HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS British Journal of Psychiatry Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ismail, K. Articles by Maden, T. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Ismail, K. Articles by Maden, T.

Mental health review tribunal medical reports

Maudsley Hospital, London SE5 8AF;

Shubulade Smith, Clinical Research Fellow

Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, London

Tony Maden, Senior Lecturer

Department of Forensic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, London

^* Correspondence

Aims and method Medical reports submitted to mental health review tribunals should be of a clinically acceptable standard. We examined 100 medical reports to assess whether they stated the four criteria for detention under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. We compared the standard of reports according to the seniority, qualifications and speciality of the doctor, and with the outcome from the tribunal.

Results The majority of the reports were written by junior doctors and did not fulfil the criteria laid down by the Mental Health Act 1983. Consultant and forensic psychiatry status were associated with completed reports.

Clinical implications This study was performed in one hospital only but highlights the ongoing need to review and improve the workings of the Mental Health Act before reform is considered.