CTO1 - incorrect information

A CTO1 with the patient address listed as X hospital rather than X street. The address is also different to the one listed as a condition of residence.
The MHAA has added file note stating that as the addresses are still identifiable this does not invalidate the section.

I recently had a renewal error and was surprised that the consensus was that this did not invalidate the renewal so wondered on peoples opinion on the above?

If it’s the right person and the procedure in s.17A was followed, all should be well.

1 Like

The MHA Reference Guide at 31.23 says that misspelling of names, places are capable of being rectified. They should be returned to the professional within the first 14 days, or if the error was identified after 14 days it will not necessarily be invalid. The hospital managers must then decide whether the error is
trivial and falls within the de minimis principle.

Hi Gary. That doesn’t apply to CTO forms, unfortunately. Probably as a result of how hurriedly CTOs were drafted for the 2007 Act no one remembered to amend s15. The Code says:

Community treatment orders – documentation

35.16 There are no provisions in the Act for community treatment orders (CTOs) and related documents to be rectified once made. Hospital managers should nonetheless ensure that arrangements are in place to check that documents have been properly completed. Significant errors or inadequacies may render patients’ CTOs invalid, and errors in recall notices or revocations may invalidate hospital managers’ authority to detain.

35.17 To avoid errors being made, hospital managers should ensure that responsible clinicians have access to advice about how the relevant forms should be completed and the opportunity (where practicable) to have them checked in advance by someone else familiar with what the Act requires.

1 Like

Thank you all for your responses. We recently had a case with a different hospital where the MHAA redid the CTO1 (the initial S3 was still valid) as there was a mistake in the address and that Trusts view was that an error in the address was a significant error.

This time it is a private hospital who’s view is that it is a minor error and a file note will do. It is such a shame that it is not clearer for errors on documents other than the admission papers, as what is a minor error for one person is a major one to someone else!

@Cheryl it is interesting that this is not very clear. We have a similar case right now where the address is the wrong address and the condition therefore listed the wrong address. There is a lot of emails going back and forth about what is a significant error. I will await the outcome given 35.16.