Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-27gpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T14:11:32.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Inconsistencies in Section 136 assessments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Khurram Sadiq
Affiliation:
Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, email: khurramlodhi74@hotmail.com
Rupali Acharya
Affiliation:
CT2 Psychiatry, Trafford
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2010

Liz Tate Reference Tate1 rightfully mentioned that there are junior trainees attending to the Section 136 assessments, despite clear guidance in the Mental Health Act Code of Practice that it should be done by Section 12(2)-approved doctors. Further to that, the Code states that a reason should be documented for divulging from the aforementioned practice. In most places this practice of assessments by a non-Section 12(2)-approved doctor is a protocol and a norm.

Every directorate and trust has its own local policies, keeping the Code of Practice as standard. For the formulation of a local policy, representatives from multiple agencies such as police, accident and emergency departments, ambulance services, Social Services and mental health services formulate guidelines for the fluidity of the process of Section 136 assessments. Timescales are set for the completion of these assessments and are regularly reviewed.

There are provisions for middle tier or consultant cover to facilitate the Section 136 assessments. Despite these arrangements, there are units where the attendance of non-Section 12(2)-approved doctors is the first port of call for such assessment; after a detailed history has been taken from the patient, the Section 12(2)-approved doctor is contacted and the assessment completed. Furthermore, it is known that there are places where non-Section 12(2)-approved doctors discharge patients after having discussions over the telephone with a Section 12(2)-approved doctor. It has also been found that there are times when patients are admitted to in-patient beds under Section 136 for more than 48 hours, for example because the concerned Section 12(2)-approved doctor is reluctant to come out to complete the Section 136 assessment out of hours. There are few places where the Code of Practice is scrupulously followed and Section 12(2)-approved doctors are the first port of contact.

It makes you wonder that despite being a part of the legal system, Section 136 is very poorly managed as compared with the other sections of the Mental Health Act. There is no unitary form for Section 136 assessment documentation and no accountability for the assessments and detention of persons on Section 136. The time is right to make amends for this varied practice and for measures to be taken to get it right.

References

1 Tate, L. Inexperienced trainees doing more Section 136 assessments (e-letter). Psychiatrist 2010; 26 July (http://pb.rcpsych.org/cgi/eletters/34/7/268#10147).Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.