The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) was developed to co-ordinate, bring together and simplify the law about the care and treatment of people who lack capacity. This document provides information and guidance for adult social care workers on the key principles and provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and considers how social workers can apply its principles to their practice. Areas covered include Best interests, Advanced decisions, Five principles of the Act, Assessing capacity and decision making. It is designed to be used by social workers at all levels, from front line practitioners to senior social workers, social work supervisors and managers, to help social workers to develop their skills in supporting individuals who may lack mental capacity. The document includes short case examples and reflective exercises throughout.
Emergency guidance for health and social care staff in England and Wales who are caring for adults who lack the relevant mental capacity to consent to their care and treatment during the coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. This document provides additional guidance to supplement ‘The Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic’, which was published in April 2020. It includes guidance on: testing someone who lacks the relevant mental capacity; providing life-saving treatment to someone who lacks the capacity to consent; hospitals and care homes; and using emergency public health powers when someone who lacks relevant capacity needs to be isolated because they have symptoms and are not following public health advice. [First published 29 May 2020; last updated 12 January 2021]
This framework aims to assist professionals, and specifically staff working within Gateshead, to understand their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act and to access guidance to assist them in fulfilling them. The document is separated into four main parts: policy – this section outlines the policy structures which underpin MCA practice in Gateshead, including a detailed glossary of terms, the legal context, exploration of the role of the CQC and a discussion of how clear MCA leadership can be structured within individual agencies; considerations for particular agencies – this section examines the impact of the MCA on specific agencies within Gateshead and considers some of the challenges presented; MCA practice and procedural guidance – this section considers specific elements and functions of the MCA, and offers practice and procedural guidance; and DoLS procedural guidance – this section sets out Gateshead’s procedure for the effective operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
The HEE e-LfH Mental Capacity Act e-learning programme (MCA) is made up of 11 e-learning sessions, which cover the following titles: Mental Capacity Act as part of human rights; assessing mental capacity; making decisions; best interests; restraint; deprivation of liberty; relationship between the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act; Mental Capacity Act and young people aged 16 or 17; research involving people who lack capacity; Mental Capacity Act and adult safeguarding; settling disputes and disagreements. Each e-learning session will take approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete and is made up of knowledge, case scenarios, short interviews and self-assessment questions to test your knowledge. The resource can be accessed on smart phones, tablets and laptop/desktop devices.
This page brings together documents and links related to a range of adult safeguarding areas that may assist service users and professional to understand this area. Topics covered include: the Mental Capacity Act; safeguarding vulnerable adult concerns; and reasonable adjustments.
A summary of the key themes included in the Law Commission’s consultation paper on deprivation of liberty.
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.
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.
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.
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.
An overview of the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill, and the amendments made during the Bills Lords stages, ahead of its Second Reading in the Commons on 18 December 2018. The aim of the Bill is to reform the process for authorising arrangements which enable people who lack capacity to consent to be deprived of their liberty (for the purpose of providing them with care or treatment). This briefing summarises some of the main concerns raised by Peers about the Bill during its passage through the Lords. These include: the definition of deprivation of liberty; the role of care home managers in carrying out assessments, with particular concerns raised about potential conflict of interests in care homes and independent hospitals; the appointment and role of Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCAs); and provisions relating to reviews by Approved Mental Capacity Professionals (AMCPs) and referral to the Court of Protection.
Purpose: The Mental Capacity Act (MCA, 2005) provided a new legal framework for decision-making practice in England and Wales. This study aims to explore qualitative research on practitioners’ knowledge and experiences of the MCA in health and social care settings to inform practice and policy. Design/methodology/approach: Four electronic databases and Google Scholar were searched in November 2019 for peer-reviewed, qualitative, English language studies exploring practitioners’ experiences and knowledge of the MCA in health and social care settings. Nine studies were included and appraised for methodological quality. Data were analysed using thematic synthesis. Findings: Data revealed both positive aspects and challenges of applying the MCA in practice within five main themes, namely, travelling the “grey line”, the empowering nature of the MCA, doing the assessment justice, behaviours and emotional impact and knowledge gaps and confidence. Practical implications: The fundamental principles of the MCA appear to be adhered to and embedded in practice. However, practitioners find mental capacity work remains challenging in its uncertainties. While calling for more training, they may also benefit from further MCA skills development and support to increase confidence and reduce apprehension. Originality/value: This is the first systematic review to synthesise qualitative literature on practitioners’ experiences and knowledge of the MCA. Findings offer insight into practice experiences of the MCA and provide a basis for the development of training and supervisory support.