Search

Purpose – The Zone of Parental Control (ZPC) is a concept that has been introduced in the Code of Practice for the revised Mental Health Act 1983, but guidance on its scope remains scanty. The purpose of this paper is to bring together recent rulings from case law and the original guidance, and make suggestions for clinicians when deciding if an intervention is within the Zone. Design/methodology/approach – Review and examination of case law, legislation and legal guidance. Findings – Deprivations of liberty fall outside the ZPC, but restrictions of liberty lie within; parental disagreement with care correlates strongly with care that lies outside the ZPC. Originality/value – The findings of this article should aid clinicians in deciding whether a treatment regime lies within the ZPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – This paper aims to summarize the work of the Court of Protection. Design/methodology/approach – The paper outlines the history and range of applications within the jurisdiction of the Court, drawing from the Mental Capacity Act and the Code of Practice. Reference is made to annual reports of the work of the court which profile its workload. Finally there is a review of a line of case law dealing with the question of media attendance and reporting of cases before the court. Findings – The Court in its current form was established under The Mental Capacity Act, 2005 and is a significant decision-making body in the UK within adult safeguarding practice concerning adults whose decision-making capacity is impaired. The implications of several specific cases are discussed. Originality/value – This paper provides a unique insight into the work of the Court of Protection and the implications of recent decisions by the Court for adult safeguarding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose -- This paper seeks to consider the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and, in particular, the extent to which the functions of supervisory bodies can, or should be, performed as part of wider "safeguarding" responsibilities. Design/methodology/approach -- The paper reports the views of practitioners, given in response to comments made by the Care Quality Commission. Findings -- Some practitioners believe that DoLS and safeguarding functions should be consolidated, and some, that they should remain discrete; most, however, accept that the two functions should work closely together, and also that an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act is important for each; there is a suspicion that DoLS-activity is greatest where the two functions are kept discrete (and, it is assumed, DoLS practitioners therefore have more to prove); there is also concern about financing, particularly within discrete DoLS services, and, furthermore, some suspicion about the whole business of "safeguarding"; the Neary case continues to cast a long shadow. Originality/value -- This is believed to be the first time practitioners' views have been sought or at least published on this question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – Commissioned as part of a Joseph Rowntree Foundation scoping programme, this consultation aims to explore the views of disabled people and service users about risk. Design/methodology/approach – The consultation reached nine individuals and one focus group, reaching a total of 17 disabled people and service users. Their views were supplemented by the literature. Findings – The landscape of risk and rights is highly complex. Disabled people and service users have quite different concerns about risk to those of the professionals and the regulatory bodies acting on their behalf. Many people talked of the fear of losing their independence, of asserting their rights and the fear of powerlessness in the face of bureaucracy and (sometimes) uncaring staff. Research limitations/implications – The profile of rights needs to be raised in an accessible and acceptable way: it is necessary to make the language of rights more commonplace. There is a particular need to reach into mental health and residential care services to find ways of enabling people to have their rights realised. The report has implications for risk assessment and risk management as well as for the regulatory bodies responsible in adult social care. Raising awareness among professionals and policy makers about the risks that service users themselves fear and experience should demonstrate just how important it is that the people whose risk is under consideration are involved in the process. Originality/value – This paper highlights the views of users of adult social care about risk; their views have rarely been documented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]