A recent case held before the Court of Protection highlighted issues around the way that Mental Capacity Assessments are completed. In her conclusions, Mrs Justice Knowles highlighted the important role played by the Assessor – emphasising the need for accountability in the process, and for the Assessor to take professional measures to establish the salient information relating to the case the case.
The first principle of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) states that we must always presume capacity in the first instance. This means that we should always start from a position where we presume that an individual has the ability to make a decision (i.e. has capacity), rather than the other way round.
In a recent blog we explored the decision-specific nature of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) in practice. In today’s blog, we will explore how this applies to Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA).
When assessing Mental Capacity, it is our responsibility to inform the person we are assessing of who we are, why we are visiting them, and the purpose of the assessment.
We all make many thousands of micro-decisions on a daily basis, from the way we make a cup of tea to what we watch on TV. However, when it comes to decision making, the Mental Capacity Act (2005) is ‘decision specific’. This means that it relates to a specific decision made at a specific time. It does not refer to decision-making more broadly. This raises the question: how specific do we need to be when we assess capacity?
The role of a Relevant Person’s Representative (RPR) is to be an independent and impartial voice working on behalf of the relevant person under a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation. They are there to support inclusion, knowledge, rights and promote the person’s voice within the DoLS process, performing a vital safeguarding role to help monitor its application. As part of this role, an RPR should raise a Section 21a challenge to the Court of Protection if the person they are representing voices an objection to DoLS.
The Mental Capacity Act (2005) was designed to help protect the rights of some of society’s most vulnerable people. One of the most frequently overlooked elements of the Act is principle #3: the right to make what others may perceive to be an unwise decision.
The diagnostic step is a simple but often misunderstood part of the Mental Capacity Assessment. One of the most common errors is to simply list a medical diagnosis without any explanation of how the diagnosis impacts upon decision-making. However, this link – also known as the causative nexus – is the vital point on which the rest of the assessment is based. It is therefore important to understand exactly why the diagnostic step is important and how to document it properly.
The way professionals document mental capacity tests can vary greatly across the health and care sectors. In some cases, professionals are not yet using the updated assessment format of Functional and then Diagnostic. More worrying still is that in some cases it’s not just the documentation format that varies, but the quality of the content that is recorded.
In this blog, we examine two example assessments, using the case of Dylan to show the impact documentation can have on the outcomes of an assessment.
Mental Capacity case studies help us apply knowledge in action. They can help us visualise scenarios and understand processes, as well as challenges, before considering the who, what, when, where and how.
In today’s blog, we start a series of case studies that explore particular aspects of the Mental Capacity Act within everyday practice. To help us with this, we will draw on familiar characters from the worlds of TV, film and literature that give an array of contexts and presentations.