首页> 外文期刊>Health & social care in the community >Treading a tightrope: Professional perspectives on balancing the rights of patient's and relative's under the Mental Health Act in England
【24h】

Treading a tightrope: Professional perspectives on balancing the rights of patient's and relative's under the Mental Health Act in England

机译:踩着绳索:关于平衡患者和亲戚根据英格兰的心理健康行为的权利的专业视角

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Involuntary detention is used internationally to detain and treat people who are deemed to have a mental disorder. In England and Wales, approved mental health professionals (AMHPs) co‐ordinate Mental Health Act assessments which allow for patients to be detained. AMHPs have legal duties to identify, inform and consult with a patient's nearest relative (NR), who are, in turn, given powers to initiate or challenge detention. Our study takes an original approach through examining how AMHPs interpret their duties towards nearest relatives. We adopted a two‐stage design, which involved an online questionnaire with 55 AMHPs and focus group discussions with 33 AMHPs. The research was conducted in England between 2017 and 2018. Our questionnaire found that a high proportion of AMHPs reported that they had spoken to NRs for background information when assessing patients under the Mental Health Act. However, AMHPs were less likely to ask patients about their views of involving the NR prior to assessment. Focus group findings showed that AMHPs saw the NR role as offering an important ‘safeguard’ on the basis that NRs could provide information about the patient and advocate on their behalf. AMHPs identified practical difficulties in balancing their legal obligation towards NRs and patients; particularly where issues of potential abuse were raised or where patients had identified that they did not want NR involvement. While AMHPs stated that they sought to prioritise patient wishes regarding confidentiality, their accounts identified that patient consent about information sharing was sometimes implied rather than sought explicitly. Our findings reinforce conclusions by the recent Independent Review of the MHA, which states that current NR provisions are ‘outdated, variable and insufficient’. We identify that current practice could be improved using advanced choice documents and outline implications for AMHP practice.
机译:摘要在国际上使用了非自愿拘留,以拘留和治疗被视为精神障碍的人。在英格兰和威尔士,批准的心理健康专业人士(AMHPS)协调精神卫生法令评估,允许拘留的患者。 AMHPS有法律责任,以识别,告知和咨询患者最近的亲密关系(NR),谁依次给予启动或挑战拘留的权力。我们的研究通过审查AMHPS如何将其解释为最近的亲属的职责,采取原创的方法。我们采用了一个两级设计,其中涉及与35个AMHPS和焦点小组讨论的在线调查问卷,与33 AMHPS讨论。该研究在2017年至2018年间在英国进行。我们的调查问卷发现,在评估精神卫生法案下的患者时,他们已向NRS讨论了他们对NRS进行了背景信息的高度比例。但是,AMHPS不太可能在评估前询问患者涉及NR的观点。焦点集团调查结果表明,AMHPS在基于NRS可以提供​​有关患者的信息并代表他们提倡的基础上提供了NR的作用。 AMHPS确定了平衡其对NRS和患者的法律义务的实际困难;特别是在提出潜在滥用问题的情况下,或者患者发现他们不想要NR参与的地方。虽然AMHPS表示,他们试图确定患者意愿关于机密性,但他们的账户确定了有时暗示了关于信息共享的患者同意,而不是明确寻求。我们的调查结果通过最近对MHA的独立审查加强了结论,这些审查称当前的NR规定是“过时,可变的,不足”。我们确定可以使用高级选择文档和概述对AMHP实践的影响来改进目前的实践。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号