This blog contains information on policing, mental health and criminal justice. Key thematic areas include: Tactical Advisors on mental health; quick guides – a series of legal and practical summaries for operational police officers about the most important scenarios that emerge under the mental health and capacity acts; policing and crime act series; paramedic series; and a series of posts written with non-police officers in mind providing guidance to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

This tool kit is designed provide information and support for the application of the Mental Capacity Act to GPs and primary care staff.

This booklet has been designed as part of project about bipolar disorder. It covers the Mental Capacity Act; advance decisions to refuse treatment; statements of wishes and feelings; lasting power of attorney; and tips for managing everyday finances.

Signposts to resources and guidance relating to the Mental Capacity Act.

The guide provides practical assistance to anyone who supports an individual to make decisions about their finances. It covers the legislation that governs financial decision-making and makes practical suggestions about how to: empower and support an individual with making decisions about their finances; assess an individual’s capacity in relation to financial decision-making in a way which is decision-specific; apply the Mental Capacity Act to an individual’s situation; and enable decision making by individuals wherever possible.

Advocacy helps to ensure that individuals are in control of their own lives and are supported to make their own decisions. This good practice guide has been developed to help professionals and advocates to decide on the most appropriate route to take to challenge decisions about an individual’s care. It will help advocates to develop a ‘tool-kit’ of different approaches to get the best possible outcome for people depending on their views and the situation. The guide discusses when it is most appropriate to use informal approaches to challenge decisions; the skills required to be effective when taking this approach, including negotiating and influencing; and using Best Interests meetings. It also looks at using formal routes to challenge decisions through the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Mental Health Act 1983, the Care Act 2014, and through formal complaints processes and judicial review. The guide provides useful case examples and makes reference to relevant sections within Acts and Statutory Guidance to illustrate key points. The guide is relevant for professionals across the health and social care sectors, as well as for friends and family members who are supporting a friend or relative.

This Guidance aims to demystify the Court of Protection generally and the role of litigation friend specifically so as to enable more people to consider taking up the role – thereby ensuring the better promotion and protection of the rights of those said to be lacking capacity to take their own decisions.

Although the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) has implications for other aspects of Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS), this article focuses on the possible relevance of the MCA in the management of the over-eating behaviour and risk of life-threatening obesity associated with the syndrome. Although people with PWS are capable of making decisions about many areas of their life, dysfunction in areas of the brain that control eating behaviour and energy balance means that they will rarely have the capacity independently to make decisions about eating. Even if they can make a decision at one point in time, this may not be the case at other times, particularly in the absence of supervision or environmental restrictions on access to food. The document covers the existing legal provisions and ethical considerations for people with PWS, including decision-making capacity and Deprivation of Liberty.

A brief review of the Compassion in Dying advance decisions form (plus accompanying guidance notes) and the Alzheimer’s Society form.

Purpose: Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), as part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (DoLS, 2007), was established to provide a legal framework for decision-making in respect of adults who lack capacity to make decisions in relation to their care and residence in England and Wales. The purpose of this study was to explore the DoLS decision-making process from the perspectives of health and social care practitioners when working with individuals with an acquired brain injury (ABI). Design/methodology/approach: A total of 12 health and social care practitioners were interviewed in 2019–2020 about their experiences of using and making or supporting decisions in the DoLS framework with ABI survivors. Data were analysed, and a tentative explanation of variations in DoLS decision-making was developed. Findings: Three distinct approaches emerged capturing different decision-making styles (risk-averse, risk-balancing and risk-simplifying) which appeared to influence the outcome of DoLS assessments. A range of mediating factors seemed to account for the variability in these styles. The wider contextual challenges that impact upon practitioners’ overall experiences and use of DoLS processes in their ABI practice were noted. Research limitations/implications: The findings highlight a need for changes in practice and policy in relation to how DoLS or similar processes are used in decision-making practice with ABI survivors and may be relevant to the implementation of the Liberty Protection Safeguards that are replacing the DoLS system. Originality/value: To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to explore accounts of DoLS decision-making practices in ABI service.

Objective: To investigate how people with communication and understanding difficulties, associated with conditions such as dementia, autism and intellectual disability, are represented in research guidance supplementary to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA: 2005) in England and Wales. Methods: A documentary survey was conducted. The sample comprised the MCA Code of Practice (CoP: 2007) and 14 multi‐authored advisory documents that were publicly available on the Health Research Authority website. Textual review of key words was conducted followed by summative content analysis. Results: Representation of people with communication and understanding difficulties was confined to procedural information and position statements that focused mainly on risk management and protection. Whilst a need to engage potential participants was recognized, guidance provided was imprecise. Conclusions: Tensions exist between the protection versus empowerment of people with communication and understanding difficulties in research. The development of structured, evidence‐based guidance is indicated. Patient or public contribution: People with communication and understanding difficulties and carers participated in a working group to explore, discuss and interpret the findings.

This study explores the experiences of professionals who worked with care home residents with impaired mental capacity in England and Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic. It explores (i) how competing risks were balanced and (ii) how the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) functioned in care homes under pandemic conditions, with particular focus on its associated Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and Independent Mental Capacity Advocacy (IMCA) systems. Between March and May 2021, an online survey and five focus groups aimed at professionals who worked in or with care homes during the pandemic, were held. The study explored issues pertaining to residents with impaired mental capacity, alongside several other topics on which the authors report elsewhere. For this paper, the researchers filtered data to only include responses from ‘capacity professionals’. The resulting sample comprised 120 (out of 266) survey participants and 18 (out of 22) focus group participants. The researchers performed manifest content analysis on the filtered data and found that (1) participants reported a ‘massive discrepancy’ between the ways different care homes balanced the risk of COVID-19 infection with the risks associated with severe restrictions. (2) Some suggested this was due to vague guidance, as well as care home type and size. Participants told us the pandemic (3) obstructed smooth operation of statutory safeguards designed to protect residents’ human rights and (4) resulted in confusion about the remit of the MCA during a public health crisis. The findings raise concerns about the impact of pandemic-related measures upon care home residents with impaired mental capacity. The researchers urge further exploration and analysis of (a) the variability and inconsistency of restrictions applied at care homes, (b) the strain placed on key safeguards associated with the MCA, (c) uncertainty about the remit of the MCA during a public health crisis and (d) the human rights implications hereof.