Search results for ‘Subject term:"mental health problems"’ Sort:
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Understanding Independent Mental Health Advocacy (IMHA) for mental health staff
- Author:
- SOCIAL CARE INSTITUTE FOR EXCELLENCE
- Publisher:
- Social Care Institute for Excellence
- Publication year:
- 2014
- Pagination:
- 5
- Place of publication:
- London
This briefing describes the role of Independent Mental Health Advocacy, who is eligible, and what mental health staff can do to support people who use services to access IMHA support. Independent Mental Health Advocacy (IMHA) is a statutory right for people who have been detained under most sections of the Mental Health Act or who are on a community treatment order (CTO). This information will help to ensure people’s rights are respected when they are sectioned under the Mental Health Act. (Edited publisher abstract)
Understanding Independent Mental Health Advocacy (IMHA) for people who use services
- Author:
- SOCIAL CARE INSTITUTE FOR EXCELLENCE
- Publisher:
- Social Care Institute for Excellence
- Publication year:
- 2014
- Pagination:
- 4
- Place of publication:
- London
This briefing provides information about Independent Mental Health Advocate provision for people who use mental health services in England. People detained under most sections of the Mental Health Act have a right to be referred to an Independent Mental Health Advocate, whether they are in hospital or on a community treatment order. Independent Mental Health Advocates provide an important protection to make sure that people know about their rights and get their voice heard. (Edited publisher abstract)
Mental Capacity Act 2005: post-legislative scrutiny: report of session 2013–14
- Author:
- GREAT BRITAIN. Parliament. House of Lords. Committee on the Mental Health Act 2005
- Publisher:
- Stationery Office
- Publication year:
- 2014
- Pagination:
- 143
- Place of publication:
- London
The Committee’s key finding in this evidence-led inquiry is that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is not widely implemented. To address this, the Committee recommends that responsibility for implementing the Act be given to an independent body. The Committee’s second key finding is that the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are not fit for purpose. The Committee recommends that they be replaced with new provisions. This report considers: whether the Act is working as intended in respect of the Act’s five core principles; how to address poor implementation of the Act; advocacy and advance planning; whether the Court of Protection is appropriate (or should there be a Mental Capacity Tribunal instead); and criminal law provisions under Section 44 of the Act. It summarises and refers to cases of unlawful detention under the Act (Steven Neary), and the deprivation of liberty of an autistic man with a profound learning disability, HL at Bournewood Hospital for 32 years. It includes as a good practice example, the work by Jim Blair, a learning disability nurse consultant who explained adjustments made for effective treatment and outcomes for adults with learning disabilities appropriate to their needs. The Committee makes recommendations to Government to: work with regulators and professional bodies to ensure the Act is given a higher profile in training, standard setting and inspections; increase staff resources at the Court of Protection to speed up handling of non-controversial cases; and reconsider the provision of non-means tested legal aid to those who lack capacity, especially in cases of deprivation of liberty. Local authorities should use their discretionary powers to appoint Independent Mental Capacity Advocates more widely than is currently the case. The Government should act on the poor levels of awareness and understanding of Lasting Powers of Attorney and advance decisions to refuse treatment among professionals in the health and social care sectors. The Government should also review the criminal law provision for ill-treatment or neglect of a person lacking capacity, to ensure that the Act is fit for purpose. The Committee recommends that the House of Lords seek an update from the Government twelve months from now to find out what they have done in response to their key recommendations. An easy read version is also available. (Edited publisher abstract)
Research to support the Duty to Review the Implementation of the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010: qualitative evidence on the views of service users, carers and practitioners: scoping study report
- Author:
- OPINION RESEARCH SERVICES
- Publisher:
- Welsh Government Social Research
- Publication year:
- 2014
- Pagination:
- 60
- Place of publication:
- Cardiff
Research reporting on the qualitative findings from two early focus groups and 25 scoping interviews with mental health professionals to support the Duty to Review the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010. Aims of the Measure include the provision of mental health services at an earlier stage and the extension of mental health advocacy provision. Key messages from the interviews are summarised for primary care services and pathways to primary care and secondary care. The findings also report on the service users, carers and practitioners experiences of the new Independent Mental Health Advocacy (IMHA) services introduced under the Measure. The interviews highlight both examples of good practice and issues of concern. Whilst mental health practitioners supported the principles and aims of the Measure, many were concerned with the scale of change required; the increasing expectations of service users; and the cultural shift in approach and practice which the Measure demands. (Edited publisher abstract)