scholarly journals Assessment of mental capacity: a flow chart guide

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (8) ◽  
pp. 304-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Church ◽  
Sarah Watts
Keyword(s):  
Good Practice ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Flow Chart ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Informal Carers ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides a new legal framework within which health and social care professionals (as well as informal carers) must act when providing care and treatment for the estimated 2 million people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who lack the capacity to make certain decisions for themselves. Although the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice provides comprehensive advice on good practice in assessing capacity, it does not identify a specific process to be used. Good clinical practice depends on the exercise of clinical judgement within a valid and contestable process. This article outlines a flow chart (Fig. 1) that can be used to guide the process of capacity assessments in more complex cases, in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Code of Practice.

8. Mental health

2021 ◽  
pp. 134-155
Author(s):  
Jo Samanta ◽  
Ash Samanta
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Disorders ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Legal Reforms ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Health Disorders ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
Discharge From Hospital

This chapter focuses on statutory provisions governing mental health and mental health disorders, with particular reference to the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It first outlines modern approaches to mental disorders, including legal reforms and the MHA 1983 Code of Practice (2015). It considers the main routes by which patients are admitted to the mental health system (voluntary or involuntary), deprivation of liberty, including Cheshire West and the proposed liberty protection safeguards, and the issue of consent with regards to medical treatment. Finally, the chapter discusses community care that must be provided to people with mental health disorders following discharge from hospital, particularly aftercare and supervised community treatment orders. Relevant cases are considered.

scholarly journals The Mental Capacity Act and mental healthcare in prison: opportunities and challenges

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (7) ◽  
pp. 241-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Davies ◽  
Claire Dimond
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
People With Mental Illness ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
The Uk

SummaryThe UK Mental Health Act 1983 does not apply in prison. The legal framework for the care and treatment of people with mental illness in prison is provided by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We raise dilemmas about its use. We highlight how assessing best interests and defining harm involves making challenging judgements. How best interests and harm are interpreted has a potentially significant impact on clinical practice within a prison context.

The law in England and Wales on mental health treatment in the community

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Beswick ◽  
Michael Gunn
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Treatment ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mentally Disordered ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mentally Disordered Offender ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

This chapter examines the legal framework for the treatment of the mentally disordered offender in the community in England and Wales. It examines both some of the ideological questions underlying the care of this group and the legal mechanisms within which treatment can be provided. The chapter begins by examining the principle, endorsed by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, that voluntary treatment will usually be the norm, regardless of setting. It then considers exceptions to these norm situations where legally mandated treatment in the community is permitted. In England and Wales, most of these exceptions are to be found in three pieces of legislation: the Mental Health Act 1983, as amended in 2007 to include community treatment orders; the Mental Capacity Act 2005, with its associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS); and the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Operationalising the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in support of brain injury survivors – views from practice

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jade Scott ◽  
Stephen Weatherhead ◽  
Jill Manthorpe
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Decision Making Styles ◽  
Tentative Explanation ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

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.

scholarly journals Adults who refuse blood transfusion in emergency, urgent and elective circumstances

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (8) ◽  
pp. 568-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Wheeler
Keyword(s):  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

Surgeons dealing with an adult refusing a blood transfusion find themselves in an unenviable position, torn between wishing to preserve the patient’s life while also respecting his or her wishes. This article looks at the legal framework for such circumstances as set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

scholarly journals Capacity and Consent in England and Wales: The Mental Capacity Act under Scrutiny

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 344-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETER HERISSONE-KELLY
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Advance Decisions ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 came into force in England and Wales in 2007. Its primary purpose is to provide “a statutory framework to empower and protect people who may lack capacity to make some decisions for themselves.” Examples of such people are those with dementia, learning disabilities, mental health problems, and so on. The Act also gives those who currently have capacity a legal framework within which they can make arrangements for a time when they may come to lack it. Toward this end, it allows for them to make advance decisions (in effect, refusals of consent to certain forms of treatment) or to appoint proxy decision makers with lasting powers of attorney.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document