Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Service users’ experiences of mental health tribunals in Ireland: a qualitative analysis

  • R. Murphy (a1), D. McGuinness (a2), E. Bainbridge (a3), L. Brosnan (a4), M. Keys (a5) (a6), H. Felzmann (a7), K. Murphy (a2), B. Hallahan (a3), A. Higgins (a1) and C. McDonald (a3)...

Abstract

Objectives

To explore the mental health tribunal experiences of people admitted involuntarily under the Mental Health Act 2001.

Methods

Employing a qualitative descriptive study design, data were collected from 23 service users who had experienced mental health tribunals during a recent involuntary admission. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted ~3 months post-revocation of their involuntary admission order. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic process.

Results

The majority of participants reported mixed experiences comprising positive and negative aspects in relation to information provision, emotional support and an inclusive atmosphere. Some participants reported receiving accessible information about the tribunal process, felt emotionally supported throughout, and encountered respectful and dignifying practices during the tribunal proceedings. However, many participants described experiencing non-inclusive practices, reported feeling ill-informed regarding the tribunal process, emotionally unsupported during and after the tribunal, and distressed by what they perceived as adversarial tribunal proceedings.

Conclusions

Systemic changes could ensure that the positive experiences encountered by the minority of participants in this study are more consistently experienced. Ongoing education and training of stakeholders in the provision of inclusive tribunal practices, and the provision of accessible information and emotional support to service users through the stages of the involuntary admission process appear likely to be beneficial. Service users should automatically be offered the option of having a support person of their choosing present during tribunals.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Service users’ experiences of mental health tribunals in Ireland: a qualitative analysis
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Service users’ experiences of mental health tribunals in Ireland: a qualitative analysis
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Service users’ experiences of mental health tribunals in Ireland: a qualitative analysis
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided theoriginal work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

*Address for correspondence: Dr R. Murphy, Ph.D., School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College, Dublin, 24 D’Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. (Email: murphr30@tcd.ie)

References

Hide All
Bainbridge, E, Hallahan, B, McGuinness, D, Higgins, A, Murphy, K, Gunning, P, Newell, J, McDonald, C (2016). A three-month follow-up study evaluating changes in clinical profile and attitudes towards involuntary admission. European Psychiatry 33, S477S478.
Braun, V, Clarke, V, Terry, G (2014). Thematic analysis. In Qualitative Research in Clinical Health Psychology (ed. P. Rohleder and A. Lyons), pp. 95114. Palgrave Macmillan: New York.
Carney, T (2010). Mental health tribunals as governance: lessons from an Australian study? Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 11/1. (https://ssrn.com/abstract=1753334). Accessed 15 December 2016
Carney, T, Tait, D (2011). Mental health tribunals – rights, protection, or treatment? Lessons from the ARC linkage grant study? Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 18, 137159.
Dolan, M, Gibb, R, Coorey, P (1999). Mental health review tribunals: a survey of Special Hospital patients’ opinions. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 10, 264275.
Diesfeld, K, McKenna, B (2006). The therapeutic intent of the New Zealand mental health review tribunal. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 13, 100109.
Diesfeld, K, McKenna, B (2007). The unintended impact of the therapeutic intentions of the New Zealand Mental Health Review Tribunal? Therapeutic jurisprudence perspectives. Journal of Law and Medicine 14, 566574.
Ferencz, N (2003). Patients’ views of the mental health review tribunal procedure in England. In Involuntary Detention and Therapeutic Jurisprudence: International Perspectives on Civil Commitment (ed. K. Diesfeld and I. Freckelton), pp. 241262. Ashgate Publishing Company: Aldershot.
Ferencz, N, McGuire, J (2000). Mental health review tribunals in the UK: applying a therapeutic jurisprudence perspective. Court Review 37, 4854.
Georgieva, I, Bainbridge, E, McGuinness, D, Keys, M, Brosnan, L, Felzmann, H, Maguire, J, Murphy, K, Higgins, A, McDonald, C & Hallahan, B, (in press). Opinions of key stakeholders concerning involuntary admission of patients under the Mental Health Act 2001. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, Available on CJO 2016 doi:10.1017/ipm.2016.6.
Jabbar, F, Kelly, BD, Casey, P (2010). National survey of psychiatrists’ responses to implementation of the Mental Health Act 2001 in Ireland. Irish Journal of Medical Science 179, 291294.
Katsakou, C, Bowers, L, Amos, T, Morriss, R, Rose, D, Wykes, T, Priebe, S (2010). Coercion and treatment satisfaction among involuntary patients. Psychiatric Services 61, 286292.
Mental Health Commission (MHC) (2009). Your guide to the Mental Health Act (http://www.mhcirl.ie/File/SUI_EnglishV2009.pdf). Accessed 10 January 2017.
Mental Health Commission (MHC) (2011). Mental Health Commission submission on the review of the Mental Health Act 2001 (http://www.mhcirl.ie/File/Sub_Dept_HR_MHA01.pdf). Accessed 10 January 2017.
Mental Health Commission (MHC) (2014). Report of the Expert Group on the review of the Mental Health Act 2001 (http://www.mhcirl.ie/File/rpt_expgroupreview_mha2001.pdf). Accessed 10 January 2017.
Mental Health Commission (MHC) (2015). Annual report 2015 including the report of Inspector of Mental Health Services. Mental Health Commission, Dublin.
Murphy, R, McGuinness, D, Bainbridge, E, Keys, M, Brosnan, L, Felzmann, H, Murphy, K, McDonald, C, Hallahan, B & Higgins, A (in press). Service users’ experiences of involuntary hospital admission under the Mental Health Act 2001 in the Republic of Ireland: highlighting the need for person-centred care. Psychiatric Services.
O’Donoghue, B, Lyne, J, Hill, M, Larkin, C, Feeney, L, O’Callaghan, E (2010). Involuntary admission from the patients’ perspective. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 45, 631638.
O’Donoghue, B, Lyne, J, Hill, M, Larkin, C, Feeney, L, O’Callaghan, E (2011a). Physical coercion, perceived pressures and procedural justice in the involuntary admission and future engagement with mental health services. European Psychiatry 26, 208214.
O’Donoghue, B, Lyne, J, Hill, M, O’Rourke, L, Daly, S, Larkin, C, Feeney, L, O’Callaghan, E (2011b). Perceptions of involuntary admission and risk of subsequent readmission at one-year follow-up: the influence of insight and recovery style. Journal of Mental Health 20, 249259.
O’Donoghue, B, Roche, E, Lyne, J, Madigan, K, Feeney, L (2016). Service users’ perspective of their admission: a report of study findings. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, Available on https://doi.org/0.1017/ipm.2016.13.
Office of the Attorney General (2001). Mental Health Act 2001, No. 25 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/25/enacted/en/print.html).
Perkins, E (2003a). Decision-making in mental health review tribunals. Policy Studies Institute, University of Westminster, London.
Perkins, E (2003b). Mental health review tribunals. In Involuntary Detention and Therapeutic Jurisprudence: International Perspectives on Civil Commitment (ed. K. Diesfeld and I. Freckelton), pp. 221240. Ashgate Publishing Company: Aldershot.
Priebe, S, Katsakou, C, Glockner, M, Dembinskas, A, Fiorillo, A, Karastergiou, A, Kiejna, A, Kjellin, L, Nawka, P, Onchev, G, Raboch, J, Schuetzwohl, M, Solomon, Z, Torres-Gonzalez, F, Wang, D, Kallert, T (2010). Patients’ views of involuntary hospital admission after 1 and 3 months: prospective study in 11 European countries. British Journal of Psychiatry 196, 179185.
Richardson, G, Machin, D (2000). Judicial review and tribunal decision making: A study of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Public Law 5, 494514.
Sandelowski, M (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing and Health 33, 7784.
Smith, D, Roche, E, O’Loughlin, K, Brennan, D, Madigan, K, Lyne, J, Feeney, L, O’Donoghue, B (2014). Satisfaction with services following voluntary and involuntary admission. Journal of Mental Health 23, 3845.
Swain, PA (2000). Admitted and detained community members and Mental Health Review Boards. Psychiatry Psychology and Law 7, 7988.
Thom, K, Nakarada-Kordic, I (2014). Mental health review tribunals in action: a systematic review of the empirical literature. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 21, 112126.
Topp, V, Thomas, M, Ingvarson, M (2008). Lacking insight. Involuntary patient experience of the Victorian Mental Health Review Board. Mental Health Law Centre (http://www.communitylaw.org.au/mentalhealth/cb_pages/images/Lacking_Insight.pdf). Accessed 19 December 2016.
Yip, S-h (2004). Social workers’ and physicians’ experiences with review panels in British Columbia. Social Work in Mental Health 2, 7189.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed