So some of our hospital managers are complaining about out of date clinical reports by the RC especially in CTO cases where I hear reports can be 6 months old. The view of the RC is that the CTO7 itself documenting their reasons for extending the CTO with the agreement of the AMHP should be more than sufficient by way of an up date. In fact some RCs feel that the completion of the H5 and CTO7 alone should be sufficient for the managers to consider their power of discharge.
They also feel also feel quite rightly that even if the panel consider the reasons given by the RC on the H5 or CTO7 to be inadequate it would not affect the validity of the renewal of the s3 or CTO and that the purpose of the requirement to give reasons by the RC on the H5/CTO7 is to assist the Hospital Managers in their task of considering whether they should exercise their power under s23 to discharge the patient.
Just so people are clear, I presume that reference to the ‘hospital managers’ here, means the panel appointed for the purpose of discharge?
I would say that your 2nd paragraph is correct, but the 1st paragraph citing the views of the RCs, is questionable to say the least!
What the panel needs in order to reach a decision, is a matter for them and not the witnesses. Similarly, I would imagine that members of this forum who are legal representatives, would probably have a view of what information they need as a minimum, in order to prepare their client and the case as a whole, which would be much more than a renewal/extension form.
For the reason indicated in your 2nd para, reviews are about the case overall and are not about the validity of the decision to renew/extend as it was made at the material time.
The Code of Practice in chapter 38 gives a steer; specifically at 38.26.