This book is designed to help conduct robust assessments whilst at the same time enabling professionals to provide optimum outcome for those under their charge. It also aims help achieve these goals: set the threshold of understanding which is necessary for every assessment; clearly define seemingly ambiguous phrases such as ‘unwise decisions’ and ‘the functional test’; recording assessments ensuring they stand up to legal scrutiny.

This guidance note sits alongside our guidance note on carrying out and recording capacity assessments, and is designed to assist social workers and those working in frontline clinical settings when they asked to consider a person’s capacity to make a decision or decisions. As set out in our guidance note, the courts have now applied the MCA 2005 in respect of very many types of decision. In the course of doing so, they have given indications as to what they consider to be relevant (and sometimes irrelevant) information for purposes of those decisions – i.e. what the person must be able to understand, retain, use and weigh to able to make the decision. This guidance note pulls together the guidance given in relation to some of the most common decisions that are encountered in practice in the context of health and welfare matters.

This website provides information and case examples on MCA practices with some focus on Court of Protection: health, welfare, Deprivation of Liberty and property and affairs.

Case law relating to health, welfare and deprivation of liberty.

This paper, which is aimed at those working in hospital settings as well as local authorities, seeks to provide a summary of the law governing situations where an individual is potentially deprived of his or her liberty in hospital. The paper has been entirely updated from the earlier version (dating from June 2015), in particular to take into account the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ferreira (R (LF) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner South London & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 31), which has significantly changed the approach to take to deprivation of liberty where physical healthcare needs are being met in the hospital setting.

This framework incorporates and links to a number of other competence standards, for example the National Safeguarding Competence Framework and the BIA capabilities. It is divided by staff group and is focused on what different groups need to demonstrate under each of the 5 principle areas. These statutory principles are: presumption of capacity; helping the person to make their own decision; the right to make unwise decisions; best interests; and less restriction. The MCA is relevant to any staff of any public service, whether directly delivered by statutory agencies (e.g. Local Authority, NHS, Police, Fire service, etc.) or via third sector care providers (e.g. private or charitable organisations providing health, social care or other public service support services).

Outlines the key parts and processes of liberty protection safeguards.

This is a final stage impact assessment for the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill. It
evaluates options for reforming the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) system.

An overview, signposting to relevant resources and guidance, on how an attorney or deputy can continue to fulfil their role during the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown.

Sets out in detail the Government’s provisional view of each individual proposal, broadly agreeing with the Liberty Protection Safeguards model. As the Government has commissioned a review into the Mental Health Act, proposals that relate to the interface between the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act will be considered as part of that review. The Government also wants to ensure that Liberty Protection Safeguards fit with the conditions and future direction of the health and social care sector, so it will continue to work through the detail of the recommendations and engage further with stakeholders particularly on implementation. The Government will bring forward legislation to implement the model in due course.

Interim statement providing an update on issues that emerged from the Law Commission’s consultation on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which set out a replacement scheme called ‘protective care’. The paper sets out the background to the review of DoLS. It then outlines the ‘protective care’ scheme described in the consultation paper, which consists of three aspects: the supportive care scheme, the restrictive care and treatment scheme, and the hospitals and palliative care scheme. It then summarises the main messages from the consultation, which received 583 written responses and involved the Law Commission attending 83 events across England and Wales. The results of the consultation found a case for replacing the DoLS. Most consultees found the DoLS to be overly legalistic and found it had failed to deliver improved outcomes for people who lack capacity and their carers. Most consultees welcomed the new provision proposals, but concerns were raised about the financial implications. During the next phase of the review, the Law Commission will produce draft legislation and a final report. The document invites views on the new name for the scheme.

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.