Rashid Ambreen, Musunuri Padmapriya, Coupe Tim
Brooklands Hospital, Marston Green, Coleshill B37 7HL.
Med Sci Law. 2008 Jan;48(1):69-71. doi: 10.1258/rsmmsl.48.1.69.
The aim of this paper was to establish whether section 5(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 was being used appropriately in an inpatient psychiatric unit in the UK. A clinical audit was conducted over three consecutive years. Peer review of decisions to use section 5(2) on the hospital's adult and old age wards was conducted by junior medical staff. Ninety-eight per cent of the uses of section 5(2) were felt to be appropriate and most were reviewed within 72 hours. Very few patients (5%) were placed on this section again during their admission. The number placed on section 5(4) prior to section 5(2) increased from 2% to 12%. The proportion reviewed within the first 24 hours of detention nearly doubled over the audit period and fewer patients subsequently went on to sections 2 or 3 by the third year. There was no evidence of inappropriate use of section 5(2). Changes in the shift system for junior medical staff may have inadvertently led to a more frequent use of section 5(4). The use of further formal detention after section 5(2) declined, although this decline was not statistically significant.
本文旨在确定1983年《精神健康法》第5(2)条在英国一家住院精神科病房是否得到恰当使用。连续三年进行了临床审计。由初级医务人员对在医院成人病房和老年病房使用第5(2)条的决定进行同行评审。98%的第5(2)条使用情况被认为是恰当的,且大多数在72小时内得到复查。极少患者(5%)在住院期间再次被适用此条。在适用第5(2)条之前被适用第5(4)条的人数比例从2%增至12%。在拘留的头24小时内接受复查的比例在审计期间几乎翻倍,到第三年,随后被适用第2或第3条的患者减少。没有证据表明第5(2)条被不当使用。初级医务人员轮班制度的变化可能无意中导致第5(4)条的使用更为频繁。在第5(2)条之后使用进一步正式拘留的情况有所减少,尽管这一减少在统计学上不显著。