These official statistics provide findings from the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) data collection for the period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021. DoLS are a legal framework that exist to ensure that individuals who lack the mental capacity to consent to the arrangements for their care, where such care may amount to a “deprivation of liberty”, have the arrangements independently assessed to ensure they are in the best interests of the individual concerned. The data is collected from local authorities in England, who are the supervisory bodies for authorising deprivations of liberty of adults in care homes and hospitals. There were 256,610 applications for DoLS received during 2020-21. This is a small drop of approximately 3% compared to the previous year, following an average growth rate of 14% each year since 2014-15. The proportion of completed applications in 2020-21 that were not granted was 57%. The main reason was given as change in circumstances, at 60% of all not granted cases. The proportion of standard applications completed within the statutory timeframe of 21 days was 24% in 2020-21. The average length of time for all completed applications was 148 days.

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.

This hub brings together guidance and resources relating to mental capacity, deprivation of liberty and best interests. It covers: the key steps to follow when assessing capacity or making a best interests decision; using the Guzzardi test to determine whether a situation amounts to a deprivation of liberty; what case law says about the capacity to consent to sexual relations and marriage. It also allows to test the knowledge of the law on mental capacity and deprivation of liberty (only available to organisations with a workforce licence).

Annual report of the Chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum, covering the Forum’s work over the year, the Chair’s priorities for the coming year, and details of Forum members. Each chapter describes the achievements and ongoing work against the four priorities for 2017: Improving understanding; Hearing the voice of the person; Supporting carers; and Reducing and preventing exploitation. Achievements include the development of guidelines and training material for front line staff in the financial and banking sector and increased awareness of fraud and scam and the risks for people ‘in vulnerable circumstances.’ The report includes illustrative good practice examples of initiatives relevant to the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act.

Examines the practical implications of the dual legislative regime governing involuntary treatment and how the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Mental Health Act 1983 interface. Whilst the MCA is concerned with individuals who lack capacity to make decisions for themselves, and legal protection for their carers/care workers, the MHA is concerned with minimising the undesirable effects of mental disorder by maximising patient safety and wellbeing and by protecting other people from harm.

This website provides information about all aspects of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Note the website has not been updated since 2009 so should be used with caution.

This report looks at some of the common issues and complaints investigated by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman concerning people who lack mental capacity and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) system. The report includes individual case studies to show the impact on people when things go wrong. It estimates that 20 per cent of the 1,212 adult social care complaints investigated by the Ombudsman in the year 2016/17 concerned mental capacity or DoLS. Common issues included: not completing, or delays in carrying out, mental capacity assessments; poor ‘best interests’ decision making; disagreements with the process and failure to involving families; delay in obtaining DoLS authorisations; and failure to carry out full assessments before applying for DoLS. Drawing on the results of investigations, the report provides good practice points to help social care professionals get it right firs time when working with people who may lack mental capacity. It also provides a list of questions to help councillors scrutinise their own authorities.

An easy read version of the Law Commission Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty: interim statement.

Project status, summary of findings and links to output relating to a review of the Mental Capacity Act and the DoLS. The Law Commission consultation paper was published on 7 July 2015. It contained provisional proposals for the reform of the law and was one of the most extensive public consultation exercises undertaken by the Law Commission. In May 2016 the Commission published an interim statement, summarising the key messages from consultation and setting out some of our initial conclusions. A report setting out recommendations was published on 13 March 2017, together with a draft Bill.

This Act amends the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in relation to procedures with which a person may be deprived of liberty where the person lacks capacity to consent. It includes amendments of authorising of arrangements enabling care and treatment which give rise to a deprivation of liberty; and Section 42 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 code of practice in relation to Deprivation of liberty. The legislation provides for the repeal of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and their replacement with a new scheme called the Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS).

SCIE guide to support the commissioning of the Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) service

SCIE’s Mental Capacity Act awareness training improves understanding for a range of health and social care staff