Liability of mental health services for injuries incurred during community treatment.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this paper is to examine the recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court, which considered a personal injuries action brought by a patient treated in the community following a 6 day voluntary hospital admission.


CONCLUSIONS
The judicial reasoning in Walker v Sydney West Area Health Service provides some comfort to mental health professionals practising in other jurisdictions whose legislative provisions are similar to those contained in the Civil Liability Act (NSW). In applying the Bolam principle, rather than the higher common law standard previously imposed by the High Court in Rogers v Whitaker, the decision is encouraging for mental health professionals whose management accords with accepted current good practice. The infrequent scrutiny by courts and coroners of management practice and systems in mental health is a further incentive to maintain continuous improvement of quality of care (by clinical audits, active risk management, professional development and supervision, and patient/family participation) consistent with the principles of clinical governance.
Scott
Russ
R
High Secure Inpatient Services - The Park Centre for Mental Health, Richlands, QLD, Australia. RussJ_Scott@health.qld.gov.au
D001315:Australia; D003156:Community Mental Health Services / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D004282:Documentation / Q000592:standards; D005104:Expert Testimony; D006760:Hospitalization; D006801:Humans; D016365:Liability, Legal; D008297:Male; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000523:psychology / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D010361:Patients / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D014947:Wounds and Injuries / Q000453:epidemiology*; D055815:Young Adult