Legal Knowledge of Mental Health Professionals: Report of a National Survey

Authors

  • Jill Peay London School of Economics
  • Caroline Roberts London School of Economics & University of London
  • Nigel Eastman University of London

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.19164/ijmhcl.v1i5.363

Abstract

This article presents findings from a national postal survey of knowledge of mental health law amongst psychiatrists, GPs, approved social workers and Mental Health Act Commissioners, conducted in England and Wales. The study was designed to assess (amongst other matters) the relative levels of legal knowledge between and within these professional groups. Data from 2022 respondents revealed considerable discrepancies in knowledge scores. Commissioners, approved psychiatrists and approved social workers achieved the highest scores, and non-approved GPs the lowest scores. Within-group differences, for doctors, were correlated with levels of day-to-day experience in using the Mental Health Act and, for approved social workers, with training. The article concludes that the advisability of maintaining the statutory role of GPs in its current form is questionable, given the preponderance of poorly performing GPs. Both use of the Act and training were important in sustaining practitioners’ legal knowledge.

Author Biographies

Jill Peay, London School of Economics

Reader in Law, London School of Economics and Political Science

Caroline Roberts, London School of Economics & University of London

Research Fellow, London School of Economics and St George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London

Nigel Eastman, University of London

Professor of Law and Ethics in Psychiatry, St George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London

Downloads

Published

2014-09-08

Issue

No. 5 (2001): June

Section

Articles and Comment

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work