News

Carstairs high security mental health hospital in Edinburgh is considering moving patients to English hospitals or changing the layout of its own facilities because of a shortage of medium secure units in Scotland.

Carstairs' chief executive Andreana Adamson said the plans are being looked at so that the hospital complies with the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.

One option the hospital is considering is moving its perimeter fence so some buildings fall outside it and are then classed as medium secure.


From May 2006, people held in maximum security hospitals will be allowed to appeal their status and be transferred to medium secure units if ruled appropriate by the mental health tribunal. If health boards do not comply with this, patients receive compensation.

Adamson said: "These are two options we are looking at as part of a contingency plan for the existing estate, but I have no idea whether that would meet the requirements of the tribunal as we don't know what next May will bring."

However, if nothing is done it is likely hundreds of patients would be eligible for compensation as there is only one medium secure unit in Scotland, and three new planned units are unlikely to be built in time.

Donny Lyons, director of the Mental Welfare Commission, said there were "significant" numbers of people held inappropriately.

"This means that if the situation stays the same or gets worse there will not only be people held inappropriately but those that need high security settings could also be prevented from getting in," he added.


Meanwhile, the MWC has warned that the Scottish executive's decision to move the commission from its Edinburgh offices to Falkirk at the end of the year could damage its ability to monitor the introduction of the new Mental Health Act.

The executive said the move would distribute public sector jobs around the country. But Ian Miller, chairman of the MWC, said it would mean the commission was moving offices at the time the act was coming into effect, diverting its attention from monitoring its implementation.

"The decision is not cost effective and its timing will adversely affect the quality of the service we provide and inevitably lead to a significant loss of staff expertise," Miller said.