Police and health operational staff perspectives on managing detainees held under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act: A qualitative study in London
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detention under section 136(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 allows for the police to detain a person from a public place and “remove [them] to a place of safety” if it is “in the interests of that person or for the protection of other persons in immediate need of care or control.” This study examines the interface between police and health professionals covering the conveyance and transfer of detainees to a place of safety and on completion of the assessment prior to inpatient admission. One hundred ninety-six professionals were interviewed across police (n=38), London Ambulance Service (n=2), Mental Health or Emergency Department staff (n=63), and Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs)/Section 12 doctors (n=93). The data was analyzed thematically using a Framework analysis. The conveyance and transfer of detainees was framed by various elements of detainee risk. Healthcare professionals cited clinical risk, risk associated with substance misuse, professional safety, culture of risk aversion, staffing issues, and fear of certain detainee groups as the main issues. For police, risk was discussed within the context of institutional or professional fear of negligence due to an adverse incident. It is argued that the negative framing of risk at this point of the detention process by all professionals creates a negative therapeutic environment for detainees. Whilst safety is an essential part of the detention process, these distinctions problematize the process for a detainee. The article argues for a more balanced framing of risk to establish a more therapeutic interaction between detainees and police and healthcare providers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".