Articles for tag: appropriate, assessment, capacity, consent, diagnosis, GMC, harm, law, medication, prescribe, prescribing, regulation, safe, safety, standards, treatment

Safe and Appropriate Prescribing: GMC expectations mapped

“Safe and appropriate” sits at the heart of the professional standards that govern prescribing in the UK. The General Medical Council (GMC) makes it clear that doctors must propose, prescribe, provide or manage medicines and devices only when it is safe and appropriate to do so (GMCRx – Prescribing Guidance – para 97). Nowhere in the GMC’s core guidance is there a single, self‑contained definition of either “safe” or “appropriate”. There is no further guidance on ‘how safe’ or ‘how ...

Consent after McCulloch: where clinical judgement meets patient choice

Why clinicians should care about this case? Many clinicians know that consent is important. Fewer appear to know how much the law of consent changed after Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, or how the Supreme Court later refined that position in McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board [2023] UKSC 26. That matters because consent is not just about obtaining agreement. It is about ensuring that the patient is given information that allows a real decision to be ...

Reflective Notebook Entry: Moral Injury in the Architecture of Accountability

I have been thinking about documentation of capacity assessments in overview spanning the last 5 years – and how that connects to prescribing of medications. There can absolutely be no debate that capacity and consent are the bedrock of therapeutic relationships and prescribing practices. This exploration excludes considerations that fall under the Mental Health Act 1983 (to become the MHA 2025). But some of the basic issues will become relevant when prescribing under the MHA 1983. I focus almost exclusively ...

Dissecting Section 62(1) Mental Health Act 1983: Treatment Authority and Non-delegation

This article aims to dissect and clarify intricate aspects of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA), particularly regarding treatment authorisation under Section 58 and emergency powers under S62(1). This is vital for all healthcare professionals involved in the care of patients under the Act. See background in Section 62(1): the hard boundary between law and ethics – Investigative Psychiatry, Feb 2025. The core issues that emerge are non-delegation of Statutory duties to persons who are not the Approved Clinician or ...

A Tale of Two Capacities or is it One?

The differences between the conceptualisation of capacity under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) in the UK are significant, particularly in their approaches to determining capacity for consent to treatment. The Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) both address issues of capacity and consent, but they do so in different contexts and with different legal standards. There is no explicit presumption of capacity under the MHA 1983. ...

Intersection of Mental Health Act and Capacity Legislation

The case of Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Trust v KAG [2024] EWCOP 38 (T3) and others offers a compelling illustration of the complexities that can arise at the intersection of mental health law and capacity law in the context of medical treatment decisions. This case involved the proposed insertion of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) for a patient, KAG, suffering from severe depression and refusing to eat. The NHS Trusts, seeking to provide this treatment, aimed to detain ...

Bolam Test: Historical Context and Evolution

The Bolam test originates from the UK case Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582. This legal precedent was set in a negligence case involving medical treatment, establishing a principle that would profoundly influence the standard of care in medical negligence cases not only in the UK but also in various jurisdictions around the world. The principle is rooted in determining whether a healthcare professional has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a ...

Materiality

The case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 is a landmark decision in the UK law of medical negligence, specifically in relation to the duty of a doctor towards a patient in relation to advice about treatment. It fundamentally altered the legal approach to patient consent and disclosure of risks by healthcare professionals. Materiality explained The concept of materiality was brought to the forefront of UK medical law in Montgomery. The Supreme Court held that a risk ...

Polypharmacy

Polypharmacy is the use of multiple medications by a patient, particularly when too many forms of medication are used by a patient, when more medications are prescribed than are clinically warranted, or when all of an individual’s medications are not clinically necessary. While there is no set number of medications that defines polypharmacy, the term is often used when a person uses five or more medications concurrently. However, polypharmacy can be present for someone on three medications, depending on the ...

Off-label and off-licence prescribing

In the UK, the terms “off-label” and “off-licence” prescribing are often used interchangeably, but they refer to slightly different concepts. The General Medical Council wisely unified both concepts to the term ‘unlicenced prescribing’ . It does not mean ‘illegal prescribing’. Most unlicenced prescribing in the practice of medicine happens in psychiatry. Why is unlicenced prescribing a big deal? In a nutshell, it is because when a medication is used outside of it tested development parameters special precautions ought to be ...