RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Professional experiences on use of the mental health act in ethnically diverse populations: a photovoice study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.10.13.24315024
DO 10.1101/2024.10.13.24315024
A1 Bhui, Kamaldeep
A1 Mooney, Roisin
A1 Joseph, Doreen
A1 McCabe, Rose
A1 Newbigging, Karen
A1 McCrone, Paul
A1 Raghavan, Ragu
A1 Keating, Frank
A1 Husain, Nusrat
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/10/16/2024.10.13.24315024.abstract
AB Background There are long standing ethnic and racial inequalities in experiences and outcomes of severe mental illness, including compulsory admission and treatment (CAT).Objectives To gather professional experiences about a) remedies for ethnic inequalities in the use of the Mental Health Act (1983, 2007;MHA); b) recommendations for improving care experiences and for reducing ethnic inequalities.Method We undertook a participatory research process using photovoice to gather experience data. Photographs were assembled and narrated by 17 professionals from a variety of disciplines. We undertook thematic analysis.Results Ineffective communications between inpatient and community services, insufficient staff capacity, a lack of continuity of care, and language and cultural constraints meant MHA assessments were lacking information leading to elevated perceptions of risk. Practitioners felt helpless at times of staff shortages and often felt CAT could have been prevented. They felt voiceless and powerless, and unable to challenge stereotypes and poor practice, especially if they were from a similar demographic (ethnicity) as a patient. Interdisciplinary disagreements and mistrust led to more risk aversive practices. The legislation created an inflexible, risk averse and defensive process in care. Police involvement added to concerns about criminalisation and stigma. There were more risk averse practices when team members and families disagreed on care plans. More rehabilitation and recovery orientated care is needed. Legislative compliance in a crisis, conflicted with supportive and recovery orientated care.Conclusion Clearer standards are needed including specific protocols for MHA assessment, police interactions, considering alternatives to admission, early intervention and continuity of care.What is already known on this topic The Levels of compulsory admission and treatment (CAT) are rising, and ethnic and racial disparities in level of detention persist. Practitioners’ experiences of using mental health legislation holds valuable information on how to reduce ethnic and racial disparities, yet their views are rarely sought for innovations in policies and practice.What this study adds Practitioners identified several reasons why ethnic and racial disparities persist, including increased risk perception due to interdisciplinary mistrust and poor communication, family discord, and a lack of information due to language and cultural constraints. Police involvement led to escalation, and police and mental health practitioner roles were not always clear, leading to frustration. The emotionally demanding work of caring for people with severe mental illness, and then undertaking CAT often involved disagreement and lead to fatigue and failures to consider all options at the time of assessment. Defensive practice, delays in assessment, a lack of continuity of care, and staff shortages all add to imperfect decision making and escalation to CAT rather than other options.How this study might affect research, practice or policy Improving legislation alone will not reduce ethnic and racial disparities in CAT, rather a comprehensive range of community services, skilled interdisciplinary communication and decision making, less escalation to police involvement, and tackling staff shortages are all essential. Culturally competent care also requires better skills in assessing across language and cultural barriers, as well as involving family in decisions.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study/project is funded by the NIHR-PRP (NIHR201704).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was granted ethical approval from the National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Health Research Authority (HRA) on the 1st December 2021, after review at the South Berkshire Committee [21/SC/0204].I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThis is qualitative data set, a small sample, with unique identifiers and descriptors as is usual in qualitative research; we have presented only intersection characteristics; therefore the data set is not easily re-analysed by other parties. We have not made the data available given the risk of identification by locality and other professional and demographic characteristics.