Abstract
Indexing metadata
How to cite item
Email this article (Login required)
Email the author (Login required)
AffiliationAbout the Author(s)
Kalpesh Narsi 
Discipline of Psychiatry, School of Clinical Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
Narsi K. Unpacking assisted admissions under the Mental Health Care Act 17 of 2002. S Afr Fam Pract. 2022;64(1), a5517. https://doi.org/10.4102/safp.v64i1.5517
Received: 21 Feb. 2022; Accepted: 28 Feb. 2022; Published: 20 Apr. 2022
Copyright: © 2022. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The Mental Health Care Act 17 of 2002 (MHCA) is a progressive piece of mental health legislation that has the potential to transform mental health services by emphasising patient rights and promoting integration and accessibility. The MHCA allows for the care, treatment and rehabilitation of mental healthcare users, who lack the competence to consent but who do not refuse treatment to be managed as assisted users. This article unpacks the concept and procedure of assisted admissions, comparing it with other types of admissions described in the MHCA. Relevant clinical and legal factors influencing the assisted admission status are discussed. The article concludes with a description of the advantages and challenges of assisted care, together with recommendations for its implementation.
Keywords: assisted; admission; psychiatry; mental health; mental healthcare user; human rights; legislation; Mental Health Care Act 17.
Promulgation of the Mental Health Care Act 17 of 2002 (MHCA), represented a watershed moment for patient rights in South Africa. Whilst previous mental health legislation focused on ‘certifying’ patients away to distant psychiatric institutes with little recourse, the MHCA emphasises a more human rights-based approach and fosters the integrated care of mental healthcare users (hereafter referred to as ‘users’) at all levels of healthcare services. 1
The admission status of users is predicated on two conditions: competence and their willingness to receive treatment. 2 Competence to consent may be defined as the capacity of users to be aware of their rights, options available to them, and the ability to make a relatively consistent choice, which is situation- and time-specific and is voluntary (free from coercion).
Users who are competent to consent and submit voluntarily for treatment are classified as voluntary. Users who are deemed to lack capacity to consent but do not object to care, treatment or rehabilitation (i.e. are cooperative) are classified as assisted, whereas those objecting to or refusing treatment (i.e. are uncooperative) are classified as involuntary users. A fourth type of admission, emergency admission, allows for users incapable of or unable to make an informed decision to be admitted for 24 h, after which they need to be reclassified as voluntary, assisted, involuntary or discharged, with the appropriate process. Table 1 illustrates the similarities and differences between the three types of admissions.
| TABLE 1: Similarities and differences between voluntary, assisted, and involuntary care as described by the Mental Health Care Act 17 of 2002 (MHCA). |
Whilst the admission procedure for assisted users initially mirrors the administrative process for involuntary admissions, it is considerably less authoritarian and formal. As assent is obtained from an individual who is not clinically or legally able to consent, assisted treatment may be considered as ‘a third party voluntary procedure’ or consent by proxy. 2
Sections 26–31 of the MHCA describe the process for assisted care, 3 which is summarised in Figure 1 and outlined below:
| FIGURE 1: Procedure for assisted admission under the Mental Health Care Act. |
As soon as a user has clinically improved such that they are able to make informed decisions, they must be converted to a voluntary status should there still be an indication to continue with the admission. As there are no MHCA forms to record this process, it is vital that the treating clinician records this information and decision in the clinical notes. All rights, procedures and processes in the National Health Act are applicable to voluntary users (this includes participation in clinical decision-making, informed consent and the right to refuse hospital treatment). 5 However, if the user is well enough to be discharged back into the community, this is carried out on form MHCA-03. There is no clear legal provision to convert ‘assisted inpatients’ to ‘assisted outpatients’ like for involuntary users, despite the clinical reality that some users, even after an admission, may chronically lack the capacity to consent because of developmental or cognitive impairment.
When an assisted user, subsequently during his or her admission refuses treatment (i.e. fulfills the condition for an involuntary user), the HHE must advise the applicant (who applied for the assisted admission) and the relevant treating clinicians to make an application for involuntary care. This entails that the legal admission process and the relevant forms be completed de novo. However, the MHCA provides a leeway of 30 days to reapply for involuntary admission and the clinical care may continue as is appropriate and necessary. Whilst some MHCA may invariably improve during this time, there are no published local data to inform on the frequency and outcomes regarding this scenario in clinical practice.
Users or their next of kin may appeal against the decision of the HHE to the MHRB, which must, within 30 days of receipt, evaluate the merits of the appeal based on written or oral representations from the relevant stakeholders (the user, next of kin, appellant, MHCPs and HHE). The process of reclassifying a ‘treatment-refusing assisted user’ to an involuntary user (as described here) must also be halted, pending the investigation by the MHRB. If the MHRB upholds an appeal, all care and treatment must be stopped according to the relevant clinical practice, and the user must be discharged. It is therefore important to note that there is no ‘refusal of hospital treatment’ nor a simple signing out of the user (including by the very next of kin that applied for the assisted admission). This ensures that the rights and provision of clinical care of users are not compromised should the next of kin be averse to and obstructs access to treatment.
An assisted user may be granted leave of absence (‘pass out’) during his or her admission for up to two months. The terms and conditions of such leave must be stipulated to the user and their custodian. These should be discussed collaboratively and agreed upon, and may typically include adherence to prescribed medication regimes, sobriety from illicit substances and avoidance of activities deemed to place the user’s mental or physical health at risk. Leave of absence may be revoked should the clinical team have reason to believe that the user has not complied with the terms and conditions.
Besides offering users a welcomed reprieve from hospitalisation, leave of absence may be used to assess recovery before discharge. 6 Social interactions and behavioural problems, often masked by a sterile clinical environment, may surface during the leave. It is therefore prudent to obtain an account of the user’s condition from the custodian so that residual symptoms and challenges with social reintegration may be assessed and therapeutically targeted.
The assisted (or involuntary) status only applies to the care, treatment and rehabilitation of the mental illness that is focus of intervention for which an application was made. It does not legally confer a ‘blanket’ incapacity to consent. Should a user be able to appreciate and deliberate on the need for medical or surgical treatment of another medical condition, he or she must be afforded the opportunity to provide informed consent for that treatment or procedure, notwithstanding their MHCA status. However, should they lack capacity, then their next of kin may provide such consent. The HHE only provides consent if the user’s next of kin is unavailable and untraceable, and if both the HHE and treating clinician are of the opinion that such treatment is appropriate and recommended after considering relevant alternatives.
Admitting patients as assisted users has numerous advantages. Assisted users can be managed at district hospitals, which are closer to users’ homes and communities, preventing the stigma and shame that may arise from admission to psychiatric institutions. 1 Assisted admissions at localised and lower service platforms allow for more integrated care and collaboration with users’ support structures. Furthermore, the admission process is shorter, with fewer forms to fill; there is no requirement for 72-hour observations and no judicial review. Such admissions therefore actualise the MHCA principle of users being managed in the least restrictive manner by acknowledging that users do have opinions on their treatment, and a collaborative approach may be strived for despite their impairment. A systematic review found that whilst staff commonly felt that unconsented treatment compromised positive therapeutic relationships, providing users with information and engaging them in decision-making had a significant impact on users’ experiences. 7 This, in turn, promotes adherence and better health outcomes.
However, for this to be effective, district hospitals must be capacitated with infrastructure, human resources (including psychologists, social workers and occupational therapists), availability of appropriate pharmaceutical and therapeutic interventions, and outreach from specialist psychiatrists. Local research continues to find a critical shortage of such resources. 1,8,9 There are also differences and discrepancies in the implementation of the MHCA based on resources, knowledge, perceptions and attitudes. 10
Whilst assisted admission of users has clinical, legal, ethical and logistical advantages, numerous systemic challenges pose barriers to relevant users being classified appropriately. In order for successful implementation of the MHCA there is an urgent need for political will, leadership and adequate funding. Regular training of MHCPs, support from outreach psychiatrists and the establishment of clear referral pathways are strongly recommended.
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
K.N. is the sole author of this CPD article.
This study followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
This research work received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the author.
