Recurring concern
Unsafe application of Mental Health Act detention safeguards to informal patients
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correctionFirst reported 27 Jan 2014•Latest report 6 Feb 2026
What this concern includes
Includes failures in the Mental Health Act process for assessing, authorising, implementing or reviewing detention or restriction of informal patients, including staff understanding of detention powers, section 5(4) use, transition from informal status, lawful-authority checks and safeguards for people who are effectively detained.
Not included
- Excludes failures limited to Mental Health Act assessment recommendations or the timeliness of statutory assessment where detention-safeguards application is not the identified concern.
- Excludes Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation, renewal or review failures unless the report also concerns the Mental Health Act detention-safeguards process for an informal patient.
- Excludes general leave, absconding, security or observation failures where no Mental Health Act detention or lawful-authority issue is identified.
- Excludes generic legal training or policy deficiencies not specifically tied to applying Mental Health Act detention safeguards to informal patients.
- Reports
- 5
- Individual concerns
- 6
- Date range
- 2014–2026
- Stated actions
- 5
Distinct published reports
A report can raise multiple concerns
First to latest report issue date
Described in published responses
Reports over time
Reports over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
Concerns and responses across reports
Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to instigate an S.5(4) MHA 1983 authorisation when a patient returns after absconding
This report raised 10 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
-
Action
Provide ward staff with further refresher training on holding powers, emergency MCA use and related legal requirements.
Stated by The Trust -
Action
Update the rapid tranquilisation policy to clearly restate the relationship between holding powers, consent and emergency alternatives.
Stated by The Trust
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Section 5(4) powers were unavailable because a doctor’s immediate attendance had been secured.
Stated by The Trust
-
Concerns raised1
Detention of patients in general hospitals without a section while awaiting a mental health bed
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
-
Action
Invest in new mental health units and community, crisis, and acute services to improve access and reduce avoidable admissions.
Stated by NHS England -
Action
Direct systems to reduce average adult acute mental health ward stays and improve timely access to local beds.
Stated by NHS England -
Action
Provide recurrent funding to integrated care boards to recommission inpatient care in line with evidence-based therapeutic local models.
Stated by NHS England
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Detention under the Mental Health Act in an acute hospital can occur only with the acute Trust’s agreement.
Stated by Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to apply the Mental Health Act appropriately to informal patients who are effectively detained
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
Concerns raised2
Erroneous belief that informal patients cannot be detained when safety concerns arise
Insufficient training on Mental Health Act implementation for informal patients
This report raised 7 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of understanding of legal duties when transferring non-consenting patients from Section 4 MHA 1983 to informal patient status
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Data last updated 7 September 2026