Mental capacity of those in immigration detention in the UK.

Asylum seekers and migrants can be detained in immigration removal centres (IRCs) or, post sentence, in prison while the Home Office makes decisions on their immigration status and/or arrangements for their removal or deportation. Currently, there is no process for identifying detainees who lack the mental capacity to participate in decision making relating to their immigration situation. Mental illness and distress are common among detainees. There are often cultural and language barriers; there is no consistent system of advocates, and many detainees are without legal representation. Mental capacity is decision specific. Clinicians in IRCs have a duty to consider detainees' capacity for health-care decisions, but are not expected to carry out any assessment in the broader context of immigration decision making, and there is no set procedure for notifying immigration decision makers with any concerns about a detainee's capacity. The Home Office focusses on safeguarding vulnerable people in detention, but not on whether such detention should happen or whether individuals identified as especially vulnerable have the necessary capacity for immigration-related decisions. In the community, asylum seekers and migrants can be supported in their engagement with immigration officials by family and friends and other advocates of their choice. This is not the case for immigration detainees. The current arrangements carry a significant risk of unfair decisions being made on the most vulnerable detainees without their capacitous participation. Recommendations for changes are made, including the need for a high threshold to be applied to justify any detention of people who lack immigration-related decision-making capacity.

Physical restraint and the protection of the human rights of immigration detainees in hospitals.

Immigration detainees, like prisoners, are entitled to the same standard of healthcare as non-detained patients. When hospital attendance or admission is required, the priority for custodial staff (who for purposes of this article we refer to as 'escorts') is to prevent absconding. For that reason, they may wish to use physical restraints, such as handcuffs, and remain with the detainee at all times. This can be degrading for the patient and breach their human rights. Clinicians have professional obligations to all their patients and must object to any restraint methods that risk damaging the patient's right to confidentiality, treatment, health or the therapeutic relationship itself. The starting presumption is that restraints ought not to be used during treatment and only in the most exceptional cases ought escorts to be present during clinical examination or treatment.

Infection prevention and control in general practice.

Reducing healthcare-associated infections is a priority for the NHS. This article highlights infection prevention and control expectations for nurses working in general practice. Careful attention to detail and following recommended guidelines are good professional practice - protecting patients from infection and the practice from potential litigation.

Screening of new entrants for tuberculosis: responses to port notifications.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis in England and Wales is associated with recently arrived immigrants. Screening new entrants for tuberculosis has received considerable attention recently. Despite several calls to reorganize screening processes for new entrants because of perceived ineffectiveness, some systems at ports have remained largely unchanged, including notification arrangements. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to Consultants in Communicable Disease Control (CsCDC) who normally receive port health notification forms from London Heathrow Port Health Control Unit relating to new entrants who had either been screened and found to have a normal chest X-ray, not had an chest X-ray due to pregnancy or young age or whose examination was inconclusive (Port 101 and 102 forms). RESULTS: Almost half of the responding CsCDC attempted to follow-up all Port 101 and 102 referrals; of these CsCDC, 46 percent reported that they were actually able to follow-up under 50 percent. CsCDC had developed their own criteria to aid decisions as to which referrals to follow-up. CONCLUSION: The follow-up by CsCDC of new entrants passing through Heathrow Port Health Control Unit who have been screened and found to have a normal chest X-ray, not had an X-ray due to pregnancy or young age, or whose examination was inconclusive varies considerably and there is no consistent national practice. Substantial efforts are being expended on attempting to follow-up new entrants, many of whom may be at low risk of tuberculosis. The effectiveness (and efficiency) of this approach is probably low.