If you spend enough time around discussions relating to mental health crisis care, certain themes quickly emerge. Rising demand, inpatient capacity, workforce pressures, community provision and the future of the Mental Health Act. More recently, growing attention has fallen on ambulance services and the police, reflecting the reality that mental health crises increasingly extend beyond the traditional boundaries of specialist services.
Acute hospitals rarely sit at the centre of those discussions. Yet emergency departments regularly receive people in crisis, liaison psychiatry teams navigate some of the most complex clinical situations in healthcare, and acute wards continue to care for patients detained under the Mental Health Act while they receive treatment for acute physical health needs, undergo further assessment or await onward care. Mental health is not simply an issue managed within specialist services. It has become an increasingly familiar part of day-to-day life within acute hospitals. What receives even less attention is the accountability that comes with it.
NHS boards are not always short of awareness when it comes to the challenges associated with Mental Health Act activity. Conversations often focus on operational pressures: patients whose physical and mental health needs must be managed simultaneously, complex discharge planning, lengthy stays while wider systems respond, and the organisational risks that accompany some of the most vulnerable people in healthcare. Those concerns are entirely understandable.
Less visible, however, is the infrastructure beneath those pressures: documentation that depends on paper, information that travels slowly across organisational boundaries, and coordination that relies on the knowledge of experienced individuals rather than reliable systems. While these are not new observations, what is often missing is the point at which awareness becomes a decision to address the infrastructure beneath those pressures.
That gap is rarely explained by indifference. More often, it reflects the reality of a board with thirty pressing issues, none of which can all be prioritised simultaneously. The question for any organisation considering Mental Health Act transformation is therefore not whether the problem is recognised, as it almost certainly is. The question is what moves it up the agenda, and what makes it feel like a decision that cannot be deferred.
Seeing risk before it becomes an incident
The answer usually lies in risk. However, the risks involved in Mental Health Act activity are not always visible in the way that boards typically encounter risk. Some risks present as incidents, things that have already happened and generate reports and responses. The more consequential risks are often those beneath the surface: the detention not identified in time, the documentation incomplete without anyone knowing, the patient whose journey crossed four organisations and was clearly understood by none of them. These are risks that have not yet crystallised into events. They are the parts of the issue that sit a little out of sight, and are often the parts that cause the most impact when they finally emerge clearly.
Boards genuinely engaging with accountability ask not just what has gone wrong, but what might go wrong, and what the organisation can demonstrate it has done to understand and mitigate that possibility. The Mental Health Act is a particularly important lens for that scrutiny. It involves some of the most consequential decisions in healthcare: decisions about liberty, detention and the point at which the state intervenes in an individual’s life. The governance around those decisions should be transparent, evidenced and clear. In many acute settings, it is not yet any of those things, not because boards do not care, but because the infrastructure to support that transparency has not kept pace with the complexity of the pathways it is supposed to govern.
These are not questions confined to a handful of organisations. The observations in this article are informed by experience across twelve acute trusts spanning London and Dorset, including major teaching hospitals, specialist children’s services and regional acute networks. Although each organisation operates in a different context, the underlying themes are strikingly consistent. Boards are asking many of the same questions about visibility, governance and accountability, even where the operational pressures themselves look very different. The consistency of those themes suggests these are not isolated operational issues, but systemic challenges facing acute providers more broadly.
What acute trusts are learning
Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) and Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust provide two contrasting examples of how those questions play out in practice.
For the Site Nurse Practitioner team at GSTT, the challenge was not understanding what the Mental Health Act required. It was maintaining visibility of what was actually happening. Where was a patient in the pathway? Had documentation been completed correctly? Who had been informed, and what should happen next? Individually, none of those questions was especially complex. Collectively, they represented a significant operational burden with a genuine accountability gap beneath them. If the trust could not reliably answer those questions, it could not reliably demonstrate it was discharging its responsibilities correctly.
Over a three-month pilot involving around 50 Site Nurse Practitioners, the trust completed 58 statutory Mental Health Act processes digitally using Thalamos, with adoption exceeding 80 per cent. The quantitative findings were very encouraging and included fewer documentation errors, better data quality, clearer audit trails. But the reflections from staff pointed to something more fundamental. Clinicians spoke about locating records more easily, having greater visibility of Mental Health Act activity, and spending less time establishing what had already happened. One described the ability to search for a patient directly as transformative, particularly where teams had not been formally notified that a detention had taken place. That is not just an operational improvement. It is the foundation of accountability.
Several hundred miles away, Alder Hey Children’s Hospital was working through a different version of the same challenge. It does not manage significant volumes of Mental Health Act activity, and that infrequency creates a risk that is easy to underestimate. Staff may go months without navigating a particular statutory process before finding themselves doing so in highly sensitive circumstances, involving young people, families and multiple professional groups, where accuracy matters from the outset and the margin for error is small. The challenge was therefore less about scale than confidence. Clinicians described the value of a structured process that guided them through statutory requirements rather than relying on memory or informal support. Within months of implementation, documentation errors disappeared, completion times fell significantly, and staff gained a consistent framework for navigating situations that were infrequent but critically important.
- Guy’s and St Thomas’ begins acute eMHA licence trial
- Alder Hey achieves a first for paediatric acute care
The governance challenge ahead
At first glance, the two trusts have little in common. One is a major London acute provider; the other a specialist children’s hospital serving a very different population. Yet both arrived at a similar conclusion, and both did so not primarily because policy required it, but because the operational and accountability logic was compelling on its own terms.
That distinction really matters. Acute providers considering Mental Health Act transformation will encounter a great deal of language about policy alignment and reform agendas. Some of that is useful, but it is rarely what moves a decision. What moves a decision is a clear-eyed understanding of the risk an organisation is currently carrying, combined with a credible account of what it would look like to carry less of it.
Mental Health Act activity increasingly exists within a wider network of acute providers, mental health trusts, local authorities, ambulance services and, in some circumstances, police forces. Acute hospitals are frequently where physical and mental health needs intersect, where patients first arrive, and where some of the most operationally complex aspects of the wider pathway are managed. The effectiveness of those pathways depends not only on decisions made within individual organisations, but on how well information, processes and responsibilities move between them.
Boards that genuinely understand that complexity, and can see not just the incidents that have already occurred but the risks that remain below the surface, are best placed to ask the right questions. And they are most likely to recognise that demonstrating accountability around Mental Health Act processes is not an administrative exercise. It is one of the clearest tests of whether an organisation’s governance is keeping pace with the reality of the care it provides.
The missing conversation in Mental Health Act transformation is not about policy or process. It is about whether boards are willing to look clearly at what they can and cannot currently see, and what it would mean to close that gap.
Stay up to date with insights like this one by following Thalamos on LinkedIn or joining our mailing list.
Discover more about digitisation impacts:
