Agenda item

To consider a briefing note of the Director of the Adult Social Care.

The briefing note sets out the background and current issues surrounding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This update was requested at the last meeting of the Scrutiny Committee.

Officer Contact: Mark Fitton, 0161 474 3198, mark.fitton@stockport.gov.uk

The Director of Adult Social Care submitted a briefing (copies of which had been circulated) on the current issues surrounding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the challenges for the Council in complying with its legal duties.

Nuala O’Rouke, Head of Safeguarding and Education attended the meeting to present the briefing and answer questions from Councillors.

The following issues were highlighted:

·           The Council had a small central team of officers who would carry out assessments plus staff in neighbourhood teams trained to do this work.

·           A Best Interest assessment could take between 7-14 hours. A mental health assessment was also required that involved input from a consultant psychiatrist. The combination of these two assessments was necessary to agree to deprive someone of their liberty. There was a requirement to reassess at least every 12 months.

·           Due to the volume of applications these were triaged based on need. There were currently 194 high priority cases.

·           Following both internal and external legal advice it has been agreed that it were better not to begin an assessment unless there were capacity to sign it off as there were a legal higher risk if an assessment identified a particular need that was not then acted upon.

·           Much of the activity associated with an assessment was of little value to the individual, but the triage was done on basis of the need of the patients not about the risk to the Council.

·           Additional staffing capacity had been provided to attempt to reduce the back-log of applications and to support frontline colleagues in undertaking assessments. Attempts were also made to use the process to add value, such as tying it in to other reviews.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·           Was there an explanation for the increase in DoLS applications? In response it was stated that numbers fluctuated but the high number was likely to reflect the older and aging demographic profile of Stockport.

·           Anticipated changes to the law would reduce the bureaucratic burden of the process and allow the process to be mainstream activity. There was a balance to be struck between investment now to address the back-log and the likely reducing burden.

·           What were the safeguards to the appropriate use of a DoLS? In response it was stated that the process was about assessing best interest and the impact on the individual of depriving them of their liberty. There was always an independent representative that was part of the process who was able to refer the case to Court of Protection if they believed the deprivation of liberty inappropriate.

·           Previously in was the case a person subject to a DOLS dying would trigger a coroner’s inquest but this was no longer the case unless there were other factors that warranted it.

·           While an application was being processed would a care provide proceed as if a DoLS were in place? In response it was stated that this was likely the case although there were a range of other safeguards and processes that monitored individuals in care homes.

·           Were care homes at legal risk if DoLS were not in place for a resident? In response it was stated that it was the Council who bore the risk once the application is made. The financial risks were relatively small so there would need to be a considerable pressure to warrant the expenditure required to clear the backlog. A DoLS assessment was not about the safety of an individual as there were other safeguards for that purpose, but instead was use to determine need based on the impact on individual.

·           Did Mental Health Act detention involve DoLS and was it open to the same challenge? In response it was confirmed that these were separate processes. In the case of depriving an individual of liberty in the realm of DoLS it had to be for treatment and because they were not able to object.

RESOLVED – (1) That the report be noted and Nuala O’Rouke be thanked for her attendance and presentation.

(2) That the Director for Adult Social Care be requested to report back to the Scrutiny Committee once the anticipated legal changes to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards regime had been made.