This paper argues that intermittent nursing observations of in-patients at night do not reduce the risk of suicide or severe self-harm. Suicides between 23.00 h and 07.00 h are rare, and these overwhelmingly occur under intermittent observations. Such observation is purely a defensive intervention to document that a patient is safe at a particular time, as there is no engagement. For the large majority of in-patients, it has the unintended consequence of causing sleep deprivation. The intervention may cause harm to in-patients by making their disorder worse and increase their risk during the day. If patients are judged to be at immediate risk, then they should be placed on constant observation. If they are not, then optimising sleep is important for treating a psychiatric disorder and they should be placed on general observations.

Robust regulatory scrutiny is an unavoidable and necessary part of professional life for public sector professionals. Inspection and investigation can lead to poor mental health for individuals already working under pressure owing to increased workload and anticipation of poor outcomes. Although good regulation maintains standards and provides accountability to government and the public, regulators must face their obligation to understand the wider impact of their practices on the mental health of those they evaluate. This article discusses how regulation affects public sector culture and the potential risks and negative impact of regulatory practices and highlights how clinicians, working in occupational practice, are well placed to recognise ‘regulatory stress’ among public sector workers and offer vital support, guidance and advocacy.

In recent years, there have been extensive efforts in secondary schools to prevent, treat and raise awareness of adolescent mental health problems. For some adolescents, these efforts are essential and will lead to a reduction in clinical symptoms. However, it is also vital to assess whether, for others, the current approach might be causing iatrogenic harm. A growing body of quantitative research indicates that some aspects of school-based mental health interventions increase distress or clinical symptoms, relative to control activities, and qualitative work indicates that this may be partly due to the interventions themselves.

The royal charter of the Royal College of Psychiatrists is generally taken to enhance its status. However, the concept of a hereditary monarchy is intellectually indefensible and the realities of the British monarchy exacerbate inequalities in the UK. The connection is particularly problematic for psychiatrists because of their role in the compulsory detention and treatment of patients. The Royal affiliation can only serve to emphasise the power inequalities in society associated with these activities. College members should feel free to discuss whether this situation should continue or whether we should be British rather than Royal.

Within paediatrics, young children experiencing physical and emotional distress are admitted to hospital with their parents as a matter of course, recognising the trauma associated with parting children from their carers. Much of this practice is underpinned by our understanding of attachment theory, which also sits as a fundamental tenet of child psychiatry. Yet the culture in psychiatric in-patient hospitals remains to admit young children without their parents, often to units that are geographically distant from the family home. We argue that the practice of admitting lone children to psychiatric in-patient units is likely to be traumatising as well as less effective. We believe this culture requires challenge and change.

Increasingly, claims are being made by developmental neuroscientists that adolescence is characterised by unique changes to the brain. These changes are said to underlie what are claimed to be unique behavioural features of the teenage years. In this paper, it is argued that the brain changes described begin before the teen years and continue long after them. This is not surprising, as there are no behavioural features that are specific to adolescence.

Over the past few years the term ‘service users’ has been increasingly used to describe patients in mental healthcare. This paper argues that the term ‘service user’ in this context should be avoided and outlines four reasons: the term is discriminating, cynical, patronising and detrimental. Of course, none of these effects is intentional, but that does not change them. The term ‘patient’, however, describes appropriately a temporary role in healthcare, provides parity of esteem with patients in physical healthcare and reflects the reasons why large parts of society are willing to fund healthcare, in solidarity with those who are sick.