Mental Capacity Act and - Gloucestershire · though some amendments to the MCA may be proposed to reinforce those Article 8 concerns (adding emphasis on P’s wishes in best interests

Mental Capacity Act and Safeguarding Adults Newsletter

Summer 2016Volume 6Issue 1

Contents

MCA and Dols

1 Introduction

1 Deprivation of Liberty Reforms

3 Judicial DoL authorisations-Guidance for Community Dols

4 Article 5 and Court Appointed Deputies

4 Deprivation of liberty for the under-16s

5 LPA statistics and examples of using a LPA

7 Decisions relating to CPR - new statement

7 Issues from Training – examples of MCA1s, MCA Video and Leaflet for families

Safeguarding

8 Calls for guidance on obstructive families

9 Herbert Protocol

10 Modern Slavery: identifying & supporting victims

10 Female genital mutilation: the facts

10 Hospital transition for adults with social care needs

11 Safeguarding App

11 Care Act – Statutory Guidance

Welcome to Gloucestershire’s Summer 2016 Edition MCA/ DoLS andSafeguarding Adults Newsletterproduced jointly by Mental Capacity ActGovernance Group (MCAGG) and theSafeguarding Adults Board (GSAB).

As you go through the Newsletter you will be able to gain additional information by clicking on the picture or hyperlink to the original report or news item. The Newsletter is a catch up of Case Law, legal updates, statutory guidance, interesting developments and practical applications of the Acts over the last 4 months.

Deprivation of liberty reforms restricted – the Law Commission ‘interim statement’

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/mental-capacity-and-deprivation-of-liberty/

There is little dispute that the law on deprivation of liberty (DoL) is in urgent need of reform and the interim statement, published in May 2016, is setting out the proposed direction of travel now through to the final report and draft legislation (due to be published by the end of 2016). The Law Commission reaffirms the “compelling case” for replacing DoLS however, the grand scale of the initial proposals may have been seen as unrealistic, and simply too costly to implement at the moment. The Law Commission accepts that reform must “demonstrably reduce the administrative burden”, and provide “maximum benefit for the minimum cost”.

As a result, the proposals will now be for:

• a ‘more straightforward, streamlined and flexible scheme’ focused solely on authorising deprivation of liberty, and going no further, abandoning the aspirations of the wider ‘supportive care’ scheme, though some amendments to the MCA may be proposed to reinforce those Article 8 concerns (adding emphasis on P’s wishes in best interests decisions, and testing the necessity for any removal of P from home into institutional care)

• the responsibility of establishing the case for a DoL shall be shifted from the provider of the care to commissioner (i.e. usually the local authority or CCG), using where possible the same assessments already in place for the care planning

1



• there will still be rights to reviews, legal proceedings and advocacy

• there may be ‘a defined group of people who should receive additional independent oversight of the DoL’ by an AMCP, but it appears that not only is the central role of the AMCP as scrutinising and authorising the DoL in every case lost (saying that the vast numbers affected by Cheshire West means it is ‘not proportionate or affordable’ to offer this to everyone caught by Article 5), but even the current universal role of the BIA is dropped, so a proportion of those DoL will apparently have no independent oversight, which we anticipate may be controversial

• this new approach to be a single scheme applied uniformly across every setting, i.e. dropping plans for the dedicated hospital / hospice scheme and, presumably, leaving all in patient DoLS as the responsibility of the CCGs to authorise

• the proposal to amend the MHA is also dropped, on the basis that the policy aim can be met by provision that the existing powers under MHA should be used for patients who lack capacity to consent to admission and treatment for their mental disorder, even where they are compliant

• the inadvertent impact on inquests from Cheshire West should still be addressed by an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to explicitly remove the proposed scheme from the definition of ‘state detention’, which triggers the need for an inquest, in some cases with a jury. This would no doubt be very welcome

• the proposal for a tribunal to replace the CoP jurisdiction remains in the balance, and a final decision on this has not been reached.

https://www.brownejacobson.com/health/training-and-resources/legal-updates/2016/05/deprivation-of-liberty-reforms-restricted-the-law-commission-interim-statement

Conclusion

So much of the original scheme has been pared back that it is quite difficult to get a clear sense of exactly what is left, or how it would work. Some will see this as common sense prevailing, with a much more limited scope scheme now proposed, less complexity and, no doubt, commensurately reduced costs (though a revised impact assessment has not yet been provided). Others may see it as an opportunity missed to address the wider issues, and in particular the prevention of DoL and aspects of Article 8 rights, potentially simply delaying the need for more comprehensive reform, and arguably diluting the independent scrutiny and safeguards provided.

Local authorities and CCGs are likely to have strong views about the fairly radical change towards the apparent imposition on them of the principal responsibility under the new scheme without, as yet, a lot of detail about how this would work.

The only certainty, probably, is that the eventual scheme, if anything does reach the statute books / implementation in some years’ time, is likely to look different again from this, just as it was never likely that the Law Commission’s initial proposals would ever make it into law exactly as drafted.

Safeguarding Adults and Mental Capacity Act Newsletter

2

Summer 2016 • Volume 6 • Issue 1




3


Deprivation of Liberty out side of Hospitals and Care Homes- Re X Process Guidance Note: Judicial deprivation of liberty authorisations: Updated June 2016 http://www.39essex.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Judicial-Deprivation-of-Liberty-authorisations-June-2016-2.pdf

This guide provides updated guidance as to the process for applying for judicial authorisation of deprivation of liberty, including the requirements set down in the COP DOL10 form and the judgments of Mr Justice Charles in Re NRA and Re JM.

In Re X and others (Deprivation of Liberty) [2014] EWCOP 251 (and No 2 [2014] EWCOP 37), Sir James Munby, the President of the Court of Protection sought to devise a streamlined process to seek to enable the court to authorise deprivation of liberty outside hospitals and care homes (i.e. in any setting where the DOLS authorisation procedure in Schedule A1 to the MCA 2005 could not be used).

2. Following that decision, a new procedure (usually called the Re X procedure) was established by the Court of Protection, with a new COP DOL10 form (in saveable PDF and also in unofficial Word version), model order, and Practice Direction: 10AA: Deprivation of Liberty applications.

3. In June 2015, the Court of Appeal held that Sir James Munby P had not been entitled to proceed in the fashion that he did, and that his ‘judgments’ were in fact not authoritative statements of the law. Since then, we have had two further decisions of the Vice-President of the Court of Protection, Mr Justice Charles, Re NRA & Ors [2015] EWCOP 59 and Re JM & Ors [2016] EWCOP 15, in which further guidance has been given as to how applications for Re X orders should be made.

We still await amendments to the form, order and Practice Direction, and the situation remains unsatisfactory because it is not clear how the courts are to proceed where there is no person able to act as a representative for the person concerned, P.

4. However, as there is no immediate prospect of legislative or other change, 39 Essex Chambers have updated the Guidance Note to reflect changes since the last iteration in June 2015. They have also updated the Guidance Note to reflect the fact that it is now clear that applications will need to be made in a wider range of circumstances than previously thought pending any legislative replacement for the DoLS regime following the current Law Commission project (which is due to produce a draft bill by December 2016).


http://www.39essex.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Judicial-Deprivation-of-Liberty-authorisations-June-2016-2.pdf

http://www.39essex.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Judicial-Deprivation-of-Liberty-authorisations-June-2016-2.pdf

4



Ever spreading tentacles? Article 5 and deputies (Private arrangements and attributable to the State regarding Deprivation of Liberty) Staffordshire CC v SRK & ors [2016] EWCOP 27 (Charles J)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2016/27.html

Article 5 ECHR – “deprivation of liberty” – deputies

SRK acquired a brain injury following a road traffic accident, necessitating 24-hour care. The compensation funded the purchase of an adapted bungalow and his care regime. The effects of his injuries meant that he had to be under continuous supervision and control, was not free to leave, and lacked capacity to consent to the care arrangements. The care was arranged by a specialist brain injury case manager and provided by private carers. The accommodation and care costs were privately-funded and administered by a financial deputy, without any input from the local authority. An issue arose as to whether this confinement was attributable to the State, directly or indirectly, so as to engage Article 5.

Indirect responsibility

However, the civil court awarding damages, the COP when appointing a deputy, the deputy itself, and trustees or someone acting under a lasting power of attorney to whom a damages award is paid and who must make best interests decisions, they should all be aware that a regime of care and treatment can create a (private) deprivation of liberty. And “[t]hat knowledge of the courts means that the State has that knowledge…” (para 135). The State thereby can become indirectly responsible by failing to comply with its positive obligations under Article 5 to prevent arbitrary detention. The link below is for guidance to deputies following the court case and has been produced by 39 Essex Chambers

http://www.39essex.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/MC-Newsletter-June-2016-Compendium-Screen-Friendly.pdf

Deprivation of liberty for the under-16s

Re Daniel X [2016] EWFC B31 (Family Court (HHJ Roberts))

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B31.html

Article 5 ECHR – “deprivation of liberty” – children and young persons – inherent jurisdiction

Daniel X is the youngest (reported) person since Cheshire West to satisfy the nuanced acid test. He was 10 years old with severe autistic disorder and severe learning disability and accommodated in a specialist children’s home, attending school. He was constantly supervised and physical restrictions were used to prevent him leaving. He had regular contact with his parents who agreed with the care order.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2016/27.html



http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B31.html

5



For reasons explained elsewhere, because of the care order his parents could not consent to his confinement. Article 5 was therefore engaged. As a result, the care proceedings before the magistrates were transferred to a judge of the High Court to have the deprivation of liberty authorised for 12 months.

The inherent jurisdiction and children’s services are still getting to grips with the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision. But this decision is helpful when it comes to authorisation renewals and the evidence expected and has been reproduced by 39 Chambers in the link:


All parties agreed that Daniel was deprived of liberty. So there is little analysis in the judgment as to exactly how the care arrangements satisfied the acid test. But chapter 9 of the Law Society guidance considers the issue. In order to minimise the risk of duplication, and unnecessary costs, in cases where a child is or may be deprived of liberty, local authorities may want to have the care proceedings listed before a Judge with a High Court so that both the care order and the deprivation of liberty can be addressed in one go. There will then be (at least) an annual review of the deprivation of liberty on the papers where there is consensus.

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/articles/deprivation-of-liberty/

Lasting Powers of Attorney/ deputyship statistics

The Court of Protection/OPG statistics for January to March 2016 are now out. They show that there were 141,667 Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) received in January to March 2016, the highest quarterly figure so far and up 18% on the same quarter for 2015. The MOJ (plausibly) puts the recent increases down largely to increased publicity and new online forms which have been introduced to make it simpler and faster to apply for LPAs. There were 3,511 EPAs registered in January to March 2016, down 14% on January to March 2015. There were 3,127 Deputyships appointed in January to March 2016, a decrease of 21% on the equivalent quarter in 2015.

http://www.familylaw.co.uk/system/froala_assets/documents/935/family-court-statistics-jan-mar-2016.pdf

An Example of a LPA when a person has declining capacity (kindly reproduced from NDTi National Development Team for Inclusion

http://www.ndti.org.uk/







http://www.ndti.org.uk/

6



The story

Mrs Ali lives at home on her own. She owns the house. She and her family had been told that she has dementia. She gets quite a lot of help from her son, Javid, who lives nearby and is unemployed due to ill health. She has been just about coping with everyday tasks, but Javid has noticed that the house is getting very run-down and needs to have some major repairs. He also thinks some work might need to be done to enable her to stay at home rather than going into residential care. Mrs Ali becomes very anxious and confused if he tries to talk to her about money. Javid thinks he should talk to his mother’s bank to find out if she has enough money to pay for work on the house, or if she could get a small loan. He is confident she would accept the work being done if he could organise it and she did not have to worry about the money.

A. Mrs Ali has an LPA

Mrs Ali drew up a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for property and financial affairs when she was first told she had dementia. She appointed Javid as her attorney and he made sure the LPA was registered at once with the Office of the Public Guardian. When Javid became concerned about the state of the house, he went to Mrs Ali’s bank and showed them the LPA and his identification. They took copies and agreed to discuss his mother’s accounts with him. Javid found out that Mrs Ali did not have enough money in her savings account to pay for the work, but that he could arrange a small loan for her, to be repaid from her pension income. He did this, and was then able to talk to her and reassure her about the work that needed doing.

B. Mrs Ali does not have an LPA

Mrs Ali and her son had assumed that he could deal with anything to do with money. She said, “Your father always did all that, Javid; I don’t want to get involved now”. Javid went to the bank to ask whether his mother had enough money for repairs to the house, but they refused to talk to him. They said that Mrs Ali must come in with Javid and give permission. If any paperwork was needed, Mrs Ali would need to sign it – and they would need to be confident that she knew what she was signing and was really agreeing. Javid knew this wouldn’t work, so he gave up.

Court of Protection statistics

The statistics for January to March 2016 are now out:


In January to March 2016, there were 7,225 applications made under the MCA 2005, up 9% on the equivalent quarter in 2015. The majority of these (54%) related to applications for appointment of a property and affairs deputy. Following the introduction of new forms in July 2015, applicants must make separate applications for ‘property and affairs’ and ‘personal welfare’.



7



This is why there were fewer ‘hybrid deputy’ applications compared to previous years.

There were 6,554 orders made, similar to the same quarter in 2015. Most (52%) of the orders related to the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs. The trend in orders made mirrors that of applications and has been steadily increasing since 2010 albeit at a faster rate.

Applications relating to deprivation of liberty increased from 109 in 2013 to 525 in 2014 to 1,497 in 2015. There were 678 applications made in the most recent quarter, triple the number made in January to March 2015. The overall increase follows the decision in Cheshire West. Of the 678 applications made in January to March 2016, 459 (68%) came from a Local Authority, 185 (27%) from solicitors and 34 (5%) from others including clinical commission groups, other professionals or applicants in person. Over half (52%) of the applications were made under the streamlined process set out in Re X and others [2014] EWCOP 25.

Decisions relating to cardiopulmonary resuscitation - new statement

The British Medical Association (BMA), the Resuscitation Council (UK), and the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) have very recently (30 June 2016) issued updated guidance regarding anticipatory decisions about whether or not to attempt resuscitation in a person when their heart stops or they stop breathing.

http://www.39essex.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/MC-Newsletter-July-2016-Compendium-Screen-Friendly.pdf

This update to the 3rd edition takes into account, in particular, the decision in the Winspear case, concerning the requirement to consult family members (or others properly concerned in the person’s welfare) where they do not have capacity to participate in the process leading to decisions made about CPR.

http://www.39essex.com/cop_cases/elaine-winspear-v-city-hospitals-sunderland-nhs-foundation-trust/

Issues from Training

MCA Examples of Capacity Assessment for Day to Day Decisions - Please follow the link to Gloucestershire’s MCA Multi- Agency Policy:

http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/extra/mcapolicy and look to the Downloads at the bottom of the Page. The MCAGG (Gloucestershire’s Mental Capacity Act Governance Group) have signed off 6 examples Of MCA1s (produced by Tina Kukstas Consultant Nurse 2gether Trust and Rhiannon Mainwaring, MCA Governance manager) which may be helpful for Care homes and Shared lives providers.





http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/extra/mcapolicy

8



MCA Video

SCIE have also produced a new video explains the MCA and how it can protect the right to make choices. For people who need the MCA, their carers, and others.

http://www.scie.org.uk/mca/introduction/using-mental-capacity-act

This video is very helpful for any one who is involved with an individual who has an impairment or disability of the brain. This can include the individual themselves, family members, carers and can be used for training material in care homes or hospitals. It helps to reinforce the act is about empowerment of the individual and that if a person is capable of making their own decision then they need to be supported to do just that.

MCA Leaflet

The MCAGG have produced an updated version of the easy overview of the MCA, called ‘What is Mental Capacity and Why does it matter?’ Something very useful for families and individuals who may not be aware of the implications and meaning of the Act. Please follow the link below :

http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/extra/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=60390&p=0

Safeguarding Section

Review of adult neglect case calls for guidance on handling obstructive families

A safeguarding adults case review has recommended developing guidance on dealing with obstructive family members after a man stopped services from helping his 91-year-old father, who later died.William Hedley continually blocked attempts by social care and other services to provide help or to assess the mental capacity of his father Edward by waging a campaign of non-cooperation, complaints, disruption of safeguarding meetings and legal action. Eventually, nurses were called to the Hedleys’ home in Newcastle Dec. 2012 and found Edward in an emaciated state with serious pressure sores and colorectal abscesses. William aggressively prevented the nurses from taking his father to hospital, resulting in the police being called to assist.

Extreme obstructiveness

Despite three weeks of treatment in hospital, Edward died on 12 January 2013. William was convicted of willful neglect of an adult lacking mental capacity last month and has been sentenced to 18 months in prison.

The case review for Newcastle Safeguarding Adults Board described the son’s obstructiveness as “extreme” and said that the services involved in the case had done almost everything they could have under the circumstances.

http://www.scie.org.uk/mca/introduction/using-mental-capacity-act

http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/extra/CHttpHandler.ashx%3Fid%3D60390%26p%3D0

http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/extra/CHttpHandler.ashx%3Fid%3D60390%26p%3D0

9



“In short, [William] did everything in his power to prevent access or treatment of [Edward] and went to considerable trouble and expense to achieve his purpose,” said the report. “It is hard to envisage that public services will soon again encounter such trenchant resistance to such obviously necessary care for a vulnerable adult.”

Services tried to protect

It added: “There was no lack of activity in his case and there was no lack of effort by the many police officers, social workers and other staff who tried to protect the health and wellbeing of [Edward].” The review said that in hindsight the decision to include William in the safeguarding process “added to the delay and distraction” even though this decision was taken for the best reasons. As such the review said Newcastle Safeguarding Adults Board should create guidelines on dealing with vexatious complaints and the role that obstructive family members should have within safeguarding adults strategy meetings.

Further recommendations

The review also recommended further training for professionals in relevant aspects of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Mental Health Act 1983.It also said that while individual agencies worked effectively, more multi-agency co-operation could have taken place and mental health services could have been more fully involved in the case.

The review also noted that the Independent Mental Capacity Advocacy Service was deployed at too late a stage in the case. The Herbert Protocol is a national scheme that encourages carers, family and friends to provide and put together useful information, which can then be used in the event of a vulnerable person going missing. Carers and / or relatives and friends can complete a form in advance, including important information about the missing individual such as the contact numbers, medication needed, locations the person was last seen and so forth also a photograph can be provided.

The form can be easily sent or handed to the police in the event of a loved one going missing, reducing the time to gather this information. The form should be completed as soon as possible. The scheme is designed to help those caring for someone with dementia also to make sure in the event a person going missing the police can gain access to essential information promptly.

Remembering all sorts of information at times like this can be very distressing for those involved and when being asked by a police officer, adds to the stress and upset caused. The information contained within these forms aims to relieve some of that stress. The Herbert Protocol initiative is named after George Herbert, a War veteran of the Normandy landings, who had dementia and sadly died while he was ‘missing’ on his way to his childhood home. Forms, leaflets and posters can be downloaded from:

https://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/staying-safe/the-herbert-protocol/

https://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/staying-safe/the-herbert-protocol/

10


Modern Slavery: identifying and supporting victims

The Department of Health (DH) has updated their leaflet on Modern Slavery: Identifying and Supporting Victims. It sets out actions for healthcare staff who suspect that a patient may be a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery.

Female genital mutilation: the facts

The Home Office has produced this leaflet providing facts on the practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), which is illegal in the UK. It covers:• those communities most at risk of practising FGM (sometimes known

as ‘sunna’)• the legal situation in the UK• the signs that a girl may have undergone FGM • health consequences • what to do if you think someone is at risk• what to do if you are at risk

Statutory guidance framework: controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship This statutory guidance is for the police and criminal justice agencies but will also assist other organisations including the voluntary sector. This guidance provides information on:• identifying domestic violence, domestic abuse and controlling or

coercive behaviour• circumstances in which the new offence might apply• the types of evidence for the offence

The guidance refers to the importance of taking local safeguarding processes into account for both adults and children.

Transition between inpatient settings and community or care home settings for adults with social care needs

The guideline includes recommendations on:• person-centred care and communication and information sharing• before admission to hospital including developing a care plan and

explaining what type of care the person might receive

The Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) has published this guideline. It covers the transition between inpatient hospital settings and community or care homes for adults with social care needs. It aims to improve people’s experience of admission to, and discharge from, hospital by better coordination of health and social care services. The Care Quality Commission uses NICE guidelines as evidence to inform the inspection process.


Safeguarding App

The NHS have produced a new mobile app, as a resource for healthcare professionals to increase their awareness and understanding of safeguarding requirements by providing an overview of necessary legislation and guidance covering both adult and children’s safeguarding.The app is available for Apple iOS (via the App Store) and Android (via Google Play).

Care Act – Statutory GuidanceOn the 10th March 2016, the Department of Health published the refreshed edition of the Care and Support statutory guidance. It is available at

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/care-and-support-statutory-guidance.

The statutory guidance supports implementation of part 1 of the Care Act 2014 by local authorities, the NHS, the police and other partners. The new edition supersedes the version issued in October 2014. It takes account of regulatory changes, feedback from stakeholders and the care sector and developments following the postponement of social care funding reforms to 2020. See more at:

http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/care-support-reform/-/jour-nal_content/56/10180/7740017/ARTICLE

Links to govt. website:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/care-and-support-statutory-guidance

Carers Rights GuideThis Carers Rights Guide outlines the rights of a carer, and gives the full picture of the practical and financial support available.In England, the Care Act was implemented in 2015 and brought new rights for carers to receive services and get support. Find out more about these new rights in this report.

VoiceAbility

The aim of this VoiceAbility guide is to increase the knowledge and confidence of advocates in challenging decisions of professionals involved in the care and support of adults. It enables advocates to develop a tool-kit that includes a range of approaches to take, dependent on the adult’s views and the situation.

The guide discusses ways advocates can challenge decisions, and the skills useful to succeed in their duty, particularly in relation to negotiating and influencing. It also includes essential reference material, with links to external websites and hyperlinked documents.

This guidance will assist advocates in carrying out their duties under the Care Act 2014, but may also be useful for other professionals, family and friends.

11







Safeguarding is everyone’s business

If you are worried that someone is at risk of abuse, please don’t hesitate to report your concern to the Adult Social Care Help Desk on (01452) 426868

People who need care and support to live independently, may be at greater risk of harm or neglect. Please get in touch if you or someone you know either at home or at work is experiencing abuse of any kind. It is also essential that if you are worried that someone is neglecting themselves that you know who to tell.

We urge you to report your concerns.

If you want to know more about our policies, Local Safeguarding Adults Board, leaflets, posters and more please visit our Safeguarding Adults Website



In all our Newsletters we hope to dedicate our final section to providing useful information for people who use Health and Social Care Services and their families.

As this Newsletter is focused on providing people with information on Adult Safeguarding and the Mental Capacity Act, we thought it would be useful to offer links to some resources that clearly explain what these areas of Policy and Government Legislation are all about.

For local information about Adult Safeguarding in Gloucestershire you can visit our website by clicking here on the link

www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/gsab

This main page has sections with all the information you need to understand Adult Safeguarding, and also has the numbers to call should you expect that a adult you know or care for is being abused.

There are many other resources out there that also explain how you can make sure you are keeping your relative or loved one safe.

www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/gsab/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=47742&p=0

The Safeguarding Adults Board wish for the content and future development of the Safeguarding Adults and Mental Capacity Act Newsletter to be led by the views and voices of Safeguarding Practitioners, Health and Social Care Professionals, Provider Services, the voluntary and community sector and people who use services and their families.

So if you have information or work you wish to share, ideas for future articles, suggestions for improving the newsletter or questions you wish to pose you can do this by emailing:

[email protected]

We would also ask that all professionals and providers share this News-letter with all the people and families they support.

Information on Safeguarding Adults, Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training can be found via this link

www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/gsab/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=47742&p=0

GC

C_1

633

7.1

6

The information obtained for this newsletter comes from a wide variety of sources; articles do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Safeguarding Adults Board. Inclusion of an article, insert or advert does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation.

We endeavour where we can to give information on the sources used by providing links to websites where the information has been obtained from. Sometimes sites do move and links can be broken which we have no control over.

http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/gsab/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=64911&p=0

http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/gsab/article/109960/Home-Page

Documents

Mental Capacity Act and - Gloucestershire · though some amendments to the MCA may be proposed to reinforce those Article 8 concerns (adding emphasis on P’s wishes in best interests