G Riley1, J Laidlaw, D Pugh, E Freeman. 1. 2gether NHS Foundation Trust, Trust Headquarters, Rikenel, Montpellier, Gloucester GL1 1LY, UK. genevieve.riley@glos.nhs.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Section 136 (S136) of the Mental Health Act (1983, as amended by the 2007 Act) empowers the police to detain those suspected of being mentally disordered in a public place and to convey them to a place of safety (POS) for further assessment. Gloucestershire has not had a specialist facility for S136 detentions and individuals were taken to the police cells or occasionally A&E departments for assessment. AIMS: This paper forms one part of three aspects under investigation. Two companion papers by the authors describe the use of S136 using anonymised audit data and the experiences of detainees. The objectives of this paper have been to assess the responses of the different professional groups involved in the process of S136. METHOD: An anonymous postal questionnaire was distributed to eight groups of professionals who were identified as having the potential to be involved in part of the process of a S136 detention. Results were collated and analysed, and formed the basis for a series of follow-up focus groups within groups to explore themes that warranted further investigation. RESULTS: An overall response rate of 59% was achieved. Seventy-four per cent of participants thought that there should be an alternative POS to the police station. A&E was thought to be an unsuitable alternative POS, with a psychiatric hospital being the first choice for 58%. CONCLUSIONS: There is a gap in the expectations of the different agencies involved in the S136 process, which have the potential to be divisive if interagency pathways and agreements are not in place.
BACKGROUND: Section 136 (S136) of the Mental Health Act (1983, as amended by the 2007 Act) empowers the police to detain those suspected of being mentally disordered in a public place and to convey them to a place of safety (POS) for further assessment. Gloucestershire has not had a specialist facility for S136 detentions and individuals were taken to the police cells or occasionally A&E departments for assessment. AIMS: This paper forms one part of three aspects under investigation. Two companion papers by the authors describe the use of S136 using anonymised audit data and the experiences of detainees. The objectives of this paper have been to assess the responses of the different professional groups involved in the process of S136. METHOD: An anonymous postal questionnaire was distributed to eight groups of professionals who were identified as having the potential to be involved in part of the process of a S136 detention. Results were collated and analysed, and formed the basis for a series of follow-up focus groups within groups to explore themes that warranted further investigation. RESULTS: An overall response rate of 59% was achieved. Seventy-four per cent of participants thought that there should be an alternative POS to the police station. A&E was thought to be an unsuitable alternative POS, with a psychiatric hospital being the first choice for 58%. CONCLUSIONS: There is a gap in the expectations of the different agencies involved in the S136 process, which have the potential to be divisive if interagency pathways and agreements are not in place.
Authors: Tahwinder Upile; Waseem Jerjes; Panagiotis Kafas; Sandeep U Singh; Jaspal Mahil; Ann Sandison; Colin Hopper; Holger Sudhoff Journal: Int Arch Med Date: 2009-04-03