Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:26:52.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In relative danger? The outcome of patients discharged by their nearest relative from sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Philip Shaw
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Medicine, Guy's, King's and St Thomas' School of Medicine and the Institute of Psychiatry, London
Matthew Hotopf
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Medicine, Guy's, King's and St Thomas' School of Medicine and the Institute of Psychiatry, London
Anthony Davies
Affiliation:
South London and Maudsley NHS Trust
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims and Method

Among the proposed changes in the current review of mental health legislation in England and Wales is the abolition of the right of the nearest relative to discharge patients from assessment and treatment orders (Sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983). We aimed to determine the clinical outcome of patients whose nearest relative applies for discharge. A retrospective case–control cohort study in a south London NHS Trust of 51 patients successfully discharged by their nearest relative and 33 patients whose nearest-relative applications were blocked by the treating psychiatrist on the grounds of ‘dangerousness'.

Results

Patients discharged from section by their nearest relative did not differ significantly from controls in all the measures of clinical outcome examined.

Clinical Implications

This study suggests that discharges by the nearest relative against psychiatric advice are not associated with a poor clinical outcome.

Type
Original Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2003

In 1996, over 26 000 people in England with mental disorders were deprived of their liberty and detained in hospital without their consent under the Mental Health Act 1983 (Reference Hotopf, Wall and BuchananHotopf et al, 2000). Despite the rapidly increasing use of existing legislation, there has been little research into the operation of the Act and the various measures it incorporates, to ensure against unjustified detention in hospital (Reference Wall, Buchanan and FahyWall et al, 1999). Such research is particularly pressing given the current review of mental health legislation (Department of Health, 1999).

Among the current safeguards of patients' civil liberties is the right of the nearest relative to discharge their next of kin from either a 1-month assessment order (section 2) or a treatment order (section 3). The Act stipulates that such moves can be opposed by a psychiatrist if they feel there is ‘likely harm’ to either the patient or the public if the patient were to be discharged. The nearest relative then has a final right of appeal to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) — an independent body consisting of a psychiatrist, lawyer and lay member.

We hypothesised that patients discharged by their nearest relative would have a poor clinical outcome as the discharges occurred against medical advice. We also hypothesised that patients whose nearest relative application was ‘blocked’ because of possible danger to self or others would have a similar outcome on all clinical measures to controls, as both groups are discharged by the psychiatrist.

Method

Subjects

All patients studied were under the care of a large south London NHS trust. Because one of the central outcome measures was time to first readmission, the study was powered to detect a 50% increase in the rate of readmission (with 80% power and 95% confidence intervals) over the follow-up period of 2.5 years, among patients discharged by their nearest relatives. This was based on a small pilot study of patients in one area and clinical opinion, which suggested an increase in readmission rate of nearly 50% over 2 years. To obtain the required sample of 51 subjects, all patients placed under section 2 or 3 from March 1993 to September 1998 were included and followed up until 1 September 1999.

Over the same time period, all cases where the nearest relative's request was barred were also identified. For both of these groups, the next consecutive patient placed on the same section was identified and used as a control. They were thus matched for the section of the Mental Health Act and its time of onset. Demographic and clinical characteristics of each patient were extracted from the case notes, discussion with keyworkers or the general practitioner (GP).

Several measures were studied as markers of clinical outcome. Foremost was the time from discharge, by either the nearest relative or psychiatrist, to first readmission. The length of the index admission, total number of subsequent readmissions and time spent in hospital were also studied.

Analysis

Dichotomous data were analysed using McNemar's test for paired data to see whether any feature was significantly associated with the group of interest. Non-dichotomous categorical data were analysed using the chi-squared test. Normally distributed continuous variables were compared with the Student's t-test, and non-normally distributed continuous data were analysed using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test.

The times to first readmission for each group and its control were compared using Cox's proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios for readmission with 95% confidence intervals were calculated, representing the relative risk of being readmitted if the nearest relative applied for discharge compared with controls. Thus, a hazard ratio greater than one implies an increased risk of readmission for that group, compared with controls.

Finally, three of the more frequent outcomes were subjected to a conditional logistic regression to control for the potential confounding by demographic or clinical variables listed in Tables 1 and 2. Crude odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and then adjusted firstly for demographic and then demographic and clinical variables.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the patients whose nearest relative applied for discharge from section

Nearest-relative discharge (n=51) Controls (n=51) Statistical significance RMO blocks nearest-relative discharge (n=33) Controls (n=33) Statistical significance
Gender (%)
Male 26 (51) 25 (49) NS (χ2=0.001, d.f.=1, P=0.97) 17 (56.7) 13 (39.3) NS (χ2=0.98, d.f.=1, P=0.32)
Female 25 (49) 26 (51) 16 (43.3) 20 (60.7)
Age
Mean (years) (95% CI) 36.9 (33.5-40.3) 41.1 (38.1-44.2) NS (t=1.84, d.f.=100, P>0.05) 35.0 (31.2-38.9) 37.8 (33.9-41.6) NS (t=0.97, d.f.=64, P>0.05)
Civil status (%)
Partner 15 (29.4) 20 (39.2) NS (χ2=0.76, d.f.=1, P=0.38) 11 (33.3) 11 (33.3) NS
Single 36 (70.6) 31 (60.8) 22 (66.7) 22 (66.7)
Living with nearest relative (%) 15 (29.4) 22 (43.1) NS (χ2=2.08, d.f.=1, P=0.15) 13 (39.4) 14 (42.4) NS (χ2=0.06, d.f.=1, P=0.81)
Ethnicity (%)
White 28 (54.9) 30 (58.8) NS (χ2=3.95, d.f.=3, P=0.26) 12 (36.4) 17 (51.5) NS (χ2=3.59, d.f.=3, P=0.31)
Black African 12 (23.6) 8 (15.7) 5 (15.2) 7 (21.2)
Black Caribbean 7 (13.7) 12 (23.5) 14 (42.3) 7 (21.2)
Other 4 (7.8) 1 (2.0) 2 (6.1) 2 (6.1)

Table 2. Clinical characteristics of the groups

Nearest-relative discharge (n=51) Controls (n=51) Statistical significance RMO blocks nearest-relative discharge (n=33) Controls (n=33) Statistical significance
Diagnosis (%)
Schizophrenia 30 (58.8) 30 (58.8) NS (χ2=0.64, d.f.=3, P=0.89) 25 (75.8) 25 (75.8) NS (χ2=1.33, d.f.=3, P=0.72)
Bipolar affective disorder 15 (29.4) 13 (25.5) 6 (18.2) 6 (18.2)
Depression 3 (5.9) 3 (5.9) 0 1 (3.0)
Other 3 (5.9) 5 (9.8) 2 (6.0) 1 (3.0)
Number of previous admissions
Median (IQR) 1 (0-3) 3 (1-5) Significant (Wilcoxon signed ranks test Z=-1.96, P=0.05) 3 (0-5) 2 (0-5.5) NS (Wilcoxon signed ranks test Z=-0.55, P=0.58)
History of violence to others (%)
Present 20 (39.2) 18 (35.2) NS (χ2=0.05, d.f.=1, P=0.82) 23 (69.7) 12 (36.4) Significant
Absent 31 (60.8) 33 (64.8) 10 (30.3) 21 (63.6) 2=5.88, d.f.=1, P=0.007)
History of DSH (%)
Present 12 (23.5) 17 (33.3) NS (χ2=0.64, d.f.=1, P=0.42) 7 (21.2) 3 (9.1) NS (χ2=1.13, d.f.=1, P=0.29)
Absent 37 (72.5) 34 (66.7) 26 (78.8) 30 (90.9)

Results

Demographic and clinical

None of the demographic variables studied was significantly associated with a successful or unsuccessful nearest-relative application for discharge (Table 1). Although there was a high proportion of Black Caribbeans among patients whose nearest-relative application was blocked, this did not reach statistical significance. The clinical characteristics of the groups were very similar — most had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and previous hospital admissions, and a substantial minority had a history of violence to others or self (Table 2). Two positive findings emerged. Patients successfully discharged by their nearest relatives had significantly fewer previous admissions. Also, patients whose nearest-relative application was barred had a history of significantly more recorded episodes of physical violence to others.

There was no evidence for a poorer clinical outcome among patients who were successfully discharged by their nearest relative. They did not have an increased number of subsequent readmissions and did not spend a significantly different amount of time in hospital during any subsequent readmissions (Table 3). These patients were not readmitted more quickly following nearest-relative discharge, as the hazard ratios for readmission were not raised (Table 4). There were no significant differences in the contacts established with mental health services on discharge, nor in concordance with treatment plans (Table 3). These last three findings were sustained, even after controlling for potential confounding demographic and clinical variables (Table 4).

Table 3. Outcomes of patients whose nearest relative applied for discharge

Nearest-relative discharge (n=51) Controls (n=51) Statistical significance RMO blocks nearest-relative discharge (n=33) Controls (n=33) Statistical significance
Length of index admission (days)
Median (IQR) 26 (8-71) 48 (26-118) Significant (Wilcoxon signed ranks test Z=-3.29, P=0.001) 112 (50-181) 68 (30-134) NS (Wilcoxon signed ranks test Z=-0.67, P=0.50)
Length of follow-up time from index discharge
Mean (s.e.) 991 (85) 947 (86) NS (t=0.36, d.f.=1.00, P=0.72) 433 (60) 464 (66) NS (t=0.35, d.f.=64, P=0.73)
Number of subsequent readmissions
Median (IQR) 1 (0-3) 1 (0-2) NS (Wilcoxon signed ranks test Z=-0.80, P=0.420 0 (0-10) 0 (0-1) NS (Wilcoxon signed ranks test Z=-0.87, P=0.37)
Total time subsequently spent in hospital (days)
Median (IQR) 26 (0-94) 52 (0-171) NS (Wilcoxon signed ranks tests Z=-0.25, P=0.21) 0 (0-63) 0 (0-45) NS (Wilcoxon signed ranks test Z=-0.52, P=0.60)
Rate of readmission (number per year; 95% CI) 0.54 (0.38-0.75) 0.50 (0.35-0.71) NS 0.47 (0.28-0.79) 0.56 (0.32-0.96) NS
Contact with services following discharge (%)
In contact 29 (56.8) 37 (72.5) NS (χ2=2.04, d.f.=1, P=0.15) 25 (75.6) 23 (69.7) NS (χ2=0.01, d.f.=1, P=0.92)
Not in contact 22 (43.2) 14 (27) 8 (24.4) 10 (30.3)
Concordant with treatment plans (%)
Concordant 18 (35.3) 25 (49.0) NS (χ2=1.44, d.f.=1, P=0.29) 11 (33.3) 20 (60.6) Significant
Not concordant 33 (64.7) 26 (51.0) 22 (66.7) 13 (39.4) 2=3.04, d.f.=1, P=0.026)
Number subsequently violent to others (%) 6 (11.8) 5 (9.8) NS (χ2=0.10, d.f.=1, P=0.75) 5 (15.1) 2 (6.1) NS (χ2=0.57, d.f.=1, P=0.45)
Number engaging in DSH (%) 4 (7.8) 8 (15.7) NS (χ2=0.75, d.f.=1, P=0.39) 2 (6.1) 2 (6.1) NS (χ2=0.25, d.f.=1, P=0.62)

Table 4. Outcomes of patients whose nearest relative applies for discharge — controlling for demographic and clinical variables

Adjusted for
Crude Demographic variables Demographic & clinical variables
Hazard ratios of readmission
Nearest-relative discharge 0.99 (0.50-11.65) 1.17 (0.75-1.82) 1.36 (0.85-2.19)
RMO blocks discharge 1.17 (0.50-2.70) 1.25 (0.70-2.20) 1.05 (0.57-1.93)
Odds ratios having no contact with mental health services
Nearest-relative discharge 1.99 (0.86-4.66) 2.50 (0.76-8.17) 1.00 (0.17-5.92)
RMO blocks discharge 0.67 (0.19-2.36) 0.91 (0.21-3.86) 0.611 (0.15-2.44)
Odds ratios of non-concordance with treatment plans
Nearest relative discharge 1.76 (0.78-3.95) 1.82 (0.77-4.30) 1.54 (0.55-4.36)
RMO blocks discharge 3.08 (1.08-8.82) 3.56 (1.17-10.9) 3.46 (0.90-13.3)

In line with predictions, there was no evidence for a clinically poor outcome on measures relating to hospitalisation for patients whose nearest-relative application was blocked by the psychiatrist (Tables 3 and 4). These patients appeared to be less concordant with treatment plans, but this effect did not hold when clinical and demographic characteristics were considered.

There were no significant differences between the groups in the occurrence of violence to others or deliberate self-harm following discharge, by whatever means.

A re-analysis of the data, separating those from patients on section 2 and section 3, did not reveal any significant differences between the groups in any of the outcome measures.

Discussion

Key findings of the study

In the authors' experience, many psychiatrists have expressed the fear that discharge by the nearest relative leads to a premature discharge which can have a detrimental effect on the patient and potentially disastrous consequences for the public. Reservations about the power of the nearest relative, which is second only to that of the psychiatrist and exceeds that of the approved social worker, have also been raised by the Mental Health Act Commission (Department of Health, 1998). However, this study failed to demonstrate any significant difference in the clinical outcome of patients discharged by their nearest relative and those discharged by the psychiatrist. It was against expectations that a key management decision made by a lay person did not lead to a worse clinical course. This held across a wide range of outcome indices, including time to the first readmission, total number of readmissions and contact with services. This finding echoes the lack of an adverse effect on clinical outcome following discharge by the mental health review tribunal in both the UK and Canada (Reference Wilkinson and SharpeWilkinson et al, 1993; Reference Adams, Pitre and CieszkoswkiAdams et al, 1997; Reference MyersMyers, 1997).

Perhaps reassuringly, there was also no clear evidence of a detrimental outcome among patients whose nearest-relative applications for discharge were ‘blocked.’ Although there was a trend for this group to be non-concordant with treatment plans, this finding did not hold when potential confounding variables were considered.

Limitations of the study

Several factors could explain the unexpected absence of an association between successful discharge by the nearest relative and poor clinical outcome. First, read-mission to hospital may not be a reliable index of mental health, as different thresholds for readmission may operate for the various groups. It is possible that psychiatrists may be more reluctant to readmit patients who were previously discharged by their nearest relative, leading to longer periods in the community, despite deteriorating mental health. Second, patients discharged by their nearest relative may have derived a benefit from their, albeit foreshortened, admissions to hospital which endures after their discharge into the community. Third, as there were no differences in contact with mental health services and concordance with treatment plans between patients discharged by their nearest relative and controls, parity in the community-based treatment each group received could account for their similar rates of readmission. Finally, a significant difference in outcome could have been missed because of the limited statistical power of the study.

The study was limited by the data available in case notes and thus a systematic investigation of key factors, such as the reasons behind a nearest-relative application or its barring by the responsible medical officer, was not possible.

Issues for future mental health legislation

Throughout the 20th century, there has been a trend in mental health legislation to bolster the legal safeguards of patients' rights, and the ability of the nearest relative to discharge their next of kin was itself a novel feature of the 1983 Act. The tide appears to be turning. Recent legislation on supervised discharge orders has reduced the role of the nearest relative to that of a ‘consultee whose views must be taken into account but with no power to prevent or discharge the order’ (Department of Health, 1998). Future plans to remove this safeguard and replace it with a ‘nominated person’ with no powers of discharge should be supported by research to demonstrate its detrimental effects. This study does not support fears that a discharge by the nearest relative places patients in ‘relative’ danger.

Acknowledgements

We thank all the administrators of the Mental Health Act in the trust and the secretarial staff in the Department of Psychological Medicine at King's College Hospital for help with finding notes.

References

Adams, S. J., Pitre, N. L. & Cieszkoswki, R. (1997) Who applies to the Regional Review Boards and what are the outcomes? Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 42, 7076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Health (1998) Mental Health Act Commission. Eighth Biennial Report 1998. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1999) H. M. Government's Green Paper on Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983: Proposals for Consultation. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Hotopf, M., Wall, S., Buchanan, A., et al (2000) Changing patterns in the use of the Mental Health Act 1983 in England and Wales, 1984–1996. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 479484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, D. H. (1997) Mental health review tribunals: a follow-up of reviewed patients. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 253256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wall, S., Buchanan, A., Fahy, T., et al (1999) A Systematic Review into the Use of the Mental Health Act 1983. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, P. & Sharpe, M. (1993) What happens to patients discharged by the Mental Health ReviewTribunals? Psychiatric Bulletin, 17, 337338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the patients whose nearest relative applied for discharge from section

Figure 1

Table 2. Clinical characteristics of the groups

Figure 2

Table 3. Outcomes of patients whose nearest relative applied for discharge

Figure 3

Table 4. Outcomes of patients whose nearest relative applies for discharge — controlling for demographic and clinical variables

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.