Nearly 30,000 People In Need Of Care Were Wrongfully Deprived Of Their Liberty In 2015/16
According to figures taken from the 2015/16 data
collection of the DoLS Mental Capacity Act 2005, 28,530 people were illegally
restrained, sedated, or had their liberty deprived in English hospitals and
care homes during the 2015/16 period.
The DoLs (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) was
introduced in 2009. They are a group of legal requirements designed to ensure
that individuals are only deprived of their liberty as part of their care when
approved. Care homes and hospitals must submit and have their completed
applications approved by their local authority
Huge Increase in Completed DoLs Applications in 2015/16 (Councils)
105,055 completed Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards
(DoLS) applications were reported in 2015/16. This is an increase of 68 percent
when compared to the 62,645 completed applications in 2014-15. Of the 105,055
completed applications for 2015/16, councils rejected 28,530, or almost a
third.
Another potentially worrying figure, is that the
North East has the highest rate of completed applications. With 665
applications per 100,000 residents. It was more than twice that of the South
West at 258, which was the next highest region.
The rejected applications are a cause of major
concern though, especially in regards to individuals suffering from dementia.
51 percent of the 206,010 individual DoLs applications originally filled out in
2015/16 suffered from dementia
Nearly 30,000 People Wrongfully Deprived of their Liberty
Martina Kane, from the charity Alzheimer’s Society
was quoted as saying: “It is disgraceful that nearly 30,000 people were
wrongfully deprived of their liberty, and in over a quarter of cases
practitioners are still locking people in, sedating them, restraining them or
otherwise treating them as second class citizens.
The senior policy officer for the Alzheimer’s
Society continued
“Depriving someone of their liberty should always
be a last resort and only ever done in someone’s best interests.”, and added:
“It is crucial that the quality of care provided to
people with dementia is improved to ensure that.”
Reasons for DoLs Application Rejections
In 2015/16, English local authorities rejected
28,530 completed applications for the following reasons
- 27% failed to meet six assessment criteria.
- 30% of the individuals died before their assessment was completed.
- 43% were refused as the circumstances of the individual’s concerned had changed.
Although the law states that care providers must
seek authorisation before they deprive an individual of their liberty, the
Alzheimer’s Society says that reality is very different.
They claim that applications are made when an
individual is already being deprived of their rights. Thus, they arrive at the
figure of nearly 30,000 being illegally deprived during 2015/16.
A Potential Solution to the Problem
One solution to the problem, according to a
spokeswoman speaking on behalf of the Alzheimer’s Society, is to give
individuals suffering with dementia much higher quality care.
This would significantly reduce the total number of
DoLs applications, and this would lead to a reduction in the number of people
wrongfully deprived of their liberty.
Initial Reasons For The Increase In Applications
The number of DoLs applications increased in
2015/16 to record levels due to what is known as the Cheshire West ruling. This
ruling made by the Supreme Court in March 2014 effectively lowered the
requirements for what might constitute a deprivation of liberty. The result of
this, was that between 2014-2015/16, the amount of completed applications
submitted by care providers for councils to assess has increased ten times.
The ruling in the Cheshire West case (P v Cheshire
West and Chester Council and P&Q v Surrey County Council) acted as
clarification as to what exactly a deprivation of liberty is, and when an
application should be made.
In its most basic form, a DoLs application should
be made when a person does not have the ability to consent to their own care
arrangements, is not free to leave their care environment, and/or requires
supervision under a continuous basis. In this sense, the Alzheimer’s Society
spokeswoman has a point in saying that in most cases, applications are made
retroactively.
Huge Delays In Signing Off Completed Applications
There is also a time component to submitting a completed
application to the local authority for assessment. Urgent applications should
be assessed within seven days, and all other applications must be decided upon
within 21 days.
The reality is very different though. Due to the
huge increase in the number of applications, local authorities have found
themselves unable to keep up. This has resulted in a significant backlog of
applications, some of which have extended to over six months.
In the 2015-16 period, only 10% of urgent
applications were signed off within the required seven days. 29% of urgent
applications were completed within 21 days, with the rest extending further.
The effects of the backlogs are still continuing.
Over 40% of the completed applications received by English councils during the
2015/16 period had not been signed off by the end of that period. Of those 40%,
half of them had been waiting up to 188 days to be completed, and this number
also included 21,370 delayed urgent applications.
Multiple DoLs Applications Number Over 32000
Another consequence of the backlogs caused by the
DoLs scheme, is that in 2015/16 32,750 people had more than one application. Of
these, 4,445 had three applications, and 1,345 had more than four. This is
perhaps a problem caused by the system, but also surely adding to it.
Will the DoLs Law Be Changed?
In response to the evident problems with the
system, the Law Commission has been asked by the government to find an
alternative to the DoLs scheme. They acknowledge that the impact of the
Cheshire West ruling has placed English councils under significant pressure,
and increased their workloads.
For more information on the ‘Mental Capacity Act
2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (England), Annual Report 2015-16’
visit:
No comments:
Post a Comment