Sir: Recent articles concerning the use of the Mental Health Act have tended to focus on the use of commonly used parts of the Act such as Sections 2 and 3 (Turner et al, Psychiatric Bulletin, October 1999, 23, 578-581). We chose instead to survey the use of Section 62 (urgent treatment) across three psychiatric units in Bristol for the years 1990-1997.

During the study period 60 patients received urgent treatment. The frequency of use varied across the units as follows: Unit A, 14 cases; Unit B, eight cases; Unit C, 38 cases. On all occasions the urgent treatment used was electroconvulsive therapy (ECT).

We found that in 18% of cases Section 62 was applied more than once during a course of ECT seemingly due to delays in gaining a second opinion.

The Code of Practice (Department of Health & Welsh Office, 1999), places the responsibility for devising a form for Section 62 (as well as monitoring its use), upon the managers of individual trusts. Although (different) forms were available on all three units, the subsequent filing of documentation varied between sites. Only one manager kept both a record detailing the use of the section as well as a copy of the form separate from the notes.

As far as we are aware this is the only published survey concerning the use of Section 62. The variation in use of Section 62 across units along with its occasional multiple use would seem to indicate the need for a standardised form as well as a more detailed review in the Mental Health Act Commission's biennial report to Parliament.