The number of adults who self-neglect and thus fall under the aegis of local authority adult safeguarding procedures in England has increased substantially since the introduction of the Care Act 2014. The requirement for collaborative working between agencies dealing with these adults in a safeguarding context is explicit in government policy and legislation. Decisions made by the multiplicity of agencies that may work with people who self-neglect are largely guided by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The overall objective of this research was to develop a clearer understanding of how the range of agencies that might typically be involved in the life of a self-neglecting person work together. This article examines how agencies put the MCA into practice in their work with people who self-neglect, and how they understand their own and others’ roles and responsibilities in so doing. This qualitative study took place in two local authorities in England from 2016 to 2017 and informed a wider action research study which was completed in 2019. Non-probability purposive sampling was used to recruit participants from the professional groups who might typically be involved with self-neglect cases. À total of 245 participants from across 17 different professional groups took part in semi-structured interviews, in a group, paired or individual format, decided by their customary working configuration. Data from the interview transcripts was analysed using thematic analysis. Three key themes in relation to how participants understood the MCA and multi-agency working emerged from the analysis of this data set. These were; a lack of understanding of the MCA by participants and other agencies; a reluctance to engage with MCA assessments; and a perception of manipulation of the MCA by other professionals. This study underlines the importance of the informed application of the MCA in working with people who self-neglect, and an urgent need to consider how this could be enhanced if the service user is not to experience intrusive interventions resulting from professional misinterpretation.

The Mental Capacity Act requires that where a person (P) lacks capacity to make a decision her wishes and feelings be taken into account when deciding what is in her best interests. This article considers how the Court of Protection evaluates evidence from P concerning her wishes and feelings. It finds that the Court ignores evidence regarding current wishes and fails to engage with more ambiguous evidence where P desires conflicting outcomes or may be concealing her true feelings. This is unhelpful since it makes the resulting judgment unconvincing to observers. It is legally problematic, since the Court should be following the practices of other decision-makers under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). And it is ethically problematic since it undermines P’s dignity and does not treat P as an actor whose evidence regarding her wishes and feelings has intrinsic status which the Court must make active efforts to engage with or discount rather than ignore.

There is little empirical research focusing on how social workers experience the law in their everyday professional practice, and still less on how mental health social workers experience assessment for compulsory admission under mental health law. The article is informed by a hermeneutic phenomenological approach, drawing on in-depth interviews and practitioner diaries with social work Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs), providing exploration of how social work AMHPs experience compulsory assessment under mental health law in practice. This is revealed as a socio-relational process, involving a focus on the person in their environment in relation to others, such as family and professionals. Ethical challenges realising human rights social work practice are illuminated. This draws attention to how space for such practice can be eroded by systems conditions. The importance of amplifying the voice of the person assessed is highlighted in the context that their voice is severely diminished during the process of assessment. The article provides insights on the complexity involved in compulsory mental health practice, drawing attention to trust as an important concept. Finally, the article argues that realising human rights-oriented AMHP practice requires social work to challenge systems conditions that erode the ability to do so.

Background: The use of advance care planning and advance decisions for psychiatric care is growing. However, there is limited guidance on clinical management when a patient presents with suicidal behaviour and an advance decision and no systematic reviews of the extant literature. Objectives: To synthesise existing literature on the management of advance decisions and suicidal behaviour. Design: A systematic search of seven bibliographic databases was conducted to identify studies relating to advance decisions and suicidal behaviour. Studies on terminal illness or end-of-life care were excluded to focus on the use of advance decisions in the context of suicidal behaviour. A textual synthesis of data was conducted, and themes were identified by using an adapted thematic framework analysis approach. Results: Overall 634 articles were identified, of which 35 were retained for full text screening. Fifteen relevant articles were identified following screening. Those articles pertained to actual clinical cases or fictional scenarios. Clinical practice and rationale for management decisions varied. Five themes were identified: (1) tension between patient autonomy and protecting a vulnerable person, (2) appropriateness of advance decisions for suicidal behaviour, (3) uncertainty about the application of legislation, (4) the length of time needed to consider all the evidence versus rapid decision-making for treatment and (5) importance of seeking support and sharing decision-making. Conclusions: Advance decisions present particular challenges for clinicians when associated with suicidal behaviour. Recommendations for practice and supervision for clinicians may help to reduce the variation in clinical practice.

This paper presents a review, in two parts, of the first ten years of the Court of Protection, a specialist mental capacity court in England and Wales which applies a functional model of mental capacity. The first part outlines the history of the functional model in England and Wales, and the development of this specialist mental capacity court (Court of Protection), created by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The second part presents an empirical and case-based study of 40 published cases of capacity disputes presented to the Court of Protection, or to the Court of Appeal on appeal from the Court of Protection, during the first ten years of its existence. The authors found that in 70% of cases the subject of proceedings (or P) had either a learning disability or dementia, and the court ruled on P’s capacity for a wide range of issues, most commonly residence, care and contact. The judge considered the support principle, or whether practical steps were taken to maximise P’s capacity, in 23 of 40 (57.5%) cases. The subject P was determined to have capacity in 13 cases, to lack capacity in 22 cases, and in 5 cases P was found to have and lack capacity for different issues before the court. The functional inability to use or weigh relevant information was most commonly cited by the judge, being cited in all but 2 cases in which P was determined to lack capacity and inabilities were cited. The propensity for the system to learn was shown by an increase in the proportion of cases which considered the ‘causative nexus’ from 2013, when a Court of Appeal case emphasised that impairment must not merely be present alongside functional inability but must be the causal basis of inability. The authors conclude that whilst the Court of Protection is still on a learning curve, its work provides a powerful illustration of what taking capacity seriously looks like, both inside and outside the courtroom.