Mental Health Act Commission remit

D. Speers made this Freedom of Information request to Care Quality Commission

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please can you forward information on:
1) If / how the Mental Health Act Commission's remit has changed since becoming part of the Care Quality Commission?

2) Is the protection of the interests detained patients still the main part of the MHAC remit?

3) How will the MHAC know when a patient is detained?

Yours faithfully,

D. Speers

Lall, Andrew, Care Quality Commission

2 Attachments

Dear Ms Speers,

Please find attached the following:

1. A copy of a letter with regard to your request for information; and
2. A copy of a document mentioned in the letter.

Regards,

Andrew Lall
Information Governance Officer
Care Quality Commission
103-105 Bunhill Row
London
EC1Y 8TG

Statutory requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998 should be sent to
[1][Care Quality Commission request email]

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If this email is received in error, please notify us immediately by clicking "Reply" and delete the email. Please note that neither the Care Quality Commission nor the sender
accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Care Quality Commission.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Care Quality Commission request email]
mailto:[Care Quality Commission request email]

Dear Lall, Andrew,
Thank you, I appreciate your full respone, Just a point worth noting. When I met with the former CEO of the MHAC, Professor Christopher Heginbotham he stated that one of their main problems was they are not routinely informed when a patient is detained and this was deemed to be a huge issue. It would have been good to read that each time a person is detained the CQC must be informed...that way the onus is on the CQC to deliver their remit and maybe not so reliant on Trust's probity.
Thank you again.
Dee Speers

D. Speers

Lall, Andrew, Care Quality Commission

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Speers,

Please find attached a copy of a letter with regard to your requests for
information.

Regards,

Andrew Lall
Information Access Officer
Care Quality Commission
103-105 Bunhill Row
London
EC1Y 8TG

Direct Dial: 020 7448 9074
Ext: 3624

Statutory requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998 should be sent to
[1][Care Quality Commission request email]

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If this email is received in error, please notify us immediately by clicking "Reply" and delete the email. Please note that neither the Care Quality Commission nor the sender
accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Care Quality Commission.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Care Quality Commission request email]
mailto:[Care Quality Commission request email]

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Care Quality Commission's handling of my FOI request 'Mental Health Act Commission remit' and my request for access to the HC Investigation Report into WLMHT in a seperate FOI request dealt with here too.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/me...

As my main concerns relate to your reliance on Section 22 exemption. I will add my additional comments to my HC Investigation Report request.

Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

Information Access, Care Quality Commission

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your email of 12th June 2009 in which you request an internal review of the
handling of your request regarding 'Mental Health Act Commission remit'. We aim to deal
With your appeal as soon as possible and in any event within 20 days following receipt.
This means that you should expect to receive our response by 2nd July 2009.

Kind Regards

Tallulah

Tallulah Sutherland-Spedding
Information Access Officer
Information Governance Team
Care Quality Commission
Finsbury Tower
103-105 Bunhill Row
London
EC1Y 8TG

Email: [email address]
Direct Tel: 020 7448 1766
Internal Tel: 3816

Statutory requests for information made pursuant to access to information legislation, such as the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, should be sent to: [Care Quality Commission request email]

show quoted sections

Information Access, Care Quality Commission

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Speers

Please find the attached response to you request for an internal review.

Best Wishes

Information Access Officer
Information Governance Team
Care Quality Commission
Finsbury Tower
103-105 Bunhill Row
London
EC1Y 8TG

Direct Tel: 03000 616161


Statutory requests for information made pursuant to access to information legislation, such as the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, should be sent to: [Care Quality Commission request email]

show quoted sections

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Since posting this FOI request more and more failures of regulation are surfacing.
CQC are facing severe criticism over its failure to detect the abuse of vulnerable adults in Winterbrook View Care Home in Bristol.
Fact is: there are more than 280 posts vacant at CQC and the most recent staff survey discovered that the vast majority were disillusioned with their jobs. Questions on its ability to police the sector have also been fuelled by the parlous financial state of Southern Cross Healthcare, which runs the country's biggest chain of care homes.
CQC,as the country's health watchdog, has 283 vacant positions , this includes 133 for care home inspections and as a result the inspection team is 15% understaffed.
Therefore the registration of nurses seem to be a low priority and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-... will show the importance of NMC registration. If no registration then the lesson that this Executive Nurse is sending out is "dont register and you cant be struck off"

name removed 23 Oct 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

I too am concerned about the effectiveness of the Care Quality Commission to safeguard patients in the Mental Health system.

I received a response to a Freedom of Information Request whereby the CQC responded that they are not involved in the Tribunals.

I cannot understand the logic of this though.

Firstly, the CQC are supposed to be the REGULATOR of these mental health facilities and SPECIFICALLY safeguarding issues.

Therefore, why are they not overseeing the Mental Health Tribunals to ensure that advocacy is properly done, as there has recently been disquiet expressed in the national news about the quality of advocacy.

I believe that now is the time for a complete overhaul of the Mental Health Legislation and I note that the Law Commission has views too. For myself I believe that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 especially Section 44 has the potential to disrupt our entire cohesiveness as a community for NOBODY - not family, not friends, not paid carers, not care home owners, not nurses, not doctors, not psychiatrists, not psychologists, not physiotherapists, not Occupational Therapists, not Healthcare Assistants, indeed NOT ANYONE will wish to "look after" or "care for" ANYONE for fear of being prosecuted as mental capacity is based on a single action - not a progressive timeline - so that if a person is ill, then they can be regarded as "vulnerable" and if another person then DEEMS that ill person to be both vulnerable AND mentally incapacitated because of temporary illness then the person who did not get medical help such as calling a doctor to assist, MUST THEN BECOME LIABLE TO PROSECUTION.

This is madness.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Couldnt agree more Rosemary and unless CQC are accountable for taking over the remit of the Mental Health Act Commission of "safeguarding the interests of detained patients" the remit is not being fulfilled.

I am on Twitter @JoinedU1 as is @MentalHealthCop (a very well informed police inspector!) http://www.mentalhealthcop.wordpress.com ...I think you'll find his blog very helpful and your comments above, if posted, would provide a great debating opportunity. See what you think