24. In my opinion, the decision of the managers of the hospital to change the focus of the ward was an act of a public nature. Decisions as to the form which treatment for a particular patient should take are clinical decisions for the psychiatrists, and the claimant is not challenging either the lawfulness of the decision to detain her in hospital, or the decision as to the type of treatment which she needs, or the decision that she is not ready to be discharged. But whether facilities can and should be provided, and adequate staff made available, to enable the treatment which the psychiatrists say should take place is another matter entirely. That is the subject of specific statutory underpinning directed at the hospital: the statutory duty imposed by regulation 12(1) of the 1984 Regulations on the hospital to provide adequate professional staff and adequate treatment facilities was cast directly on the hospital as the registered person under the Registered Homes Act 1984. The public interest in the hospital’s care and treatment of its patients is apparent when one remembers that if, as a result of the lack of staff or facilities, patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 do not receive the care and treatment which they need, their detention may well be prolonged because they may not recover sufficiently to meet the statutory criteria for their discharge from hospital. The fact that the decision challenged is said to have been forced on the hospital by the unexpected departure of staff with the special skills needed to provide the claimant with the care and treatment which she needs goes not to whether the decision made was an act of a public nature but to whether the claim for judicial review should succeed.