Department of Psychological Medicine and Psychiatry
Health Service and Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London
School of Law, Kings College London
Department of Psychological Medicine and Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London
Department of Psychology
Social, Genetic, Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London
Maudsley Hospital, London
Department of Psychological Medicine and Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, UK
Correspondence: Gareth S. Owen, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Western Education Centre, Cutcombe Road, London SE5 9RJ. Email: g.owen{at}iop.kcl.ac.uk
The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust. M.H. and A.S.D. are supported by the Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at the Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, and The South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.
G.R. chaired the Expert Committee on the review of the Mental Health Act 1983. G.R., G.S. and A.S.D. all gave views to parliamentary committees over reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 where capacity was a central issue. These authors have differing views about mental capacity as a basis for mental health law. G.R. and G.S. are in favour of capacity-based mental health law. A.S.D. is against. M.H. has acted as an expert witness on cases where capacity has been under dispute.
Background
In England and Wales mental health services need to take account of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Mental Health Act 1983. The overlap between these two causes dilemmas for clinicians.
Aims
To describe the frequency and characteristics of patients who fall into two potentially anomalous groups: those who are not detained but lack mental capacity; and those who are detained but have mental capacity.
Method
Cross-sectional study of 200 patients admitted to psychiatric wards. We assessed mental capacity using a semi-structured interview, the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT–T).
Results
Of the in-patient sample, 24% were informal but lacked capacity: these patients felt more coerced and had greater levels of treatment refusal than informal participants with capacity. People detained under the Mental Health Act with capacity comprised a small group (6%) that was hard to characterise.
Conclusions
Our data suggest that psychiatrists in England and Wales need to take account of the Mental Capacity Act, and in particular best interests judgments and deprivation of liberty safeguards, more explicitly than is perhaps currently the case.
Related articles in BJP:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
G. S. Owen, A. S. David, P. Hayward, G. Richardson, G. Szmukler, and M. Hotopf Retrospective views of psychiatric in-patients regaining mental capacity The British Journal of Psychiatry, November 1, 2009; 195(5): 403 - 407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||