M ental I llness C oncerns A ll	page 32 p 3.22 .. " the agencies individually and collectively failed to communicate with , or involve the family of NG in any meaningful way ..... we accept such an approach can be problematical ... where Ng was in conflict with his father . -.. but not with his brother and other siblings ." ... It is important to be sure users and carers are adequately informed about Care programme Approach .... and to give credence to their wishes and views, if necessary supported by independent advocacy . 3.35 ... HF [ the social worker - key worker ] took it upon himself to conduct an assessment on the doorstep ... HF had no regular - already inplace and active - relationship with the other members of the team - if there was a team. If there had been, and the working practice of the team was to have regular face-to face meetings of its members the social worker key worker would more easily have expressed his observations on the conduct of NG, his family would have had a way to put in their updated obserations and views, and the team collectively may have decided differently. But the team may still have governed their reaction by the 'libertarian' influence at the time, that illness behaviour although flagrant was not in itself a justification for applying a detaining section. The Inquiry corrects this - following Blom-Cooper in Robinson....the words in the Mental Health Act .. [ for an admission section ] ... are 'health or safety' not ' health and safety' . The Inquiry panels - which always read the earlier Inquiry Reports - are becoming impatient , and beginning to shift opinion in favour of compulsory admission , where there is doubt in assessment.

Inquiries Links

back to inquiry Main; Gadher