Reflection On Evidence Based Practice

To gather in-depth information regarding Mr Jones, I had to take into account the evidence-based approach. Webber and Nathan (2010, p.36) state that “evidence based is not a substitute for professional judgement, evidence-based practice gives due weight to outcome research which can provide pointers to what can work best in different circumstances”. Reading the electronic notes evidenced that Mr Jones had previously been detained on s136 of MHA five years ago, but no further actions were taken. On reflection of this event, I wondered if Mr Jones’ current behaviour could be related to previous circumstances, if so, a similar intervention could be used. To verify this, I spoke to Mrs Jones as per MHA CoP 14.66. It became evident that Mr Jones’
When I rang the Emergency Department, the phones were continuously engaged for approximately an hour and a half. This made it challenging to gain an update on Mr Jones circumstances, since he had spent a night in the Emergency Department. When I eventually managed to speak to the doctor managing Mr Jones’ care, the feedback was that Mr Jones’ mental health continued to deteriorate. The doctor’s recommendation was to consider a MHAA. After a discussion with the AMHP, we decided to go ahead and set up an assessment. I took into consideration s12(2), which states that medical recommendations should be undertaken by two doctors, a s12 approved and a doctor with special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of the mental disorder. Additionally, where practicable, the second doctor should have previous acquaintance with the patient. In AR v Bronglais 2001, the judge said the doctor attended a case conference learning about the patient’s background circumstances, met the client briefly, and scanned the patient’s recent medical notes, by so doing this amounted to previous acquaintance (Jones 2017). To obtain a doctor that had previous
However, if Mr Jones was at home we would have used a different approach to undertake the assessment. At this point in time, I would draw my knowledge from a previous community MHAA where I took an active role assessing a patient who presented similar behaviours (physical and verbal aggressive) to that of Mr Jones. In the previous assessment the AMHP and I used s135(1), the use of a warrant issued by the magistrate authorising police accompanied by the AMHP and the two Doctors to gain access to the property by force to search and remove the patient to a place of safety if need be, to enable us consider his treatment or care. From my previous experience, using s135 (1) can be challenging particularly to have all the invited professionals at the same place at the same time. In previous circumstances, I had the two doctors who arrived at the agreed time to undertake the assessment, but the police and the ambulance arrived two hours later. To undertake the assessment was difficult as the Doctors had other commitments and they could not wait for two hours. Therefore, we had to rearrange the time. Additionally, standing outside the client’s house could have made the client agitated. The AMHP’s duties under Care 2014 s47 are that the AMHP must make sure the property is secure after the assessment, if the patient is being detained in a Psychiatric