MENTAL-HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNALS - A COMPARISON OF THE CONTENT OF TRIBUNAL REPORTS FOR DISCHARGED AND NOT DISCHARGED PATIENTS AND FOR THE EFFECT OF LEGAL CLASSIFICATION

This study examined the content of reports provided fdr Mental Health Review Tribunals. A retrospective design was used to compare the tribu nal reports of fifty patients. Two groups of twenty five patients were compared, one including patients discharged by tribunals and the othe r patients not discharged. Social combination theory and valence theor y were used to analyse the content of the reports and to assess whethe r they were associated with tribunal outcome. Opinion statements discu ssing suitability for discharge were more closely associated with outc ome than fact statements. For the statements presenting subjects posit ively or negatively, fact statements were more closely associated with outcome. The valence of both types of statements was also found to be related to outcome, with more positive values being achieved for disc harged subjects. Comparison of reports written for previous tribunals before any of the subjects in the study were discharged indicated that those subjects who went on to be discharged at their next tribunal ha d the least negative valences. In addition to this, the effect of lega l classification on outcome was explored, and indicated a difference i n the valence of reports for discharged and not discharged patients, d epending on classification of mental illness or psychopathic disorder.