This practice guide has been commissioned by the Department of Health to help frontline social and health professionals decide whether an individual they are concerned with may be deprived of their liberty due to the type of care or treatment that they are receiving or the level of restrictive practices that they are subject to. It focuses on the practical application of the legal principles. Part I provides details of the legal framework that governs deprivation of liberty and outlines the central principles of Article 5 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It then summarises the key elements of the Cheshire West decision. Part II details the most common settings in which a deprivation of liberty may occur: hospitals; psychiatric care; care homes; supported living services, such a shared lives schemes and extra care housing; Deprivation of liberty at home; and under 18s. For each setting the guidance identifies some of the factors that may point towards there being a deprivation of liberty; suggests scenarios which are very likely to/may/or not amount to a deprivation; and poses a number of questions that professionals can ask themselves when making decisions. The document includes links case law throughout. Part III provides summaries of key legal cases and further information and resources. The guidance is primarily relevant to the position in England and Wales. Quick reference guides covering each individual setting are also available.

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 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.

Findings from a study to gather information from people who have experienced Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) decision making, both since and prior to the Coronavirus pandemic. The report shows a worrying picture around the rights of involvement in care and treatment decisions, including DNARs. The evidence depicts serious issues of discrimination related to disability and age, and the intersection between the two, as well as other factors. Coronavirus has shone a spotlight on this, and some reported an increase in worrying DNAR decisions; but none of this is new, these problems are ongoing. The report’s key findings are: 100% of people involved said there needs to be more easily accessible information about human rights; almost 60% of people involved said they had received no information about their right to life during Coronavirus; 65% of people involved said that they (or a person they care for/about) had a DNAR order put on your medical file. 21% said they didn’t know; of those who had seen a DNAR order put in place almost half (47%) were not related to end-of-life care; less than a third of people (29%) who were involved in DNAR decision-making felt fully listened to, most felt listened to a bit (46%), and 25% felt not listened to; 91% of people involved felt that discrimination was an issue in the DNAR decisions they’d experienced.

This note provides an overview of the Department of Health and Social Care (non-statutory) guidance ‘Adult social care: our COVID-19 winter plan 2020 to 2021’. It discusses the key issues for local authorities, and in particular the interplay with the wellbeing principles of the Care Act 2014, including managing a potential conflict in terms of the wellbeing of both care home residents and those in the community with care and support needs as regards prevention of C-19. It also looks at the implications of the winter plan for the right to respect for family and private life, addressing the tension between the imperative to protect the health of social care users (and the social care workforce) and the need to respect the family life and private life rights of those who might be subject to protective restrictions. Finally, it explores the impact of the winter plan on deprivation of liberty safeguards, in particular in relation to testing and 14-day isolation requirements.

These materials have been created to help support health and social care professionals working with individuals whose decision-making capacity is limited, fluctuating, absent or compromised. Demographic changes mean there are increasing numbers of people living with conditions which may impact on their decision-making capacity, and as such it is vital that professionals are confident in their understanding use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This tool brings together information from a range of professionals working in the field of mental capacity to provide a comprehensive guide to practice. It is part of a wider research project funded by the Burdett Trust for Nursing. Sections include: 1. Reflecting on values and bias in mental capacity decision-making; 2. The history and current context of mental capacity legislation and policy; 3. The concept of mental capacity; 4. Best interests; 5. Supported decision making; 6. Deprivation of liberty: human rights; 7. MCA in clinical decisions for care and treatment; 8. MCA and the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) role.

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.

This report on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and care planning provides guidance for both commissioners and provider of social care on how care and support plans can comply with the principles of the MCA.

This video for health and care professionals looks at how the 2014 Supreme Court judgment on deprivation of liberty affects people working in the area of mental capacity. It looks in detail at two real-life case studies.

This resource describes good practice in the management and implementation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS; the Safeguards).