Wrong touch regulation: the limits to effective regulation of approved mental health professionals

[thumbnail of Open Access]
Preview
Text (Open Access)
- Published Version
· Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
[thumbnail of Fish - Accepted manuscript WRONG TOUCH REGULATION.docx]
Text
- Accepted Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only

Please see our End User Agreement.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Fish, J. L. H. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0687-2945 (2026) Wrong touch regulation: the limits to effective regulation of approved mental health professionals. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 106. 102206. ISSN 1873-6386 doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2026.102206

Abstract/Summary

Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs) hold essential decision-making authority on whether individuals will be subject to compulsory detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended 2007) in England and Wales. Despite exercising profound coercive powers affecting individual liberty, the regulatory architecture surrounding AMHP practice is fragmented and diffuse, with oversight distributed across the Care Quality Commission, Social Work England, and multiple professional body regulators, and with no single body holding end-to-end accountability for decision quality. The dominant regulatory approach in contemporary UK health and social care is Right-touch Regulation (RTR), developed by the Professional Standards Authority and articulated through successive iterations since 2009. RTR presents itself as a model of proportionate, targeted, and risk-based intervention: a 'third way' between heavy-handed oversight and regulatory absence. The central claim of this article is that Right-touch Regulation, as currently utilised by the PSA, is structurally unsuited to AMHP oversight. The model presupposes conditions that are not present in AMHP governance. Situating RTR within broader regulatory theories (responsive regulation, smart regulation, and harm-based regulation), the article reviews what RTR claims as lineage but omits in practice. The conclusion argues that, until the preconditions for proportionate regulation are established (visibility, ownership, feedback), the language of Right-touch continues to legitimate a system that does not effectively regulate at all.

Altmetric Badge

Dimensions Badge

Item Type Article
URI https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/id/eprint/128491
Identification Number/DOI 10.1016/j.ijlp.2026.102206
Refereed Yes
Divisions Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Law
Uncontrolled Keywords Approved Mental Health Professionals, AMHP, The Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended 2007, Right-touch Regulation, Professional Standards Authority, Regulatory fragmentation
Publisher Elsevier
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record