Demands on health and social care are growing in quantity and complexity, with resources and staffing not projected to match this. The landmark NHS Long Term Plan calls for services in England to be delivered differently through integrated care systems (ICSs) that will better join commissioners and providers, and health and social care. The scale of these changes is immense, and the detail can feel confusing. However, they are important and will affect all clinicians in the public service. This three-part series provides a primer on integrated care, explaining why it is happening, how services are changing and why clinicians should get involved. In this first article we focus on the changing demographics, and the workforce and financial resources required to address these.

Part 1 of this three-part series on integrated care discussed the drivers for change in healthcare delivery in England set out in the NHS Long Term Plan. This second part explores the evolution of mental health services within the wider National Health Service (NHS), and describes important relevant legislation and policy over the past decade, leading up to the 2019 Long Term Plan. We explain the implications of this, including the detail of emerging structures such as integrated care systems (ICSs) and primary care networks (PCNs), and conclude with challenges facing these novel systems. Part 3 will address the practical local implementation of integrated care.

Matters relating to human rights arise in almost every area of psychiatric practice. Although some statements of rights are non-binding declarations (e.g. the United Nations' Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care), others are legally binding (e.g. the European Convention on Human Rights) and actively shape national laws. Persons with mental illness commonly experience violations of rights, including their economic and social rights. Psychiatrists can promote human rights through high-quality, evidence-based clinical practice; patient-centred service management; social awareness and engagement; and international activism to enhance protection and promotion of the rights of people with mental illnesses at global level.

Statutory wills are made under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) for persons who lack testamentary capacity. Mental health practitioners are likely to be familiar with many of the provisions of the MCA and the test for testamentary capacity. However, they may not have encountered statutory wills. This article explains the procedure for applying for a statutory will, including the role of medical practitioners. Salient legal cases are summarised to highlight the difficulties in applying a best interests framework for decision-making in the context of statutory wills. Finally, this article considers how the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) might affect not only on statutory wills, but also the wider provisions of the MCA.

If a Mental Health Act section 136 lapses at 24 h because no in-patient bed is available, the legal grounds to continue holding an individual in the place of safety are dubious. Duty of candour and a senior clinical review are essential. The use of common law and the Mental Capacity Act have limitations, the latter also raising a question about whether deprivation of liberty safeguards would also apply. Clarity of this dilemma is needed through legislation.

It is over 40 years since the principle of informed consent was accepted in the USA and it has been long established in other common law jurisdictions. But for decades English law has been constrained by the Sidaway case, which effectively perpetuated a form of medical paternalism. Nevertheless, a patient-centred approach can be traced to one of the judgments in that case, and in the case of Montgomery the Supreme Court has now adopted an approach to consent which is based on self-determination and autonomy and is more closely aligned to professional practice. It calls for a dialogue between doctor and patient, recognition of the patient's right to make a choice and recognition by the doctor of their duty to provide the comprehensible information necessary for the patient to exercise choice, having regard to what a prudent patient, in that patient's circumstances and with that patient's characteristics, would want to know.

Caring for people in distress or illness is emotionally draining and physically demanding. This article focuses on the experiences and needs of health service staff as professional carers. It overviews the current circumstances in the UK and links readers to the findings of: the Stevenson/Farmer Review of 2017; the report of the General Medical Council on the state of medical education and practice of 2018; and the British Medical Association survey of doctors and medical students published in 2019. We review the sources of stress that affects healthcare practitioners and introduce the concepts of emotional labour, psychological safety and psychosocial resilience. We draw attention to the vital importance of social support and leadership to protecting healthcare staff. We conclude this review of the topic by outlining a stepped model for actions that aim to: develop staff of healthcare services and help them to thrive at work; support staff who are struggling at work; and intervene to care for staff who are distressed or unwell whether they are continuing to work or not.

Immigration is increasing and government policies are shifting. Clinicians need to be aware of the mental health needs of immigrants and the challenges of delivering appropriate care. In certain circumstances there are potential conflicts between doctors' clinical, ethical and legal responsibilities. Detention of refugees and asylum seekers may have a detrimental effect on mental health and can result in significant psychiatric morbidity. Ongoing management of foreign nationals following hospital treatment may be complicated by the threat of deportation and its implications for the patient's mental health.

The Court of Protection has the legal jurisdiction to make decisions about people who lack capacity to make decisions themselves (in England and Wales). When hearing cases, evidence can be provided to the court by expert witnesses and professionals. The Court of Protection Rules 2017 inform the practice and procedure within the Court of Protection. This article reviews the judgment from a Court of Protection case that analyses the proper role of the expert witness in the court. In doing so the article provides guidance to authors of expert witness reports and reports under section 49 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 submitted as evidence to the court.

Multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) have been in operation for around 18 years in England and Wales. The primary purpose is for the sharing of information between agencies regarding the risk management of offenders returning to the community from custodial and hospital settings. The legal framework regarding information by psychiatrists is not dealt with in one single policy or guidance document. Psychiatrists must use their clinical and professional judgement when engaging with the MAPPA process, mindful of guidance available from professional bodies such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, General Medical Council and British Medical Association.

England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all at different stages in developing their mental health legislation. All jurisdictions have encountered problems in interpretation and operation of the various acts. As an introduction to a series of articles to appear in Advances on mental health and incapacity law, this editorial offers a commentary on some of the critical issues and suggests some key principles that everyone should follow in order to provide care and treatment that accords with best legal and ethical practice.

This article summarises the current research evidence base on user involvement in mental health services from both policy and practical perspectives. We begin by examining the many meanings of the term ‘mental health service user’ and the policy imperatives for user involvement, to provide a context for later examples of good practice. We then discuss what is meant by ‘involvement’ and the reasons why user involvement is particularly important in mental health services. Finally, we describe some of the traditional barriers to involvement and a number of examples of positive practice across a range of different aspects of mental health service development and delivery.

It has been common clinical practice for staff members to make an application to a mental health tribunal (the First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) in England or the Mental Health Review Tribunal in Wales) on behalf of a patient detained in hospital for psychiatric treatment who may lack capacity to make that application, for example in dementia in-patient settings. Following a series of cases in the Upper Tribunal, such practice may not be appropriate and there is now a risk that the application will be struck out. It is important that clinicians are aware of developments in case law and therefore we provide guidance on how clinicians should approach applications to the tribunal and the assessments of capacity that may be required.

Diversion from custody is a policy supporting the removal of people with mental disorders from the criminal justice system to hospital or a suitable community placement where they can receive treatment. There are three principal reasons why such a policy is necessary. First, when those with mental disorders fall through the net of psychiatric services they tend to gravitate towards the criminal justice system; second, the standard of health care provided in prison is, generally speaking, poor; and third, because prison health care centres are not recognised as hospitals for the purposes of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983, treatment for mental disorder cannot be given against a prisoner's will unless this can be justified under common law.

It takes courage, leadership and planning to successfully implement a smoke-free policy in mental health settings. The content of the policy is crucial in setting parameters for implementation. Management and clinicians should work closely together to develop and coordinate the implementation strategy, ensuring that resources are effectively used and deadlines are met. Key success factors are effective management at both central and local levels, as well as consultation with service users, carers and staff to gain support for the policy and obtain suggestions for improvement. Other important factors are advance planning, recruitment of experienced staff, effective communication and extensive training of staff in smoking cessation support. Local teams should develop appropriate procedures based on the policy. They should work closely with the central management team. The resources developed and obtained by local teams should be shared throughout the organisation and should be tailored to meet the needs of particular services.

The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 (which enacts most of the Convention rights into UK law) are playing an ever-increasing role in determining the standards of treatment of those detained by the state and hence is of particular importance for those in hospitals, prisons or similar institutions. The European Convention on Human Rights is a ‘living instrument’ such that judgments emanating from the European Court of Human Rights will continually build upon previous jurisprudence and evolve over time. As Article 3 case law has evolved, its interpretation has broadened to now include a thorough scrutiny of hospital and prison conditions and healthcare provision where people are kept in detention. This article provides an in-depth update on recent Article 3 case law, but more importantly describes new developments in its application in the clinical setting.

Misuse of drugs such as opium, cocaine and cannabis was common around the world before the First World War and it provided a valuable market for the colonial powers. There seems to have been a brief period of sobriety between the two World Wars, along with widespread criminalisation of drug dealing and use, followed by an explosion of the illicit drug market and the hugely expensive US-led ‘war on drugs'. The cost and impracticality of drug criminalisation, together with changes in Western public opinion, mean that cannabis legalisation has very recently been accepted in some countries and drug prohibition is being dismantled.

This article sets out the complicated and confused law on automatism and identifies the role of the psychiatrist, including paradoxically a role in cases of non-psychiatric disorder where the law requires evidence from a doctor approved under section 12 of the Mental Health Act. Legal definitions of automatism are introduced. The internal/external distinction, evidential burden, burden of proof, standard of proof, prior fault, intoxication and the degree of impairment illustrate how the courts limit the defence. Detailed accounts are given of cases in which the defence of automatism has been based on psychiatric disorder and on the effects of psychotropic drugs. Suggestions are made for approaches to assessment and medicolegal reporting.

Should the law be changed to allow health professionals to assist mentally competent, terminally ill people to end their own lives? In this article Philip Graham (P.G.) puts the arguments in favour of such a change in the law and Julian Hughes (J.H.) opposes these arguments. J.H. then sets out why he believes such a law should not be passed and P.G., in turn, sets out counterarguments. Before concluding comments, both P.G. and J.H. independently make brief closing statements supporting their own positions.

Around 7.1 million people in England drink hazardously or harmfully and a further 1.1 million are dependent on alcohol. Motivational interviewing is widely used to treat people with alcohol problems and is probably the best described example of a brief intervention. However, some recent trials have been disappointing. Specialised alcohol treatment services have also suffered from weakness in the evidence base. Investment in treating alcohol misuse has fallen far behind that for drug misuse. The Department of Health's Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England embraces policies that are high-profile and cheap but are ineffective and ignore many effective measures. It recommends stepped care for alcohol treatment, but unlike the equivalent for drugs treatment, it sets no targets and leaves the small (7%) increase in funding to the discretion of local purchasers. UK spending on specialised treatment for drug misuse is estimated to be around £600 million for 2007 – around three times the estimated cost of treatment for alcohol misuse.