A survey of New Zealand psychiatrists' clinical experience with the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act of 1992.

AIMS

This study examines the clinical experience of New Zealand psychiatrists with the Mental Health (and Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act of 1992.

METHODS

A survey was distributed to all psychiatric specialists residing in New Zealand who were registered with the Medical Council of New Zealand (n = 232). The survey examined the extent of practitioners' use of the Mental Health Act, perceived strengths and weaknesses of the Mental Health Act, and experiences with the family court system.

RESULTS

Psychiatrists estimated that almost half (46.4%) of patients retained under the Mental Health Act were released within 3 weeks. Inpatient consultants reported dedicating 18.6% of their working time to Mental Health Act related activities. A majority of respondents indicated that: the Mental Health Act requires major revision (55.6%), the Mental Health Act results in the inappropriate release of some psychiatric patients into the community (70.9%), and that compulsory treatment orders are a useful tool for promoting community treatment of the mentally ill (69.2%). While a majority (81.5%) indicate that individual judges are consistent in their interpretation of the Mental Health Act across cases, only 26.5% of respondents agree that the law is interpreted uniformly by different judges.

CONCLUSIONS

The Mental Health Act is perceived as time-consuming and cumbersome to administer. However, compulsory treatment orders do facilitate community treatment, an explicit goal of the Mental Health Act. Proposed areas for refinement of the Mental Health Act are discussed. Further examination of the interface between psychiatrists and the family court system would be useful.