Pioneering study heard from patients, named persons, practitioners and tribunal members
An Edinburgh Napier University-led study, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, into stakeholder experiences of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (MHTS) has recommended several ways it could improve its processes and decision-making.
Addressing the influence of clinicians, encouraging participation of patients and offering more support for named persons are among the suggestions put forward in the report.
The MHTS was set up authorise and review compulsory psychiatric measures under the 2003 Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 and began operating in October 2005. The legislation is underpinned by human rights-based principles which govern the way that the MHTS makes its decisions about compulsory psychiatric care and treatment.
This study is the first of its kind since the Tribunal’s formation and heard from patients, their named persons, MHTS panel members, lawyers, independent advocates and health and social care professionals.
The timing of the study’s report means that its findings will be used to help inform the Scottish Mental Health Law Review, which is due to publish its recommendations on Scottish mental health, capacity and adult support and protection law this autumn.
Jill Stavert, Professor of Mental Health and Capacity Law at Edinburgh Napier University said: “Our study revealed several areas of agreement across all participant groups on how the Mental Health Tribunal operates and evidence of considerable caring goodwill on the part of the Tribunal and health and social care practitioners.
“However, there were certain areas where the experience and perceptions of patients and Tribunal panel members was not shared, particularly surrounding patient perceptions of their ability to participate during tribunal hearings.
“An important test whether human rights principles are effective is not only whether they are given effect by state authorities, such as tribunals, but also the extent to which they are felt to be given effect by rightsholders such as patients.”
Some of the report’s recommendations include, among others, addressing perceptions of the influence of clinicians and diversity issues, supporting patient participation, and supporting named persons more.
Professor Stavert continued: “Some of these, we consider, should be addressed by the Tribunal itself while others are for other bodies to take up.
“This is very important as human rights requirements increasingly require active respect for the rights of persons with psychosocial, cognitive and intellectual disabilities.”
24
0
20
