributed to the rise in detentions. We also found evidence that public fear and exclusion of people with mental illness has decreased in England during the study period, in contradiction to a hypothesis that reduced tolerance of people with mental health problems has driven the rise in detentions.

Strengths and limitations

Our paper collects and appraises the available evidence for and against 17 hypotheses for the rising detention rate, finding evidence to support 4 and reject 3 hypotheses. It thus provides the most comprehensive and informed exploration to date of the rising rate of detentions in England. We identify ten limitations of this paper. First, reported detention rates are based on routinely collected national data that are not wholly reliable. Second, our list of hypotheses to explain the rising rate of detentions may not be exhaustive. For example, the impact on detention rates of changing practices in discharge and transfer of patients with mental health conditions from accident and emergency and general hospitals was raised during the peer review process for this paper. The selection and framing of hypotheses, and ratings of the strength of evidence supporting each hypothesis, will inevitably reflect the perspectives and biases of those involved. Both the MHA Review topic group and the paper's authors comprised a range of mental health stakeholders, but the most represented group in both was academic psychiatrists. Third, because of the breadth of the topic, searches for available evidence were not systematic, and relevant data or research may have been overlooked. Fourth, our evaluation has highlighted hypotheses for which corroborating evidence from explanatory variables is available. However, hypotheses for which we lacked any relevant data to explore associations with detentions may be equally important - for example, changes in attitudes to risk and safety and risk assessment practice among mental health professionals. Fifth, for some hypotheses for which potential explanatory variables were identified, we lacked sufficient data points to allow statistical exploration of their relationship to detention rates. For variables with at least ten data points for which we did conduct analyses, these were not informed by power calculations: potentially important relationships may not have achieved statistical significance. Sixth, identified associations between explanatory variables and detention rates do not determine whether relationships are causal. With the exception of in-patient bed numbers, we were rarely able to establish temporality to inform consideration of the direction of causation in associations. For many hypotheses, additional available research was insufficient to confidently infer or reject causality or establish mechanisms. For example, it is unclear why men and people from BAME ethnic groups are detained more often, and many proposed explanations lack empirical support.Reference Barnett, Mackay, Matthews, Gate, Greenwood and Ariyo61 Seventh, for many of the explanatory variables that we examined, data regarding changes over time were only available at whole-population level, not specifically for those people who are detained, or vulnerable to detention, thus creating risks of ecological fallacies. This may have particularly limited our exploration of the impact of social and economic factors on detention rates. For instance, falls in overall poverty levels in England have not been experienced equally among all demographic groups, while the measure of income inequality used in our analyses (the Gini coefficient) has been criticised as being insufficiently sensitive to change.Reference Gastwirth63 We have been unable to locate evidence specifically for people with mental health problems regarding change over time in levels of unemployment, work precarity, disposable income, benefits sanctions, living alone or similar variables, with which to interrogate our hypotheses in more depth. Eighth, we used a single source of data for each population-level indicator used as potential explanatory variables, to allow comparisons of change over time. However, for some indicators, there were changes during the study period in data-reporting methods or acknowledged concerns about data quality, which may limit the validity of comparisons over time. Where identified, these are reported for each variable in supplementary Appendix 1. Ninth, for mental health service provision, staffing and funding, we have relied on available national data for mental health services in general. Specific changes or pressures for children's or older adults' services may be obscured. Last, we have mainly looked at the relationship between proposed explanatory factors and detention rates individually. We were limited in how far we could explore interrelationships between explanatory factors and cumulative effects of exposure to several factors.

For these reasons, our proposed explanatory logic model has limited empirical support. It does not offer certainty, but does illustrate likely and possible contributory factors to the rising rate of detentions in England between 1983 and 2016. We have looked specifically for evidence to explain the rise in detentions in England during this time period: our explanatory model may have less validity for other countries and time periods.

Implications for research

This study was limited by the limited information available from routine data about detentions in England. The complete KP90 data held by NHS Digital, which allowed us to compare rates of detention over time, could not yield answers to basic questions regarding in which clinical or demographic groups the rise was occurring. Better routine data are required. The change by NHS Digital in 2016-2017 to collecting complete data about detentions at individual patient level may address this need to some extent over time. The development of local NHS systems that allow researchers to access detailed, anonymised records for all patients using local secondary mental health servicesReference Fernandes, Cloete, Broadbent, Hayes, Chang and Jackson64 also enables more sophisticated understanding of risk factors for detention and changes over time.

Our study highlights numerous areas where further research is needed regarding the relationship of potential explanatory factors to rates of detention, especially for social and economic factors, and attitudes to risk and safety.

Public health research indicates that increasing psychiatric morbidity in England may be a result of increasing social deprivation,Reference Barr, Kinderman and Whitehead65 and that specific social and administrative measures may also influence mental health outcomes: for instance, increases in 'fitness for work' tests being associated with more suicides.Reference Barr, Taylor-Robinson and Stucker66 We need a clearer and more nuanced understanding of the extent of exposure to social and economic stressors among people with mental health problems, how this may change over time and how, if at all, it relates to changes in rates of detention.

Practitioners' attitudes to risk and safety are variable and highly important regarding decisions to detain,Reference Sendt, Tracy and Bhattacharyya48-Reference Stone51 but changes over time in clinical culture and practice are not easily evaluated empirically. More qualitative research to understand the nature and extent of practitioners' biases and group-level stigma has been called for, to aid understanding of the rise in detentions and the disproportionately high rates of detention for people from BAME groups.Reference Barnett, Mackay, Matthews, Gate, Greenwood and Ariyo61 A better understanding of what drives clinicians' decision-making regarding detention is desirable, as is development and evaluation of interventions to improve the quality of risk assessment and encourage appropriate positive risk-taking.

In this context, three elements of the legal processes for detention are priorities for further research. First, there is a need to understand the causes and consequences of the specific rise in the use of section 2 of the MHA for assessment, rather than section 3 for treatment. Although this may simply be an appropriate response to more new people requiring detention,Reference Oram, Colling, Pritchard, Khondonker, Fonseca de Freitas and Ter-Minassian60 the MHA Review expressed concerns that section 2 is being 'overused', either through a growing perception that it is less restrictive than a detention for treatment, or because it can be easier to complete, as does not require a place of treatment to be identified. Exploration of patient-level data is desirable regarding circumstances and rates of conversion from assessment and treatment sections, and their relationship to subsequent readmission rates. Second, research is required to understand clinicians' decision-making processes in using MHA or MCA DoLS processes to detain patients who are not objecting to admission but lack decision-making capacity, and how this choice affects patients' experiences and outcomes. Third, research is needed to understand the circumstances in which patients are discharged from detention following appeal to a tribunal. This may help identify uses of detention that were unwarranted or avoidable, and how these may contribute to the rising detention rate.

Implications for policy and practice

There is considerable uncertainty about many of our proposed explanations for the rise in detentions in England. Furthermore, interventions might help to reduce detentions, even if they are unrelated to the reasons for the rise: for example, improving community crisis care. For these reasons, implications from our study for policy and practice should be proposed with caution. However, we suggest three areas of priority for reducing detentions.

First, an increase in detentions appears to have been an unintended consequence of legislation and English case law regarding safeguarding the rights of non-objecting patients who lack decision-making capacity and require hospital admission. Clear guidance and training are required for practitioners regarding assessment of capacity and when detention under the MHA is indicated rather than use of DoLS provisions under the MCA. Sufficient staff, appropriately trained in both processes, are required to ensure that the most appropriate course of action can be used in each case.

Second, the past decade has seen a large increase in the number of people treated by secondary mental health services (in addition to the expansion of psychological services in primary care), and a corresponding reduction in the amount of care offered to each individual patient in some service settings. This appears to have been a de facto change in mental healthcare over the past decade rather than one explicitly planned in policy. Within any level of total investment, achieving the optimal balance between breadth and depth of care involves weighing many different aims and priorities. Consideration should be given by policy planners and commissioners to the share of healthcare funding provided to mental health services, and to the potential effect on detention rates of spreading mental health resources increasingly widely, and thus away from the high-need, low-number group of patients most vulnerable to detention.

Third, our study shows that not all the rise in detentions in England necessarily relates directly to mental health service provision: wider societal factors may be equally important to address. Potential contributory factors such as increasing psychiatric morbidity and social deprivation and inequalities require a broader public health and governmental response. More attention to the potential mental health impact of wider social policy is desirable.

Lived experience: commentary by Stephen Jeffreys and Stella Branthonne-Foster

Collectively, we have personal experience of community and in-patient mental health services. We commented on drafts of this paper but did not contribute to the design and scope of the project.

The authors highlight gaps in detentions data: lack of individual-level data and failure to differentiate between frequent individual detentions and detention of more people, plus limited monitoring of Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics.

The paper suggests that detaining more patients lacking capacity, who were previously admitted informally, is a major factor. However, this hypothesis relates only to the second period of steepest rise in detentions. Furthermore, it would be interesting to specifically examine child and adolescent mental health services data for similar trends.

The children and young people's landscape is vastly different from that of their adult counterparts and needs specific consideration. We regret that data on children and young people are merged into the overall national data-set; it is important to note the differences in services (both in-patient and community), and the needs and presentations of under-18s. We anticipate that absence of these data obscures factors specific to that age group.

The biggest increases in detention rates have coincided with two periods of recession, but the authors were unable to demonstrate the impact of austerity or find data specific to those with mental health problems. We suggest widening this investigation to encompass other and more intangible factors associated with austerity and neoliberal ideology, such as individualism, cuts in local services and financial uncertainty. As there has also been a substantial increase in demand on community mental health teams, this work should not be limited to rates of detention.

The paper reveals that MHA section 2 detentions have increased, with section 3 figures remaining stable. Are hospitals discharging patients more quickly and perhaps too quickly owing to pressure on beds, are they finding swifter methods of support and treatment, or are more people being detained under the MHA unnecessarily?

Data availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article (and/or its supplementary materials).

Funding

This paper presents independent research commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme, conducted through the NIHR Policy Research Unit in Mental Health (PR-PRU-0916-22003). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care or its arm's length bodies, or other Government Departments. S.P.S. is part-funded by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West Midlands (NIHR CLAHRC WM).

Acknowledgements

Dr Gareth Owen, Professor Paul McCrone and Joe Botham from King's College London helped to identify relevant data or research papers for some of the evidence summaries in this paper. We thank Stephen Jeffreys and Stella Branthonne-Foster, both members of the Lived Experience Working Group in the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Mental Health Policy Research Unit, for their commentary on this paper.

Author contributions

B.L.-E., C.M., S.S. were members of the Working Group for the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act 1983. B.L.-E., C.M., S.S., D.C.-K., P.K. and S.P.S. were members of the expert topic group on understanding the rising rate of detentions, which supported the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act. The topic group was chaired by S.W., and topic group members helped generate and refine study hypotheses. B.L.-E., S.W., C.M., S.S., S.J. and L.S.-R. designed the study. J.K. advised on relevant data sources. L.S.-R., L.M., N.L. and B.L.-E. extracted data, scoped relevant research papers and drafted hypothesis summaries for supplementary Appendix 2. L.S.-R. conducted data analyses, with advice from R.J.. B.L.-E. and L.S.-R. drafted the manuscript. All authors (L.S.-R., S.W., C.M., S.S., P.K., D.C.-K., S.P.S., R.J., J.K., L.M., S.B.-F., S.J., B.L.-E.) helped interpret findings, revise the manuscript and approved the submitted version.

Declaration of interest

B.L.-E., C.M., S.S. were members of the Working Group for the Independent Review of the Mental health Act 1983. B.L.-E., C.M., S.S., D.C.-K., P.K. and S.P.S. were members of the expert topic group on understanding the rising rate of detentions, which supported the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act. S.W. chaired the topic group.

ICMJE forms are in the supplementary material, available online at https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2020.64.

Appendix

Proposed hypotheses for the rising rate of detentions in England since 1983

We hypothesised the following 17 potential contributory factors to the rising rate of detentions, listed here with possible mechanisms for the hypotheses (how might exposure to the hypothesised risk factors cause or modify the risk of detention?)

Social factors

1. (1) Social and economic hardship: increased exposure to social stressors leads to more frequent relapses in the patient population and/or increase in rates of people developing a mental illness, leading to more detentions (social stressors could include: poverty, unemployment, social inequality, benefits sanctions, exposure to discrimination or hate crime).

2. (2) Increased drug and alcohol use: increased substance misuse leads to increased risk of relapse in the patient population and/or increased rates of mental illness.

3. (3) Demographic change (increased numbers of those at risk of detention): some demographic groups are at higher risk of detention than others (i.e. men, people from BAME groups and young adults age 18-35): if the proportion of the population from these groups increases, we would expect higher rates of detention.

4. (4) Increasing rates of mental illness: a proportion of those with mental illness become so unwell that detention is required: higher rates of mental illness lead to more detentions.

5. (5) Reduced informal social support: the absence of informal support (and perhaps the increase in people living alone) leads to higher rates of relapse; it also makes delivery of community-based crisis care difficult, and admission more likely; bed pressures result in the eventual need for detention.

Service factors

1. (6) Reduced availability and quality of community mental health services: reductions in the reach (number of patients seen) by community mental health ongoing care services leads to reduced capacity to prevent detentions. Reductions in the quantity and quality of care provided to current patients (possibly due to reduced investment in community mental health services) lead to increased rates of relapse, leading to more detentions.

2. (7) Reduced availability of alternatives to admission: reduced availability of less restrictive community alternatives to admission leads to more compulsory admissions for patients not prepared to go into hospital.

3. (8) Reduced quality and/or responsiveness of crisis services: later intervention, or the lack of home treatment services, will result in more patients needing to be admitted.

4. (9) Reduced in-patient bed capacity: lack of availability of beds (evidenced by reduction in bed numbers or increased bed occupancy rates) means that patients have longer to wait for a bed and are therefore more unwell at the time of admission; or are detained when voluntary admission was possible, in order to secure a bed; or are discharged prematurely to free beds, leading to more frequent relapse and re-detention.

5. (10) Less continuity of care at Mental Health Act (MHA) assessments: assessment of risk may be more conservative (and overestimated) by professionals who do not know the patient.

6. (11) Increased focus on safety and risk among mental health professionals: section 12 doctors and approved mental health professionals (AMHPs) have become more likely to detain patients with a risk and clinical presentation that would not have led to detention in the past, owing to changes in professional culture and attitudes to patient safety and risk management.

7. (12) Changes in prescribing practice: reduced use of depot medication over time has led to reduced medication adherence, resulting in more relapses and subsequent detentions. Reduced use of clozapine over time has led to more relapses and subsequent detentions.

Legal factors

1. (13) Changes in legal and clinical practice in respect of patients who lack decision-making capacity: following the Bournewood judgment ( HL v. UK [2004] ECHR 471) in 2004, non-objecting patients who lack decision-making capacity, who might previously have been admitted to hospital informally, must now be subject to a 'lawful process', i.e. detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 or the Mental Capacity Act 2005 deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS).

2. (14) Introduction of community treatment orders (CTOs) (and earlier discharge): (a) there is a lower threshold for CTO recall than for admission following an MHA assessment, so CTO patients are recalled to hospital who would not otherwise have been detained, leading to an increase in compulsory admissions since introduction of CTOs in 2008; (b) CTOs are used as a means of facilitating early (premature) discharge, leading to frequent relapse and recall/readmission.

3. (15) Police more likely to bring people to a place of safety under section 135 or 136: increasing mental health awareness and use of MHA sections 135 and 136 by the police lead to patients being brought to a place of safety and subsequently detained, who would previously have been arrested or left at home/in public places and not have ended up detained through other routes.

Data-recording factors

1. (16) Better data reporting in recent years: over time, service providers are submitting more complete data returns regarding detained patients, so underreporting of detentions in official statistics reduces.

2. (17) Increase in transfers between hospitals during admission leads to double-counting: increasing bed pressures lead to an increase in transfers between hospitals for patients during a detention (out-of-area NHS placements and use of private hospitals), leading to increased double-counting of detentions in KP90 data.

References

6 GOV.UK. Modernising the Mental Health Act: Increasing Choice, Reducing Compulsion. Final Report from the Independent Review of the Mental health Act 1983. GOV.UK, 2018.

7 Care Quality Commission. Mental Health Act: The Rise of the Use of the Mental Health Act to Detain People in England. CQC, 2018.

58 Care Quality Commission. Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2015/16. CQC, 2016.

62 JRF Analysis Unit. UK Poverty 2018: A Comprehensive Analysis of Poverty Trends and Figures. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2018.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding increasing rates of psychiatric hospital detentions in England: development and preliminary testing of an explanatory model

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rates of detention in psychiatric hospital have more than doubled in England since 1983 and risen faster than almost anywhere else in Europe during the past decade.Reference Sheridan-Rains, Zenina, Dias, Jones, Jeffreys and Branthonne-Foster1 Detention in hospital is inherently coercive: it is experienced by most patients as such,Reference Sheehan and Burns2,Reference Akther, Molyneaux, Stuart, Johnson, Simpson and Oram3 and 3 months after detention many patients still disagree with the decision to detain them.Reference Priebe, Katsakou, Glöckner, Dembinskas, Fiorillo and Karastergiou4 Involuntary hospital admissions are typically longer and more costly than voluntary admissions.

# data[].attributes.headline
AMHP Service Standards Toolkit - Word Version 

# data[].attributes.subject
AMHP Service Standards Toolkit - Word Version 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Patient information leaflets are available below in the following languages: Arabic, Albanian, Bengali, Farsi (Persian), French, Gujarati, Hindi, Italian, Korean, Lithuanian, Mandarin, Pashto, Polish, Portugese, Punjabi, Russian, Somali, Spanish, Swahili, Sylheti, Tamil, Turkish, Urdu, and Vietnamese. The leaflets below were produced in August 2009 for a consortium of NHS Trusts and are available copyright-free. The translation project was run by Northamptonshire Healthcare Trust in collaboration with several other NHS organisations.

See also Mental Health Act 1983 information leaflets for English- and Welsh-language information leaflets.

Czech foreign-language leaflets (translated for Leeds and York Partnership NHS Trust, May 2014):

External link

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Patient information leaflets are available below in the following languages: Arabic, Albanian, Bengali, Farsi (Persian), French, Gujarati, Hindi, Italian, Korean, Lithuanian, Mandarin, Pashto, Polish, Portugese, Punjabi, Russian, Somali, Spanish, Swahili, Sylheti, Tamil, Turkish, Urdu, and Vietnamese. The leaflets below were produced in August 2009 for a consortium of NHS Trusts and are available copyright-free.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mental Health Act

This section is about detention under the Mental Health Act. This is sometimes called 'sectioning'. We explain why you may be detained, and what rights you have. If you care for someone who has been detained, you might also find this information useful.

Learn more

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
National mental health charity: information, services & a strong voice for everyone affected by mental illness - challenging attitudes and changing lives.

# data[].attributes.body
Skills for Care

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This research report explores the contribution of social workers that work with older people with mental ill-health in multidisciplinary teams.

This study from Manchester University explores how people who use mental health services value their mental health social workers.

Cormac, R. (2020). It takes a village to deal with mental health: How to integrate theory, practice and social policies. Psychreg Journal of Psychology, Vol 4, No. 2, pp. 99-103 - Read more

Series, L. (2020). 'Chapter 6 - disability and human rights' in Watson, N. and Vehmas, S. (eds). Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies (2nd edition). - Read more

Keep up-to-date with latest news and updates through these regular newsletters.

Principal Social Worker (PSW) weekly emails

These weekly emails are a round-up the latest news, updates and events specifically for PSWs. If you are a PSW and would like to receive this, please email PSWnetworks@skillsforcare.org.uk

Social work with adults - Department of Health and Social Care

This webpage shares insights, updates and reflections from the Chief Social Worker for Adults and others working in the field.

Monthly social work briefing (Skills for Care)

This briefing shares the latest news and developments from the adult social care sector, including links to local events and developments. Sign up here.

This webpage is for anyone that works in mental health services that provide, deliver or manage mental health social work, including:

mental health social workers

team managers of mental health social work services

senior managers of mental health social work services

NHS managers who oversee integrated health and social care teams or services

approved mental health professionals

approved mental capacity professionals.

You might work in a range of organisations, including:

NHS mental health trusts

local authorities

Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs)

private sector hospitals and agencies

voluntary sector hospitals and agencies

government agencies

health and social care organisations.

The website is hosted by Skills for Care and managed by:

Mark Trewin, Mental Health Social Work Lead for the Office of the Chief Social Worker for Adults

Karen Linde, Programme Lead for Social Work for Better Mental Health/Senior Associate Centre for Citizenship and Community

Karen Morse, Head of Area and Mental Health Lead at Skills for Care.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This section of the website is for anyone that's involved in the leadership of social work and mental health services. It includes links to the latest news, resources and bulletins, to help you to keep up-to-date with best practice and developments in this area of work.

# data[].attributes.headline
2019 National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Safety

# data[].attributes.subject
2019 National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Safety

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Working more closely with families could improve suicide prevention. Services should consult with families from first contact, throughout the care pathway and when preparing plans for hospital discharge and crisis plans.

Staff should also make it easier for families to pass on concerns about suicide risk and be prepared to share their own concerns. This could help to ensure there is a better understanding of the patient's history and what is important to them in terms of their recovery, and may support better compliance with treatment.

There should be a multi-disciplinary review following all suicide deaths, involving input from and sharing information with families.

Our evidence

Staff told us that greater involvement of the family by the service would have reduced suicide risk in 18% of patients.

One example of clinicians think services can improve contact with families is by informing them when a patient does not attend an appointment. In only 27% of deaths by suicide the service contacted the family when the patient missed the final appointment before the suicide occurred. Policies for multidisciplinary review and information sharing with families were associated with a 24% fall in suicide rates in implementing NHS Trusts, indicative of a learning or training effect.

Patients tell us they want their families to have as much involvement as possible in their assessment of clinical risk, including sharing crisis/safety plans with them. Clinicians tell us family involvement is vital to enhancing patient safety in mental healthcare settings.

Guidance

The Independent Commission on Acute Adult Psychiatric Care cite these recommendations, stating that families and carers are an underused resource.

An in-depth thematic review of claims made after an individual has attempted to take their life by NHS Resolution recommends family members and carers are included in all serious incident investigations following a suicide death.

The NICE Quality Statement on suicide prevention and the NICE guideline on self-harm state individuals presenting with suicidal thoughts or plans, or individuals who have self-harmed, should have the opportunity to discuss whether they would like their family, carers or friends involved in their care.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Working more closely with families could improve suicide prevention. Services should consult with families from first contact, throughout the care pathway and when preparing plans for hospital discharge and crisis plans. Staff should also make it easier for families to pass on concerns about suicide risk and be prepared to share their own concerns.

# data[].attributes.body
You will need this password to view: s#WE*4*N

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video Conferencing, Web Conferencing, Webinars, Screen Sharing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoom is the leader in modern enterprise video communications, with an easy, reliable cloud platform for video and audio conferencing, chat, and webinars across mobile, desktop, and room systems. Zoom Rooms is the original software-based conference room solution used around the world in board, conference, huddle, and training rooms, as well as executive offices and classrooms. Founded in 2011, Zoom helps businesses and organizations bring their teams together in a frictionless environment to get more done.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The role of the Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) is one of the most important and senior professional roles in mental health services, operating across services, over 24-hours a day and working alongside many other professionals.
The AMHP role has been under a great deal of pressure over recent years and one of the findings of Health Education England's (HEE's) new roles research is that it has not had the same national attention and support that other senior professional roles have.

Access useful resources for anyone that's involved in developing and leading AMHP services.

National workforce plan for Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs), DHSC (2019)

The National Workforce Plan for Approved Mental Health Professionals is written for local authorities, directors of adult and children's social care, NHS Mental Health Trusts and Integrated Care System workforce leads to understand the role of the AMHP in mental health services, to coordinate the development of the AMHP role and to aid the recruitment and retention of AMHPs.
The document:
Support criteria and self-assessment tools for the AMHP service standards

The National Workforce Plan for Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs) contains the national AMHP service standards for England, which have been developed over the past two years with input from the AMHP Leads Network, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS), Social Work England, Social Work for Better Mental Health, Skills for Care and other key stakeholders.

The AMHP service standards are designed to provide consistent standards and a unifying and supporting framework for AMHPs across the country to address their operational concerns in relation to their welfare and draw on the emerging principles and priorities of the Mental Health Act Review (2018).

Health Education England's (HEE's) New Roles in Mental Health Task & Finish Group has recommended the development of a range of support criteria and self-assessment tools for the AMHP service standards, which will enable regional AMHP leads and principal social workers to use the standards to develop their AMHP services.

The AMHP workforce: research reports

Several organisations have done research about the AMHP workforce, which can inform local and national understanding and strengthen the case for NHS and local authority mental health services to work closely together to improve care and support for local communities. They can also help local leaders to understand the challenges and issues, in order to co-design solutions across partnerships.

This workforce intelligence report outlines important data and demographics about the AMHP role from research with 138 local authorities across England.

You can also view a pictorial summary of this report here.

This report summarises the findings from two projects that explored the work of, and the adult social care workforce involved in, mental health services, in particular AMHPs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
amhp workforce plan and service standards

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
approved mental health professional (amhp)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
approved mental health professional service standards

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AMHP workforce plan and service standards

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The role of the Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) is one of the most important and senior professional roles in mental health services, operating across services, over 24-hours a day and working alongside many other professionals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Inspiring excellence in social care. Read the latest social work and social care news, opinion and analysis and find your perfect social work or social care job