Suchergebnisse

This report documents the substantive findings and management recommendations of a cultural resources survey conducted by Integrated Environmental Solutions, LLC (IES) for the Prosper High School #2 Project in the Town of Prosper, Collin County, Texas. The direct APE encompasses approximately 129 acres (ac) and was comprised of a 100- ac proposed school site fronting Coit Road with an associated 2.1-mile (mi; 29-ac) sanitary sewer pipeline corridor that extends west, along Parvin Branch from the proposed school location to Preston Road (State Highway [SH] 289). As the Town of Prosper is a political subdivision of the State of Texas, it is required to comply with the Antiquities Code of Texas (ACT). In addition, as the project will require a Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Individual Permit (IP) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), portions of the project are subject to the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. All work conformed to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800, and 13 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) 26, which outline the regulations for implementing Section 106 of the NHPA and the ACT, respectively. The goal of this survey was to locate, identify, and document any cultural resources, which included architectural and archeological resources, that could be adversely affected by the proposed development and to evaluate such resources for their potential eligibility for designation as a State Antiquities Landmark (SAL) or eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These investigations consisted of a records review to identify previously conducted cultural resources surveys in the area and the known archeological and architectural resources recorded by those efforts, visual reconnaissance of the project area, subsurface investigations via systematic shovel test excavation, and archival research. The cultural resources survey was conducted by archeologists Anne Gibson, Pat Donahue, and Christopher Goodmaster on 10 January and 01 February 2018, under Texas Antiquities Permit No. 8266. Although three historic-period archeological sites (41COL305, 41COL310, and 41COL311) and two architectural resources were documented during the field survey, based on each site's lack of association with a significant historical event(s) or person(s) and low potential to yield significant archeological data, the sites are deemed not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or designation as SALs. Based on the results of this survey, no additional evaluation or mitigation is warranted for the identified cultural resources. It is the recommendation of IES that the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), represented by the Texas Historical Commission (THC) concur with these findings. However, if any cultural resources (other than those documented within this report) are encountered during construction, the operators should cease work immediately in that area and contact the project environmental representative to initiate coordination with the THC prior to resuming any construction activities. No artifacts were collected during this survey. All field and project-related records will be temporarily curated at the IES McKinney office and permanently curated at the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory (TARL).

Involuntary detention is used internationally to detain and treat people who are deemed to have a mental disorder. In England and Wales, approved mental health professionals (AMHPs) co-ordinate Mental Health Act assessments which allow for patients to be detained. AMHPs have legal duties to identify, inform and consult with a patient's nearest relative (NR), who are, in turn, given powers to initiate or challenge detention. Our study takes an original approach through examining how AMHPs interpret their duties towards nearest relatives. We adopted a two-stage design, which involved an online questionnaire with 55 AMHPs and focus group discussions with 33 AMHPs. The research was conducted in England between 2017 and 2018. Our questionnaire found that a high proportion of AMHPs reported that they had spoken to NRs for background information when assessing patients under the Mental Health Act. However, AMHPs were less likely to ask patients about their views of involving the NR prior to assessment. Focus group findings showed that AMHPs saw the NR role as offering an important 'safeguard' on the basis that NRs could provide information about the patient and advocate on their behalf. AMHPs identified practical difficulties in balancing their legal obligation towards NRs and patients; particularly where issues of potential abuse were raised or where patients had identified that they did not want NR involvement. While AMHPs stated that they sought to prioritise patient wishes regarding confidentiality, their accounts identified that patient consent about information sharing was sometimes implied rather than sought explicitly. Our findings reinforce conclusions by the recent Independent Review of the MHA, which states that current NR provisions are 'outdated, variable and insufficient'. We identify that current practice could be improved using advanced choice documents and outline implications for AMHP practice.

The role of nearest relative (NR) is intended as a safeguard in the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended in 2007) to curb the excesses of professional discretion and protect patients from unwarranted compulsory hospitalisation. It is unique to the mental health compulsory detention process in England and Wales. There are, however, evident tensions in the role and a lack of clarity surrounding the precise functions of the NR. There is also some uncertainty and confusion among practitioners about the scope of the NR involvement, and government plans announced recently to review mental health legislation will include a focus on the role of family and carers in the care of detained patients. Despite long-standing concerns about the role, there is remarkably little published research available to date on its use and effectiveness, in so far as evaluating the extent to which it provides an adequate safeguard for patients, as intended by the legislation. This article will briefly explore the background to the role, highlight some of the difficulties and tensions within it and conclude with some observations about where further research and reform may be needed to provide greater protection and clarity for patients, relatives and health and social care practitioners.

The role of Nearest Relative is intended as a safeguard in the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended in 2007) to curb the excesses of professional discretion and protect patients from unwarranted compulsory hospitalisation. It is unique to the mental health compulsory detention process in England and Wales. There are, however, evident tensions in the role and a lack of clarity surrounding the precise functions of the nearest relative. There is also some uncertainty and confusion among practitioners about the scope of the nearest relative involvement. Despite longstanding concerns about the role, there is remarkably little published research available to date on its use and effectiveness, in so far as evaluating the extent to which it provides an adequate safeguard for patients, as intended by the legislation. This article will briefly explore the background to the role, highlight some of the difficulties and tensions within it and conclude with some observations about where further research and reform may be needed to provide greater protection and clarity for patients, relatives and health and social care practitioners.

The coronavirus pandemic, referred to here as Covid-19, has brought into sharp focus the increasing divergence of devolved legislation and its implementation in the United Kingdom. One such instance is the emergency health and social care legislation and guidance introduced by the United Kingdom Central Government and the devolved Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in response to this pandemic. We provide a summary, comparison and discussion of these proposed and actual changes with a particular focus on the impact on adult social care and safeguarding of the rights of citizens. To begin, a summary and comparison of the relevant changes, or potential changes, to mental health, mental capacity and adult social care law across the four jurisdictions is provided. Next, we critique the suggested and actual changes and in so doing consider the immediate and longer term implications for adult social care, including mental health and mental capacity, at the time of publication. Several core themes emerged: concerns around process and scrutiny; concerns about possible changes to the workforce and last, the possible threat on the ability to safeguard human rights. It has been shown that, ordinarily, legislative provisions across the jurisdictions of the UK are different, save for Wales (which shares most of its mental health law provisions with England). Such divergence is also mirrored in the way in which the suggested emergency changes could be implemented. Aside from this, there is also a wider concern about a lack of parity of esteem between social care and health care, a concern which is common to all. What is interesting is that the introduction of CVA 2020 forced a comparison to be made between the four UK nations which also shines a spotlight on how citizens can anticipate receipt of services.

Designed to support training and CPD in compulsory mental health work, this book looks at assessment, detention, compulsion and coercion in a variety of mental health settings. It focuses on decision making in a variety of professional roles with people from a diversity of backgrounds including contributions from people with lived experience of mental health services. With emphasis on theory into practice, the book is essential reading for those looking to develop their reflexive and critical analytical skills. Relevant for all professionals making decisions under mental health legislation and those developing, teaching and supporting practitioners in the workplace, it includes: • critical reflection techniques; • 'editors' voice' features at the start and close of each chapter, summarising key themes