If a patient is told they are recommended for section 2 but paperwork is not completed, the patient absconds while waiting for bed. Is it putting the patient at risk to self and risk to others if left to stay in community and no further action is taken . Who is liable to act in the patients best interest and safety of others if no legal paperwork is completed but the patient was told they will be recommened for section 2 but absconded . If the patient mentioned auditory hallucinations to harm others and cause self harm. And refused informal admission and any medication or intervention from HTT.
Excellent question!! Whichever service was aware of the unmet need would be responsible but I don’t think courts would easily respond to any attempt to take action against them if they had tried their best with the limited resources available
Depends on the AMHP’s intention, if the person had been assessed.
Well the first point is the patient / person is actually free to leave - they are not detained in law and can choose what to do and where to be, is not an absconding, legally speaking.
“Is it putting the patient at risk to self and risk to others if left to stay in community”?
This will depend on what the risk is and the particular patient. A whiteboard in a bed manager’s office about 12-miles from where I sit probably still has a list of over 30 patients on it, who have been assessed as requiring admission and are being managed in the community because somebody, somewhere has decided that’s better then discharging an existing patient to create space or going “out of area” because of a lack of beds. Incidentally, the other other whiteboard for those patients currently “out of area” who need bring back at some point is also +30 people.
Responsibility will depend on whether they “absconded” from in front of the AMHP who was busy trying to sort the bed situation or whether the AMHP has moved on and the person is being cared for in the community by the NHS, as best they can. So somebody needs to weigh that all up, risk assess it and decided whether the circumstances amount to the patient being “missing” (ie, their whereabouts is not know after all reasonable NHS or AMHP / other checks have been done) and if so, report the patient to the police who can attempt to locate them and consider s136 MHA if found and the grounds are met, or tell the NHS / AMHP where to find them, if s136 not possible or necessary.
1 Like
Yes - the same risks that the ‘recommendations’ aimed to address.
Liable for what - to ask the obvious. [I avoid ‘assuming’ as much as I can.]
‘Best interests’ is a phrase used in sort of casual way among many, even judges use it - when not connected to any part of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). This is known in as legal paternalism - no force in law.
The issue is - as I see it - who as the duty of care for such a patient and is likely to be sued or otherwise quartered in some other way, for not taking appropriate corrective actions. But none of this is new.
My answer to your very good question is: both the NHS and the local authority. If so, what good does knowledge do? Not much I imagine. No one is gonna take money out of their pocket to seek judicial review of these ‘people’. Complain to the CQC? Don’t start me up on that one! 
I’ve had patients with completed S3 recommendations at home or at large. The response from the local authority is almost these exact words, “Your case is at the bottom of the list of around 80 patients. I can tell you that all the others are far more serious. The problem is no beds so our AMHPs cannot complete their applications.”
Here’s the news: monumental scandal ahead!