Search results

Mental health and learning disability nurses have been eligible to become approved mental health professionals (AMHPs) since 2008, when the Mental Health Act 2007 was implemented. Despite this, there have been proportionally low numbers of these nurses pursuing the AMHP role. The purpose of this paper is to explore the experiences of these nurse AMHPs of training and practice.

Ten practicing nurse AMHPs were recruited from across four local authority sites. Using semi-structured interviews, participants were asked to discuss their experiences of being an AMHP.

The participants highlighted the need to navigate personal, cultural and structural factors relating to accessing and applying for the training, difficulties with agreeing contracts terms, gaining comparative pay and undertaking the role.

The limitations of this study are the small number of participants and therefore the generalisability of the findings. Also, respondents were practising AMHPs rather than nurses who considered the role but then rejected it as a career option.

This study has led to gain a greater understanding of the experiences of nurse AMHPs.

The results from this study will assist employing local authorities, and NHS consider the barriers to mental health and learning disability nurses becoming AMHPs.

The value of this study is in the insight that provides the experiences of nurse AMHP from applying to training through to being a practising AMHP.

The Mental Health Act 2007 (HM Government, 2007) replaced the approved social worker (ASW) with the approved mental health professional (AMHP), opening up the role to some nonsocial work professions. AMHP training, however, remains linked to the General Social Care Council (GSCC) post‐qualifying social work framework, with AMHP training now incorporated into the higher specialist social work award, set at masters level (level M) rather than first degree (level H) (General Social Care Council, 2007).Analysis of data from the first year of AMHP training at Bournemouth University illustrates some of the challenges that have arisen particularly in relation to the masters level study. Evaluation of the first year highlights some important areas for future consideration in terms of student selection, pre‐course preparation and student support. The data also demonstrate that there have only been a very small number of non social workers enrolling on programmes at the present time. This article will explore some of the possible reasons behind this.

The current role of the approved social worker (ASW) will be changed to that of the approved mental health practitioner, who may be a nurse or other mental health professional, if proposed legislation comes into force in England and Wales. This has implications for service users, carers and the mental health workforce. This article draws on literature and a conference discussing this change attended by practitioners and policy‐makers. It considers the complexity of the ASW role and the implications for the AMHP, and sets the related issues in the context of integrated working.

This paper aims to set out the views of approved mental health professionals (AMHPs) on the impact of supervised community treatment (SCT) on their work and their patients' lives in the community.

The study covered a total of 56 community treatment order (CTO)‐related activities undertaken in 2010 in a local social services authority (LSSA) in the north west of England, and looked at data from the records of 25 CTO patients. Nine AMHPs responded to a CTO outcomes questionnaire and five participated in a focus group.

The characteristics of CTO patients in this LSSA study were consistent with national data. AMHPs were often undecided about the benefits of CTOs to their patients. A majority agreed that CTOs could benefit patients by earlier identification of relapse, improving access to housing and reducing the risk of avoidable harm to self or others. However, a majority also agreed that CTOs had not improved patients' access to employment, education, training or recreational activities; nor had they helped reduce the stigma and discrimination that patients faced.

This was a relatively small‐scale study. However, its findings are consistent with previous work in this area, and provide pointers to how SCT can be more effectively implemented across England.

There is very little published research into the impact of SCT in England. Although small in scale, this study provides valuable insights into the views of AMHPs, who play a core role in the CTO process.

A patient may be detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (HM Government, 1983) only if his nearest relative does not object. Whether an objection has been made will be a question for the approved mental health professional (AMHP) concerned, but their answer will have to be a reasonable one. If the belief of the AMHP is not reasonable, a patient's section 3 admission will be unlawful. That does not mean, however, that the AMHP's conduct will necessarily be negligent, or that the patient will be entitled to damages.

Major changes are taking place in the law for those working in the mental health field. This article looks at the impact of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (most of which was implemented in October 2007) and the Mental Health Act (2007) (the main provisions of which came into effect in October 2008). Key elements of each of these two acts will be covered. The ‘Bournewood Safeguards’ inserted into the Mental Capacity Act (2005) by the Mental Health Act (2007) will also be described.

The nearest relative of a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (HM Government, 1983) has an important role to play. S/he might even object to detention, and in some circumstances, any such objection will have to be respected and the patient cannot lawfully be detained. A recent High Court case examined what it means to object to detention. The judge said that although a nearest relative might be believed not to have objected, detention will only be lawful if that belief was reasonable. He also suggested that in some cases, objection should be inferred from a nearest relative's previous conduct.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the role of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983 in safeguarding adults at risk of abuse and neglect. The author has undertaken a thematic review of Safeguarding Adults Reviews (SARs) commissioned in England and Adult Practice Reviews (APRs) commissioned in Wales where the MHA 1983 was a central aspect to the review.

Reviews were included based on specific determinants, following analysis of SARs, APRs and executive summaries. This should not affect the credibility of the research, as themes were identified in conjunction with analysis of literature regarding use of the MHA in the context of adult safeguarding. Consequently, this review has been underpinned by evidence-based research in the area of study.

The interaction between statutes, such as the MHA 1983 and Care Act 2014, signify challenges to professionals, with variable application of mental health legislation in practice.

Lack of a complete national repository for review reports means that it is likely that the data set analysis is incomplete. It was noted that limitations to this research include the fact that Safeguarding Adults Boards in England may not publish SAR reports or may choose to publish an executive summary or practice brief instead of the full SAR report, therefore limiting the scope of disseminating learning from SARs, as this is difficult to achieve where the full report has not been published. The author aimed to mitigate this by undertaking comprehensive searches of Local Authority and SAB websites, in addition to submitting Information requests to ensure that this research encompassed as many relevant review reports as possible.

This is an important and timely topic for debate, given that the UK Government is proposing reform of the MHA 1983. In addition, existing thematic reviews of SARS tend to be generalised, rather than specifically focused on the MHA.

The purpose of this paper is to explain a decision of the Court of Appeal about the duty an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) will sometimes have to consult a patient's nearest relative, and to set that decision in the context of an earlier one.

Each decision is examined in detail and one is compared with the other. Reference is made to the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice.

It will be harder for an AMHP to establish that consultation is not reasonably practicable, and it will be correspondingly easier, in some cases, for a nearest relative to obtain information about a patient or achieve proximity to her.

This is thought to be the first time the two cases have been considered together or in their true context.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the incidence of the use of section 135(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 in a London borough and describe the main features of the population subject to that section.

Uses of section 135(1), hospital stay, and demographic data were gathered from service and patient records over one year. Means, medians, modes and standard deviation were calculated for interval data. Nominal data were cross-tabulated and the chi square test applied where appropriate. Study data were compared to census and national hospital data; the significance of proportional population differences were calculated using the Z-test.

In total, 63 uses of section 135(1) were recorded. It was primarily used with people with psychotic diagnoses (79 per cent), and was used predominantly in black populations, and among people aged 40-54. People admitted to hospital after section 135(1) use who had psychosis diagnoses had median spells in hospital that were double the corresponding national median.

Total uses of section 135(1) in the borough equated to 25 per cent of the national total for all section 135 admissions recorded in 2012/2013. Hospital statistics in England focusing on admissions alone may fail to reflect a more widespread use of this section. Further research is required to confirm and develop the findings of this small scale study.

The repeated use of this section is suggested as a marker for reviewing practice and resource allocation to prevent or shorten hospital admissions for people with psychosis diagnoses.

This paper highlights gaps in NHS data collection in England relevant to policy makers, mental health service providers, and the police service.