Mental Health Crisis Care Toolkit Resources to support the quality and consistency of mental health crisis care services across London

Contents 01 Training slides on the 2017 changes to the Mental Health Act legislation and London’s section 136 pathway p. 5 – 21 02 Training slides on the Mental Capacity Act and use of restraint p. 22 – 27 03 Training slides on the 2019 Mental Health & Emergency Departments: A workshop on the law and good practice p. 28 – 46 04 Section 136 pathway roles and responsibility briefings p. 47 – 48 05 Voluntary handover process for mental health crisis care patients brought to emergency departments by the police p. 49 – 53 This resource pack has been developed to support London’s mental health crisis care system in providing high quality and consistent care across the capital. It includes training materials from sessions delivered to 935 multi-agency staff across the capital between 2017-2019 that focussed on the Mental Health Act, the Mental Capacity Act and the alignment of local policies to the pan-London s136 pathway. Also included are roles and responsibility briefings for staff along the s136 pathway, which summarise the key points from London’s s136 pathway guidance. Lastly, a handover process for voluntary mental health crisis patients to support the safe handover of voluntary patients brought into the emergency department (ED) by the police has been included in the pack. This was developed through partnership between London’s Urgent and Emergency care system and the Metropolitan Police Service and piloted with great success at four EDs in London in 2017. Following approval by London’s Urgent and Emergency Care Transformation and Delivery Board, the handover process was rolled out across the capital from 1st March 2018 with all three of London’s police forces involved.

Context The Better Health for London report (2014) stressed the need for improved mental health crisis care services in London, specifically ‘the development of a pan-London multi-agency model of care for child and adult mental health patients in crisis’. Since 2015, Healthy London Partnership (HLP) and London’s crisis care system have worked together to develop London’s s136 model of care. It was decided that there should be a pan-London focus on the section 136 pathway and Health Based Place of Safety sites to improve the current inconsistencies across London and often inadequate care for those who are some of London’s most vulnerable. Throughout 2016 , the Mental Health Crisis Care programme carried out significant engagement across the crisis care system to develop a multi-agency model of care for mental health patients in crisis. The service user experience drove this initiative telling us what they believe crisis care services in London should look like… When I am in crisis police presence is as low key as possible and there is no unnecessary use of restraint. I am listened to and my voice is heard; at the point of crisis I might not be able to think clearly, make decisions or say everything I am feeling, but I am still a person and should not be ignored. If my behaviour is not appropriate I am not judged for this. If I am taken to an emergency department or place of safety, I am let in straight away. I don’t have to wait in the transport or any other unsuitable place such as a general waiting room, corridor or outside, while staff negotiate whether or not I can go in.

Context Click to view the guidance Healthy London Partnership in collaboration with London’s crisis care system has now developed the following guidance to improve the consistency and quality of care across the section 136 pathway: The Health Based Place of Safety (HBPoS) Specification outlines the minimum standard of care London’s Health Based Place of Safety sites should offer. This includes details on staffing requirements, governance arrangements, environment and facilities and details on the mental health assessment process. The Section 136 Pathway looks at the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders involved across the pathway, it specifically focusses on the roles of the Police as well as the London Ambulance Service, AMHPs, ED staff (if physical health care is required) and staff at the Health Based Place of Safety. The guidance was endorsed by all key partners and launched by the Mayor of London in December 2016 at a multi-agency stakeholder event at City Hall. Service user and partner satisfaction has driven further initiatives to support implementation of the s136 model of care as well as other improvements to London’s mental health crisis care system. Multi-agency mental health training sessions at each of London’s Mental Health Trusts, Emergency Departments & London Ambulance. Almost 950 multi- agency staff trained to date. See p5 for training slides A handover process for voluntary mental health patients attending ED with police has now been implemented London-wide with all three of London’s police forces. See p26 for further information

Training slides on the 2017 changes to the MHA legislation and London’s s136 pathway

S.136 Mental Health Act 1983 as amended On the 11th of December 2017, significant amendments came into force altering the Section 136 (s136) power of the police to detain people who appear to be suffering from mental disorder. The section now reads as follows: : If a person appears to a constable to be suffering from mental disorder and to be in immediate need of care or control, the constable may, if he thinks it necessary to do so in the interests of that person or for the protection of other persons, (a) remove the person to a place of safety, or (b) if the person is already at a place of safety, keep the person at that place or remove the person to another place of safety, for the purpose of enabling him to be examined by a registered medical practitioner & to be interviewed by an AMHP, and of making any necessary arrangements for his treatment or care. (1C): before using s136, the constable must, if practicable to do so, consult a nurse, a doctor, an AMHP, an OT or a paramedic.

Where the s136 power can be used Before the changes in legislation, the s136 power could only be used if the person was ‘found in a place to which the public have access’, i.e. you don’t need permission to be there, this included somewhere where you pay for entry (e.g. a cinema) and somewhere open at specified times (e.g. a pub). As the 11th of December 2017: the power may be used anywhere except ‘a house, flat or room in which the patient, or someone else, is living’ - which expressly includes private gardens, private outhouses, etc- the person can only be removed from these places under a warrant (e.g. s.135(1) MHA) It is for the police officer to decide whether a place is a ‘house, flat or room,’ and whether a person is ‘living’ there

The people Roles included in the legislation are outlined below, along with a brief definition: “Constable”: means any warranted police officer. It is that officer’s decision whether to use the s.136 power “Registered medical practitioner”: can be any doctor, but the MHA Code of Practice suggests that this should be one who has been approved under section 12(2) MHA as having expertise in mental disorder (known as a ‘s12 doctor’) “Approved mental health professional”: a social worker, nurse, OT or psychologist who has had specialist training. Each AMHP is warranted by a particular Borough or County. Under the MHA, it is the Borough where the person is at the time the assessment is required which has to provide an AMHP (unless an AMHP from their ‘home’ area agrees to do it). NB It is the AMHP who ultimately agrees that the person needs to be admitted to hospital- but the AMHP does not find the hospital which has a bed for them. This is done in practice by Bed Managers on behalf of the Mental Health Trust.

A “place of safety” under the new legislation A place of safety is defined in s.135(6) & (7) as: residential accommodation provided by a local authority under the Care Act; a hospital: this is usually the designated ‘health-based place of safety’ (HBPoS- the ‘136 suite’ etc), but can be an inpatient ward, if staff agree- and can be any hospital, not just psychiatric hospitals); a police station, in very limited circumstances (imminent risk of death or serious in jury), and never for under-18s; an independent hospital or care home for mentally disordered persons; or Any other suitable place. This can include a private home, but only if the person agrees and, if they do not live there alone, at least one of the co-occupiers also agrees.

New timescales The changes in legislation also brought new timescales for a s136 detention into force: S.136(b): A person removed to a place of safety may be detained there for ‘the permitted period’ In most cases, this is a period not exceeding 24 hours from the time the person arrives at the place of safety Government Guidance, November 2017: time starts when the individual goes through the door of the first place of safety (NOT when staff receive them, or when the paperwork is handed over) If person is taken first to A&E: time of arrival MUST be recorded, to avoid disputes The 24 hours can be extended at any time before the end of the initial 24 hour period, by up to 12 hours (only), and only by the doctor carrying out the mental health examination New s136B: (The extension can be granted) “only if the registered medical practitioner considers that the extension is necessary because the condition of the person detained is such that it would not be practicable for the assessment of the person for the purpose of… section 136 to be carried out before the end of the period of 24 hours” COULD extend if person is intoxicated, in physical pain etc, and the exam cannot realistically be completed in time CANNOT extend when the MH exam has been completed and you are now waiting for a bed to be found for the person

Clinical responsibility & legal accountability Someone detained under s136 MHA is in legal custody. This means there are two accountabilities for them: Who is responsible for their clinical treatment & care? Who is legally responsible for the custody i.e. stopping them absconding?- The same person or someone else? Problems arise when these accountabilities get blurred (see e.g. Webley v SW London & St George’s MH Trust, 2014) At any given time it must be clear who is responsible for the custody of the person on s136, as well as who has clinical responsibility

How the system is supposed to work Police are called to someone who appears to them to be mentally distressed, and who is not in a private residence. Police might arrest for a criminal offence- in which case the person goes to the police station in the usual way. Or: Officers decide the person needs immediate care and control. After consulting designated mental health professional for advice on care options, they may arrest under s136 MHA. Officers phone the nearest appropriate HBPoS, who confirm they have space- if not, they advise where the person should be taken. HBPoS contacts the duty AMHP & on-call doctor. If person needs immediate medical attention, can be taken to A&E en route. Police will normally sit with them till they are cleared to go on to HBPoS (or could be assessed at A&E) Person is assessed by doctor & AMHP & decision made as to what happens next, within 24 hours of arrival at PoS.

Possible outcomes following assessment (1-5) The five possible outcomes of a s136 assessment are outlined below: Person is found to have no underlying mental disorder of any kind- they were just drunk, or high, or had a fever which has been brought under control. In this case the person is no longer within the scope of the MHA and must be sent home at the earliest opportunity, even if the AMHP has not yet seen them. S136 is ended by suitably trained doctor at PoS. Person does have an underlying mental disorder, & may be known to community mental health services, but does not need hospital admission. The AMHP must interview them & decide what (if anything) they need- community referral, call to care co-ordinator, referral for Care Act assessment? S136 is ended once AMHP and PoS staff are satisfied that suitable arrangements have been made (could be agreed by phone). NB Person can continue to be detained up to the full 24 hours while this is being done, if it can be justified, to protect themselves or someone else from risk of harm.

Possible outcomes (cont) Person has mental disorder and needs hospital admission. If they have capacity- i.e. they understand the full implications of going into psychiatric hospital- they can be admitted ‘informally’ with their consent. NB They are still under s136 till it is formally ended, so can be restrained if getting agitated while waiting for ambulance etc. Person needs hospital admission, but lacks capacity to consent. If they are completely compliant with admission, and unlikely to resist treatment, they could be brought in under the MCA 2005. If they are to be kept there, hospital must apply for DOLS authorisation. (Used more often with older adults than with those of working age.) Again, s136 can be kept in force till person is on their way to hospital.

Possible outcomes (cont) Person needs hospital admission but is resistant, or a significant degree of control is likely to be needed. If AMHP has (normally)* two ‘medical recommendations’, one from a s.12 doctor, s/he can apply for MHA admission, under s2, which allows inpatient assessment and treatment- or s3, if the treatment plan is already established. A duly completed application gives the AMHP the legal authority to restrain the person and to convey them to hospital, using proportionate force. They can delegate this authority to anyone else who is willing to accept it: police, ambulance, even family. (See ss6(1) & 137(2) MHA.) ‘Duly completed’ = naming the hospital which will accept the patient (CQC: must have a bed for them). *(S4 MHA allows urgent admission for 72 hours with only one med rec)

Some problems with the use of s136 Across London, some common problems have been identified related to the use of s136: Shortage of adequate health-based places of safety: police often wait outside the PoS until the person can be received 75% of s136 detentions happen out of hours, but HBPoS sites are often not staffed 24/7 Use of A&E as a PoS: falls within the definition of ‘hospital’ so person can be assessed there by e.g. psychiatric liaison, but often not geared up for psychiatric assessments, and lack of clarity about the detention aspect Lack of co-ordination between the PoS, the doctor who carries out the examination, the AMHP who must normally see the person, and the ambulance service which is needed to take person to hospital Most problematic: shortage of beds for admission.

Shortage of inpatient beds / 24 hour timescale In most parts of London- and of the country- there is a scarcity of psychiatric admission beds. Usually the person can be assessed by the doctor and AMHP well within the 24 hours, but then they have to wait in the PoS till a hospital can be found. This is out of the hands of the AMHP, and of PoS staff. Until the hospital is identified, the s2 or s3 admission papers- which authorise further detention- cannot be completed If no bed has been found after 24 hours have elapsed (and extension cannot be justified), s136 ends and the individual can leave If high risk: what is legal basis for restraining them further? In exceptional circumstances, if the individual represents a clear and immediate risk to themselves or to someone else, staff may be able to justify a further, very brief, period of restraint under common law while appropriate arrangements are being made, but it should be noted that the necessity for this may be challenged. In some cases restraint may also be justified for a brief period under the Mental Capacity Act if the person lacks capacity to make decisions about their own safety and it is clearly necessary to restrain them in their own interests. In this case there would need to be a formal record that the person’s capacity was appropriately assessed, and other arrangements must be put in place as quickly as possible to prevent this turning into an unauthorised deprivation of liberty. It is the PoS staff who decide whether it is justified to use common law, or in some cases the MCA. A protocol is needed locally between the mental health and acute trusts to clearly outline the circumstances under which these powers should be used by staff. Trusts must seek their own legal advice to guide this process and ensure any detention is carried out within the parameters of the law.

London’s s136 pathway & HBPoS specification Launched 12 December 2016 Endorsed by:

Key principles of the s136 pathway (1) The key principles of the s136 pathway guidance are outlined below: If there is no capacity at the local HBPoS, it is that site’s responsibility to ensure that the person is received into a suitable PoS, through escalation or other arrangements Exceptionally, when a person with no physical health needs is taken to A&E as the PoS (because of capacity issues), that A&E cannot refuse admission unless formal escalation action has been enacted. Someone appearing drunk and showing any aspect of incapability (walking, standing), they must be treated as drunk and incapable, and treated as in need of medical assistance by A&E (or alcohol recovery services if available) If protracted physical health treatment/care is required, A&E should accept the s136 papers and take legal responsibility for custody while mental health assessment is carried out Every HBPoS should have a designated s136 co-ordinator available 24/7 who is assigned to the HBPoS at all times. Adequate, dedicated clinical staff must be available 24/7 to ensure staff members do not come off inpatient wards. HBPoS staff (both nursing and medical) should have adequate physical health competencies to prevent unnecessary A & E referrals. HBPoS & Acute Trusts should have clear pathways and protocols and the relationships to deliver these for those with physical health problems, but for whom urgent transfer to A & E is not the optimum course of action- including triage, advice, outreach (where possible) to support appropriate responsive & timely physical health care to those in a HBPoS.

Key principles of the s136 pathway (2) While a police officer or AMHP has the legal responsibility for authorising the transfer of the detained individual, co-ordinating the conveyance of individuals between HBPoS and A & E departments and vice versa should be undertaken by the Mental Health Trusts and Acute Trusts respectively, led by the s136 co-ordinator. Co- ordinating and arranging transport is not the police’s role unless there is mutual agreement between the parties that it is in the best interest of the person & there is resource to provide support. Legal duty to assess falls upon the AMHP for the area where the person is, at the point when the assessment is needed, in this case the borough where they are detained under s136. Mental health assessment must be completed within 4 hours of the person arriving at the HBPoS unless there are clinical grounds for delay.

Some implementation questions The questions below have been developed to support local implementation. They outline some key issues that should be considered: Is it clear locally who the ‘health professional’ is who is consulted by police? Is their number available to police? Is it clear who is the s136 co-ordinator for the local HBPoS? Who covers the role when the lead person is not in? If the HBPoS is full, is it clear that HBPoS staff are responsible for finding an alternative place of safety where the person can be taken? When will A&E locally accept the s136 papers (and so accept legal responsibility for custody)? Is this agreed with police? Do security staff in A&E have suitable training? Do HBPoS staff know what they can do and when, if the 24 hours have elapsed, there is no bed yet and the person is high risk? Conveying & transferring patients under s136: do the Trusts, police and LAS have a clear understanding as to how this should be done? What about conveying to hospital when section papers are completed?

Training slides on the Mental Capacity Act and use of restraint

Patients who lack mental capacity Someone lacks capacity to make a particular decision if (i) they cannot understand the information about the decision; or (ii) they cannot retain the information for long enough, or (iii) they cannot use or weigh up the information in order to choose whether to say yes or no; or (iv) they cannot communicate their decision in any way at all; AND - their inability relates to an impairment of (ongoing), or a disturbance in the functioning (temporary) of, their mind or brain Capacity relates to the particular decision, i.e. you might have the capacity to make one decision but not another. NB Mental Capacity Act starts at age 16. For children below this age, ask, are they competent (mature enough) to decide for themselves? If not, a parent usually makes the decision.

Mental Capacity Act - key principles Start by assuming the person does have capacity to make the decision; if not sure, give them the benefit of the doubt 2. Don’t decide someone lacks capacity until you have done everything you realistically can, at that time, to help them make a choice (e.g. get family to explain things, use pictures, etc) 3. Just because someone makes an unwise decision does not mean that they lack capacity (we all make mistakes) 4. If you are satisfied, on balance, that a person lacks capacity, any decision you make must be in their best interests 5. Are there less restrictive ways of achieving the same result?

Testing patient’s capacity First, be clear yourself: What are the risks if this particular person doesn’t stay in hospital & receive treatment? Then do your best to explain the risks, in language they can understand (using pictures etc. if appropriate) Check, after your explanation: do they understand the risks, & can they make a clear choice? Sometimes a person appears to understand the information, but their delusional beliefs prevent them from considering making different (safer) choices. If so, they are not using or weighing the information, and you can conclude they lack capacity to make the decision

Restraint if person is under the MHA Someone who is subject to s136 MHA, or who is being removed under a warrant, or who has been sectioned, can be subjected to reasonable restraint in order to get them to wherever they are supposed to be going Legally, someone who has been authorised to do the restraining has all the powers of a police officer executing his/her role (see s137(2) MHA 1983) This means that the person using restraint is legally protected, as long as the force that is used is reasonable in the circumstances (proportionate to the level of risk) This applies both during the ‘conveying’ (the transporting) and while getting the person into & out of the ambulance For s136, it’s the police who authorise, for s2 or s3 it’s the AMHP

Restraining patient lacking mental capacity If you have checked person’s capacity and are satisfied that- on balance - they lack capacity to decide on risks, you must act in their best interests (part of your duty of care) If you act reasonably, you have the same legal protection as if the person had given their informed consent (s.5 of the MCA) You are also protected if you need to use restraint (physical force, locked door etc.) to stop them coming to harm, if the level of restraint is reasonable in view of the risk: s.6 of MCA If the restraint goes on for a long time it may need further authorisation - but managing someone lacking capacity for a short period e.g. in ED to keep them safe from harm is legally fine

Training slides on the 2019 Mental Health & Emergency Departments: A workshop on the law and good practice

Scope of this presentation ED staff may encounter People with mental health problems who have agreed to come in with the police (new voluntary handover form) People who are brought to hospital by the police under s.136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (‘MHA’) People under arrest who have been brought by the police for health checks who exhibit symptoms of mental disorder People who have been brought in (or have presented themselves) for health treatment who lack the mental capacity to make safe decisions about their own care What does the law require of hospital staff in each case? What are the issues & difficulties in practice?

Clinical responsibility & legal accountability If someone at ED presents a risk to themselves, or to others, there are two accountabilities for them: Who is responsible for their clinical treatment & care? Who is legally responsible for keeping them safe & stopping them walking out?- The same person or someone else? Problems arise when these accountabilities get blurred (see e.g. Webley v SW London & St George’s MH Trust, 2014) At any given time it must be clear who is legally responsible for managing the person, as well as who has clinical responsibility

Parity of esteem The principle of ‘parity of esteem’ says that everyone is entitled to equal treatment without discrimination If person would be treated for their physical health, then in principle they are entitled to be seen for their mental health A decision to exclude any patient from ED is a serious one and should be escalated to the senior person on call The decision should relate to the specific risks that they present, and not to a particular diagnosis or presentation Some mentally disordered people may need a high level of attention & input- this is a resource issue for the Trust

1: Patient brought in by police voluntarily Voluntarily’ = has capacity to understand the implications of coming into hospital and has agreed it Can sometimes be transported in handcuffs for own protection- but does not mean they are in police custody ED staff have no power to restrain a voluntary patient in their own interests (unless you decide they lack the capacity to make safe decisions around their own treatment & care). If they freely choose to leave, you can’t stop them, even if you think it’s potentially dangerous for them. But: if voluntary patient is putting (or about to put) other people at risk, ‘common law necessity’ allows you to use whatever force you think is necessary to deal with the risk.

2: Patient detained under section 136 MHA S.136 MHA 1983: If a police officer believes that a person is mentally disordered and in immediate need of care or control, they can, if they think it is necessary, take that person to a ‘place of safety’ (PoS), so that they can be - examined by a doctor, & - interviewed by an Approved Mental Health Professional*, & - necessary arrangements made for their treatment or care. Until December 2017 the power was only used in a ‘public place’ Now it can be used anywhere except a place of residence Someone under s.136 is legally detained (so not free to leave) *Explained below

S.136 MHA (cont): timescales S.136 detention lasts 24 hours from the moment of arrival at the PoS, unless it is extended by the doctor (see later) ‘Arrival’ means when the person walks through the door, not when ED staff receive them It is therefore crucial that staff at ED record the time when the person arrives, not just when the person or paperwork is handed over Police Form 434: The police use this for convenience- it is a record of who has done what when, but it is not a legal requirement- you can record the information somewhere else

Section 136 MHA (cont): ‘place of safety’ A ‘place of safety’ (PoS) is defined as a hospital, a care home, a police station (now only if risk of death or serious injury), or anywhere else if the person in charge agrees to it Under normal circumstances police will use a designated ‘hospital-based place of safety’ (HBPoS- the ‘136 suite’)- but They can use the ED (or an in-patient ward) where necessary, e.g. because they need medical attention or because the HBPoS is full. Note: ED can be used as the PoS even if the person does not need medical attention for their physical health Hospital staff do NOT legally have to agree to the use of ED premises as a PoS

S.136- role of the doctor Someone under s.136 must always have their mental state examined by a “registered medical practitioner”: this can be any doctor, but normally it is a psychiatrist (who may be approved under section 12(2) MHA- a ‘s12 doctor’) They may also need attention from an A & E doctor, but this is not the doctor who makes the legal decisions If the doctor assessing their mental state decides the person has no underlying mental disorder (e.g. they were simply intoxicated), they must discharge the s136 & let them go home If they do not decide this, the person must also be seen by an ‘approved mental health professional’ (an AMHP) It is the PoS’s responsibility to notify the local AMHP service that they are needed, so ED staff may need to do this

S.136- role of the AMHP An “approved mental health professional” (AMHP) is normally a social worker or nurse (occasionally an OT) who has had specialist training. The Borough where the person is at the time the assessment is needed will provide the AMHP. The AMHP’s role is to interview the patient, talk to the family, get a second psychiatrist involved where needed, and decide whether the person needs to be admitted for in-patient psychiatric treatment- if so, will they go in voluntarily, or do they need to be detained under the MHA (‘sectioned’)? NB The AMHP is the ultimate decision-maker around hospital admission, but they do not find the bed. This is usually done by Bed Managers on behalf of the Mental Health Trust. (Can be long delays, especially if patient is from out of area.)

Extending time The 24 hour time limit can be extended at any time before the end of the initial period, by up to 12 hours (only), and only by the psychiatrist (or other doctor) who is carrying out the mental health examination Ground for extension: if the psychiatrist thinks it necessary because “the condition of the person detained is such that it would not be practicable for the assessment of the person … to be carried out before the end of the period of 24 hours” CAN extend if person is intoxicated, in physical pain, etc, & doctor cannot realistically complete their exam in 24 hours CANNOT extend if they have completed the mental health exam but you are waiting for a bed to be found for the person

Who manages a s.136 patient at ED? Someone on s.136 can be brought to ED as a place of safety- this doesn’t need ED staff’s consent ED staff clearly have the clinical duty of care to patient This does not mean that ED staff automatically have legal responsibility for managing patient- but There is no national guidance on when police can leave ED! Needs working agreement locally between police & the Trust If person needs extended physical health treatment, or if they are at ED because the HBPoS is full, it is often appropriate for ED staff to take over legal responsibility (i.e, for managing their behaviour) & accept the paperwork (Form 434)

Waiting for a bed - the legal position If the professionals are agreed that the person needs a mental health admission, but no bed is yet identified, they may need to be kept under s136 for the full 24 hours If no bed has been found after the 24 hours have elapsed (and extension cannot be justified), s.136 ends & the person can leave If high risk: If person is in the custody of ED staff, they will have to decide (i) does the person need to be stopped from leaving? (ii) is there a legal basis for restraining them further? It’s ED staff who are responsible for deciding whether to restrain, and if so, how to justify it (common law, MCA?) Staff need a protocol and/or access to advice

Possible outcomes following assessment Person is found to have no underlying mental disorder of any kind. In this case they should be discharged by doctor at the earliest opportunity. Person does have an underlying mental disorder but doesn’t need hospital admission. If on s.136, AMHP must see them & agree what they need- community referral etc. S.136 is discharged by ED staff when the AMHP is satisfied that any necessary arrangements are made (can agree by phone). NB They can continue to be detained up to the full 24 hours while this is being done, if can be justified (e.g. too risky to let them go home sooner). Person has mental disorder & needs hospital admission. AMHP considers whether has capacity to agree to be admitted ‘informally’, or if lacks capacity, whether can be brought in under the MCA. NB They can continue to be held under s.136 until they are en route to hospital. If necessary, AMHP can detain (‘section’) them under s.2 MHA (up to 28 days, primarily for assessment) or s.3 (up to 6 months, for treatment). A completed MHA application authorises the AMHP to restrain the person & to convey them to hospital (s.6 MHA). They can delegate this power to hospital staff, LAS and/or the police. However, they cannot complete the application until a hospital has agreed to receive person as an inpatient.

3: Arrested person taken to ED by police Person has been brought to ED by the police because they need medical attention. They are in the legal custody of the police and are not detained by ED staff (who can assist police on request) This means the police cannot normally leave the prisoner at ED but will need to stay with them throughout. If person seems mentally disordered, they may need to be assessed at ED by a psychiatrist and seen by an AMHP (ED staff will need to ask AMHP to attend). See above. The power of arrest lasts for 24 hours* (like the s136 power)- person must then be either charged with an offence, or let go If time runs out & person is high risk (see above): police must decide what to do *Can be extended by a senior police officer in limited circumstances relating to their alleged offending

4: Patients at ED who lack mental capacity Someone lacks capacity to make a particular decision if (i) they cannot understand the information about the decision; or (ii) they cannot retain the information for long enough, or (iii) they cannot use or weigh up the information in order to choose whether to say yes or no; or (iv) they cannot communicate their decision in any way at all; AND - their inability relates to an impairment of (ongoing), or a disturbance in the functioning (temporary) of, their mind or brain Capacity relates to the particular decision, i.e. you might have the capacity to make one decision but not another. NB Mental Capacity Act starts at age 16. For children below this age, ask, are they competent (mature enough) to decide for themselves? If not, a parent usually makes the decision.

Mental Capacity Act - key principles Start by assuming the person does have capacity to make the decision; if not sure, give them the benefit of the doubt 2. Don’t decide someone lacks capacity until you have done everything you realistically can, at that time, to help them make a choice (e.g. get family to explain things, use pictures, etc) 3. Just because someone makes an unwise decision does not mean that they lack capacity (we all make mistakes) 4. If you are satisfied, on balance, that a person lacks capacity, any decision you make must be in their best interests 5. Are there less restrictive ways of achieving the same result?

Testing patient’s capacity First, be clear yourself: What are the risks if this particular person doesn’t stay in hospital & receive treatment? Then do your best to explain the risks, in language they can understand (using pictures etc. if appropriate) Check, after your explanation: do they understand the risks, & can they make a clear choice? Sometimes a person appears to understand the information, but their delusional beliefs prevent them from considering making different (safer) choices. If so, they are not using or weighing the information, and you can conclude they lack capacity to make the decision

Restraining patient lacking mental capacity If you have checked person’s capacity and are satisfied that- on balance - they lack capacity to decide on risks, you must act in their best interests (part of your duty of care) If you act reasonably, you have the same legal protection as if the person had given their informed consent (s.5 of the MCA) You are also protected if you need to use restraint (physical force, locked door etc.) to stop them coming to harm, if the level of restraint is reasonable in view of the risk: s.6 of MCA If the restraint goes on for a long time it may need further authorisation - but managing someone lacking capacity for a short period in ED to keep them safe from harm is legally fine

Staff roles and responsibility briefings for the s136 pathway

London Ambulance Service Section 136 roles and responsibilities Alongside the training delivered across London, briefings outlining the roles and responsibilities of different staff groups along the s136 pathway were developed. These briefings summarise the key points from the s136 guidance for each staff group into a one page A3 poster briefing. Links to each briefing are included below: HBPoS staff ED staff Police London Ambulance Service

Handover process for voluntary mental health crisis patients in Emergency Departments

Handover process for voluntary mental health crisis patients Following an investigation into a London homicide case concerning a mentally ill patient absconding from an ED, a key recommendation from the report was the need for an appropriate handover process when police attend ED with a person with mental health problems. The report recommended ‘the need for a process by which the police and other emergency services are able to conduct, on arrival to the ED, an appropriate handover of the patient with appropriate health professionals regardless of the manner through which crisis mental health care is sought’. It was therefore agreed by London’s Urgent and Emergency Care Clinical Leadership Group and the Metropolitan Police to develop and pilot a handover process for police officers and ED staff to use when the police present to an emergency department with an individual in mental health crisis who is attending voluntarily. The handover process aims to support ED staff identify mental health patients brought in voluntarily by the police, improve information sharing and partnership working between the police and NHS staff and put in place a procedure to appropriately manage the attendance of vulnerable mental health patients to the department. The following ED departments were involved in the pilot: St Mary’s Hospital Homerton University Hospital Following the successful pilot and approval by London’s Urgent and Emergency Care Transformation and Delivery Board, the handover process was rolled out across the capital from 1st March 2018 with all three of London’s police forces involved. King’s College Hospital Lewisham Hospital

How does the process work? Access to the form EDs should hold copies of the form (electronic or paper) at the ED front desk. Arrival at ED and handover of patient   The police should ask to see a clinician on arrival (this will usually be the nurse or doctor in charge) for the patient to be triaged. The form will be completed by the police and shared with the ED clinician. A verbal handover is also provided to enable the clinician to clarify any points/ask further questions. The clinician and police should discuss support that might be needed to manage the patient and assess whether other arrangements are required e.g. security or nurse to monitor the patient.  Once the ED has arrangements in place, the nurse or doctor in charge, or a member of the liaison psychiatry team, will take responsibility for the patient and sign the handover form along with the attending officer. Given that managing individuals in mental health crisis in EDs can be challenging, it is advisable that police and ED staff discuss whether any further support is needed from the police within the department. A copy of the form is to be taken by ED staff. Transfer of information In ED, the copied form should be added to the patient record. Police will keep original form for upload onto the Police’s vulnerability database. Click on the PDF icon to download the form

Handover process for voluntary mental health crisis patients Feedback from police officers and ED staff outlined that the process significantly improves information sharing and patient safety through the effective handover of risks and care needs for voluntary mental health patients. All patients are now handed over to a Senior Nurse or Doctor or MH professional when they present to the department rather than reception staff. Across London for all mental health patients presenting to the Emergency Department there is a formal process and documentation. This includes those detained under s136 and those presenting to the department voluntarily with the police or London Ambulance Service. ‘It has made it safer because it has allowed the verbal and written transfer of information so that the ED staff can better understand not only the patient’s needs, but also any relevant background information from the police’. ED clinical staff ‘It has helped us focus on a vulnerable group very early on in their ED attendance’ ED clinical staff

-83% Handover process for voluntary mental health crisis patients Data from the pilot suggested a significant impact of the handover process on missing persons from ED. Initial data from the pan-London roll- out supports the pilot findings: There are 83% fewer missing person reports for voluntary to hospital patients in March 2018 vs. March 2017 In March 2017, there was one missing person report for every six voluntary to hospital patients; in March 2018 this was one for every thirty-nine patients. 41% of the missing person reports for the Met Police in March 2017 were for voluntary to hospital patients, vs. 8.5% in March 2018. -83% “I found the process to be quick and positive both for us as the police, but also for the patient who often feels unsettled. Due to these incidents taking a short time police resources aren't drained and we are out of the hospital within the hour.” Front-line officer, Metropolitan Police

For further information on this work or the wider mental health crisis care programme, please contact the programme team: hlp.londoncrisiscare@nhs.net