The Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) will provide protection for people aged 16 and above who are, or who need to be, deprived of their liberty in order to enable their care or treatment and who lack the mental capacity to consent to their arrangements. People who might have an LPS authorisation include those with dementia, autism and learning disabilities who lack the relevant capacity. Under LPS, the Responsible Body will authorise arrangements that amount to a deprivation of liberty to enable care or treatment. This guidance explains which organisations are Responsible Bodies, which will vary according to where the arrangements are mainly carried out.
[Last updated 11 June 2021]

Information about the LPS system, which will be replacing the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS is the system used to authorise the care or treatment arrangements of an individual who lacks mental capacity to consent to their arrangements. These safeguards apply when a person is ‘deprived of their liberty’ in a care home or hospital, in England or Wales. This guidance covers: making a referral; representation and support; assessments and authorisation; and reviews.
[Updated 11 June 2021]

The Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) will provide protection for people aged 16 and above who are, or who need to be, deprived of their liberty in order to enable their care or treatment and who lack the mental capacity to consent to their arrangements. People who might have an LPS authorisation include those with dementia, autism and learning disabilities who lack the relevant capacity. Once the LPS process has been triggered, the Responsible Body should determine whether the 3 authorisation conditions are met. These are: the person lacks the relevant capacity to consent to the arrangements; the person has a mental disorder, as defined by the Mental Health Act 1983; the arrangements are necessary and proportionate, that is, the arrangements are necessary to prevent harm to the person and proportionate to the likelihood and seriousness of the risk of harm to the person. To determine whether the authorisation conditions are met, there are three assessments and determinations which must be carried out: the capacity assessment and determination; the medical assessment and determination; the necessary and proportionate assessment and determination.
[Updated 11 June 2021]

Information about the Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) system, which will be replacing the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The LPS will provide protection for people aged 16 and above who are or who need to be deprived of their liberty in order to enable their care or treatment and lack the mental capacity to consent to their arrangements. The guidance outlines the key changes introduced by the LPS: three assessments will form the basis of the authorisation of Liberty Protection Safeguards; greater involvement for families; targeted approach; extending the scheme to and 16 and 17-year-olds; extending the scheme to domestic settings; and the roles of clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), NHS trusts and local health boards as Responsible Bodies.
[Updated 3 August 2021]

This introductory guide is for people detained under sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act, or people who are in hospital as a voluntary patient. A voluntary patient (also called an informal patient) is someone who is in hospital but is not detained under the Mental Health Act. Sections cover: why am I being detained; how should the decision to detain me be made; your right to speak to an independent mental health advocate; what can you or your nearest relative do if you think that you shouldn’t be in hospital; and additional guidance for those who need to stay in hospital and extra help for disabled people.

This introductory guide is for people detained under section 35, 36, 37, 37/41, 38, 45A, 47, 47/49, 48 or 48/49 of the Mental Health Act. These are people who are suspected or have been convicted of a crime and the courts and doctors have decided that they need to stay in a mental health hospital to get support and care for their mental health condition. The guide explains what rights individuals have and what should happen to them at different stages through their journey in hospital. There are six parts to this guide. The first four parts (A-D) relate to the different stages of stay in hospital in time order, covering: the decision to detain; being detained in hospital; staying in hospital; and leaving hospital. Part E explains how to make a complaint at any stage of one’s stay in hospital; and Part F explains some of the key terms used in this document.

This introductory guide is for people detained under section 35, 36, 37, 37/41, 38, 45A, 47, 47/49, 48 or 48/49 of the Mental Health Act. These are people who are suspected or have been convicted of a crime and the courts and doctors have decided that they need to stay in a mental health hospital to get support and care for their mental health condition. The guide explains what their rights are and what should happen to them at different stages through their journey in hospital. Sections cover: which section of the Mental Health Act can I be detained under; how should the decision to detain me be made; your right to speak to an independent mental health advocate; what can you or your nearest relative do if you think that you shouldn’t be in hospital; and additional guidance for people who need to stay in hospital and how disabled people can get extra help.

This annual report on CQC monitoring of the Mental Health Act (MHA) puts a specific focus on the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on patients detained under the MHA, and on the services that care for and treat them. The findings indicate that: planning for individuals’ discharge from hospital continues to be essential and is particularly important during the pandemic period due to the increased burden on all services, including those in the community; some services showed exemplary practice in the co-production of care with patients, including infection control measures; in many services the physical environment requires modernisation and doing so would have the added positive impact of making infection control easier; some services continued to uphold restrictions on patients’ movement, activities and leave for longer than seemed necessary; many services invested in software to help detained patients to stay connected with their family and other sources of support during the pandemic; detained patients’ access to advocacy services was made more difficult during the pandemic, but such services played an even more crucial role where patients’ lives were more limited by infection control measures; there needs to be careful evaluation of using remote technology should aspects of them continue after the pandemic abates.

This guide is for people detained under section 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act or if you are staying in hospital as a voluntary patient. A voluntary patient (also called an informal patient) is someone who is in hospital but is not detained under the Mental Health Act. They can leave hospital at any time. However, if health professionals are concerned about their safety or the safety of others, they can stop them from leaving for up to 72 hours. The guide explains what rights individuals have and what should happen to them at different stages through their journey in hospital. There are six parts to this guide. The first four parts (A-D) relate to the different stages of stay in hospital in time order, covering: the decision to detain; being detained in hospital; staying in hospital; and leaving hospital. Part E explains how to make a complaint at any stage of one’s stay in hospital; and Part F explains some of the key terms used in this document.

This guidance provides you the key legal and ethical considerations that need to be taken into account when seeking consent for treatment or research, and signposts to other sources of support and information. Topics covered include: key questions about consent and refusal; capacity to consent; sharing information with patients; who is responsible for seeking consent; refusal of consent; advance care planning; consent for emergency treatment; compulsory treatment under mental health legislation; consent for research; consent for teaching purposes.

This report explores the context in which the decision of whether to use the MHA or the MCA to authorise a deprivation of liberty is made and the different factors that practitioners use to assess and weigh up which Act is most appropriate and ‘least restrictive’ for the individual concerned. The research used a mixed-methods approach with an online survey to capture the diversity of factors that influence decision-making across clinical groups, and qualitative interviews with clinicians and professionals to explore in depth their understanding of the interface and experiences of making this decision in practice. A large proportion of participants in this research report encountering people to whom this decision applies at least once a month, if not weekly. This decision most commonly applies to people who have dementia, but also to people with a wide range of mental disorders, including those with functional mental illnesses, neurodevelopment and neurological conditions. Participants report most commonly applying this decision to people in community settings, but application also occurs in mental health and acute hospitals including in the emergency department. There is a lack of common understanding around fundamental issues on which this decision is based including core concepts of capacity and objection. Blanket rules exist within professional groups and across different settings that restrict decision-making. The rights afforded to people admitted and treated in some settings and areas of England may not be afforded to those in others. The majority of participants report that their training covered decision-making at the interface of the Acts. However, codes of practice and case law are described as difficult to understand and keep up to date with. Understanding clinical decision-making at the in. Practitioners highlight a number of different ways in which patients are unlawfully deprived of their liberty as a result of the factors outlined above.

Webinar focuses on the application of the Mental Capacity Act to decisions around the initiation of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, along with practices concerning DNACPR.