Section 5(2) on a CTO Patient

Law and practice Other
1

Patient in an acute hospital for non-MH related treatment, is also a CTO patient after psychiatric admission and CTO discharge some months back. It is decided whilst in hospital for non-MH treatment to recall the patient from their CTO to hospital, but a lack of a bed means the name of the hospital cannot yet be specified on the recall notice which obviously has not yet been served.

Suggestion made of 5(2) the patient to hold them in the acute hospital despite treatment being complete and discharge from there indicated as necessary. The exam question:

Is use of s5(2) in this scenario UNLAWFUL or merely a bad idea in practice?

I’m aware para 18.7 of the Code states it should not be used on someone who is liable to be detained under s2, 3 or 4 or who is a CTO patient.

2

It would be unlawful. The effect of s5(6) is that the s5 holding powers don’t apply to people on CTOs.

But, in principle, the patient could be recalled to the hospital they’re in, even though it’s not a mental health hospital - and then transferred as soon as a psychiatric bed becomes a available. Not sure it’d be good practice, but I don’t think it’d be unlawful.

1 Like
3

It would be unlawful Michael, subsection (6) of section 5 specifically rules it out.

1 Like
4

Hi Michael, I’m struggling to understand why the patient hasn’t been recalled to the acute hospital-it doesn’t have to be a mental health unit. I don’t think a 5/2 is available as technically the person is still on a s3 - so if a 5/2 were used to ‘hold’ them, they would be illegally detained.

Hope that helps! Claire B x

1 Like
5

Doesn’t have to be to an inpatient unit.

1 Like
6

Old fashioned notion but i always thought that the CTO was used to recall somebody for mental health reasons or a physical illness that was causing sufficent mental distress to warrent hospitalisation for treatment so why would you need a (5) anything? If its a physical illness only would it come under the guidance of the MHA?

1 Like
8

Perhaps I was unclear: that was the basis of the recall - MH reasons. It was coincidence of timing the person was also due for discharge after treatment in the acute hospital for non-MH relates illness or injury.

9

Thank you! - not really a police scenario this one, but amazingly ended up in the lap of an officer, somehow amidst the views that were flying around.

Grateful to you, as ever.

1 Like
10

Thanks a lot - I said that as well to my enquirer and my phone a friend AMHP said the same thing as well.

Grateful to you for a speedy response!

11

Wasn’t obvious from my enquirer as to why, either - and it was one of my responses, too.
Perhaps it was just the acute hospital felt they had completed their role with the patient who otherwise would have been discharged home for their non-MH condition … ?

Who knows - plenty of people, not just on this forum said that too.

Thanks!