Department of Health
consults on pandemic flu contingency legislation for mental health
News Release issued by
the COI News Distribution Service on 10 September 2009
The Department of
Health today launched a consultation on whether there is a need to
make temporary changes to the Mental Health Act 1983 should
exceptional circumstances arise during pandemic flu. The
contingency legislation would enable mental health patients to
continue to get the treatment they need in the event of severe
staff absences.
The 1983 Act enables people with mental health problems to be
detained in hospital, where necessary and justified, for care and
treatment. The Act sets out a range of processes that
professionals have to follow when people need to be detained. For
example, detaining someone normally requires the agreement of two
doctors.
We are consulting on whether we should temporarily change certain
aspects of the 1983 Act in the event of severe staff absences
during pandemic flu. The changes would ensure that mental health
professionals could continue to operate the Act in the best
interests of the patient and for the protection of others.
Strong safeguards would remain in place to protect patients
rights, for example, the right to an independent mental health
advocate. In addition, if the contingencies are implemented, we
also propose to ask the Care Quality Commission to convene an
oversight group with representation from national mental health
service user and professional bodies to advise on progress and the
need for ongoing contingency measures.
Louis Appleby, National Director of Mental Health
Services said:
“There are already strong contingency plans in place for pandemic
flu in mental health services, as there are for the rest of the
NHS.
“It is important that we find out whether temporary changes in
the Mental Health Act would help professionals and protect
patients. We will also consider what in what kind of exceptional
circumstances we might need to use them. It would only be in
exceptional circumstances and strong safeguards would remain in
place.
“We are determined to make sure we have a sensible, proportionate
approach that ensures that vulnerable mental health patients
continue to get the treatment they need, when they need it, even
in the event of staff absences. It is only sensible to be prepared
for every eventuality.”
The proposals fall into three categories:
Reducing the number of doctors required to comply with a number
of sections in the 1983 Act – for example, it will be possible to
detain someone in hospital under section 2 or 3 and the courts
will be able to send someone to hospital rather than prison if
just one doctor says this is right instead of the usual
two.Extending or suspending time limits that apply to certain
actions under some provisions in the 1983 Act – for example the
obligation to obtain a second medical opinion about medication
when someone has been in hospital for three months or more.
Allowing certain additional people to be approved to undertake
some specific functions under the 1983 Act – for example some
recently-retired approved social workers may be temporarily
approved to undertake the role of the approved mental health professional.
Notes to Editors
The full consultation can be found at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/index.htm
and it closes on 7 October 2009.
Responses can be sent to pandemicandmentalhealth@dh.gsi.gov.uk or
Mental Health Legislation Team
Department of Health
Wellington House
133-155 Waterloo Road
London SE1 8UG
Consultation Questions include:
In which circumstances would it be appropriate for the Secretary
of State to bring the temporary changes into force?
Who should collect what information about the contingency
measures? What arrangements should be made for this information to
be passed on?
Should the temporary changes be permissive rather than obligatory
- allowing practitioners to use them where circumstances make it
necessary but allowing normal safeguards to continue to be adhered
to whenever possible?
Should just one medical recommendation be required for a number
of actions under part 3 of the 1983 Act and where an approved
mental health professional asks for someone to be detained under
section 2 or 3 of the 1983 Act?
Should we suspend the obligation to obtain second opinions on
medication as part of the temporary measures?
Should we change some time limits as part of the contingency
measures? These relate to court orders on conveying people and
admitting them to hospital; and Secretary of State warrants on
transferring people from prison to hospital.
Should strategic health authorities and local authorities be
allowed to approve certain additional people as approved
clinicians and approved mental health professionals as part of the
contingency changes?
Contacts:
Department of Health
Phone: 020 7210 5221
NDS.DH@coi.gsi.gov.uk