There have been a number of high-profile Court of Protection (CoP) cases this year on the subject of DoLS placement and provisions. These cases each raise questions around the least restrictive option for the individual, what classes as ‘best interest’, and what do we mean by proportionate, reasonable and justifiable care.
There are many occasions where an individual may be unwilling or unable to engage with a mental capacity assessment. It is not a rare event by any means, and there are many possible reasons why this may occur. For example, there may be an issue with the specific context of the situation, the individual’s health conditions, the professional’s approach to the test, or even the adaptations that have been made to support.
There are often many complex interactions between legislation and case law – especially in the field of mental capacity and the Mental Capacity Act (2005) specifically. For this reason it is vital for professionals working in this area to ensure they are familiar with updates in case law to ensure those within the system are protected and best practice is upheld.
Over many years of professional practice I have come across a number cases where certain vulnerable individuals have found themselves unable to make a decision, most frequently when they are confronted with a ‘big decision’ of lasting consequence.
While in some cases it can be sensible to put off a decision until more information becomes available, this ‘decision paralysis’ can sometimes have lasting and quite damaging consequences. This is especially true where decision paralysis can lead to delays in treatment or reduce the quality of life of the individual while they mull over their decision.
Anyone can conduct a Mental Capacity Assessment. However, context is important, and a professional may be required for complex decisions. This will help ensure assessments are carried out in the correct manner, and that they are valid (i.e. reliable and trustworthy) in order to protect both the assessor, and the person being assessed.
There are several terms that are used to describe the process of determining a person’s mental capacity. Is it a Mental Capacity Test, or a Mental Capacity Assessment? In this blog, we explore some of the language around the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and how it applies in practice.
As the size of our retired population grows, and our social norms change, we are seeing an increasing demand for care and nursing homes to support those who are not able to have their needs met within the community.
These older adults – indeed many younger adults as well – may have come to these placements through shared decision-making, or through Best Interest decisions made on their behalf. Others may be in care settings as a part of discharge-to-assess models, respite, or as a step-down placement for rehabilitation prior to returning home.
An RPR is a vital role under the Mental Capacity Act (2005), supporting an individual’s inclusion and rights around their Deprivation of Liberties (DoLS). This role is often filled by an unpaid family-member, friend or partner. However, if a family-member, friend, or partner cannot be identified, the supervisory body is required to refer for independent advocacy to complete this role as a paid (professional) RPR.
The Mental Capacity Act is designed to empower a person’s voice, protect their rights and provide safeguarding measures, alongside direction of practice, if a person is determined to lack capacity for a particular decision at a certain time. In this blog, we explore the role of the Mental Capacity Act around future decisions relating to healthcare, finance and assigning an LPA.
In our mission to Promote, Partner and Protect, we place a great emphasis on helping teams develop their skills around the Mental Capacity Act, Mental Capacity Assessments, and related areas such as Best Interest Decisions and LPA. In today’s blog we want to shed a little light on what this can look like in everyday practice…