{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0243531202435312, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02968036529680365, 'mean_word_length': 4.9772727272727275, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Section 136 Use in the London Borough of Haringey

A retrospective one-year study of the use of Section 136 of the Mental Health Act was undertaken in Haringey between 1995 and 1996 to ascertain behaviours resulting in detention, and their admission rate. Data were extracted from police Section 136 forms, Emergency Assessment Centre records and patient notes. Of 90 people assessed under Section 136, the majority were male and lived locally, with the largest ethnic group being Afro-Caribbean. Each category of presenting behaviour recorded by the police was a high predictor of admission, with an overall admission rate of 82%. Behavioural categories with an admission rate of less than 79% were threats or acts of deliberate self-harm and ‘confusion’ or disorientation (57% and 67% admission rates), which both warrant police referral for specialized assessment. The three most common presenting behaviours were violent threats/acts, abnormal form or stream of speech, and walking/lying/running in the road. The police did not appear to over use Section 136. Section 136 data were incomplete, in keeping with previous studies. This should be rectified by the introduction of both a national data collection standard and a requirement for a defined local data collection point for all instances of Section 136.