Hospital unfairly detained man under the Mental Capacity Act

What happened

Mr M was admitted to hospital with a medical problem. He had no history of psychiatric illness. Soon after admission Mr M began to behave unusually and staff were concerned for his welfare. Four days later, he got dressed and left the ward, telling staff that he intended to walk home (a distance of ten miles). Staff followed him as he left the hospital and the hospital grounds. Mr M's doctor decided that Mr M should be brought back to the ward until he could be assessed by a psychiatrist. Staff called the police and hospital security staff to help with this, and Mr M was detained on the ward overnight. The next day a psychiatrist assessed him, declared him medically fit and discharged him home soon afterwards.

Mr M complained that his detention was unfair and that he was not told what was happening. He also complained about the way he was restrained when he attempted to leave the hospital, and said that he sustained injuries as a result of this. He said staff delayed assessing these injuries and also took away his emergency medicine when he was eventually discharged.

What we found

It was not unreasonable that Mr M was brought back to the hospital when he attempted to leave. However, his mental capacity should have been assessed immediately, and a senior medical doctor on the ward could have done this.

Instead clinical staff decided to detain Mr M under the Mental Capacity Act until he could be assessed by a psychiatrist, which took 24 hours. This delay in assessing Mr M's mental capacity, and his detention under the Mental Capacity Act, was a failure in service.

There was no evidence to support Mr M's other complaints.

Putting it right

The Trust apologised to Mr M and told us and Mr M what it had learned from the failure we found. It reinforced the need for all staff to make clear mental capacity assessments in health records, and provided them with mandatory training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Mr M wanted to insert a statement into his hospital records to say that he disagreed with the Trust's version of his complaints, and the Trust agreed to this.