Acute Ward Case Study

4521 Words19 Pages
PRACTICE ANALYSIS ALL NAMES AND OTHER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION HAVE BEEN CHANGED IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INDIVIDUALS DISCUSSED IN THIS ASSIGNMENT. In this analysis I will describe a best interest assessment that I shadowed, on an acute ward in a city hospital. I will consider the legal and policy framework and go on to explore the assessment process itself, with an emphasis on the best interest assessment and particular areas of conflict and learning for me as a practitioner. Finally I will look at the ‘bigger picture’ regarding the use of the safeguards nationally and the complexities and ongoing challenges for service users and those trying to use them to protect an individual’s human rights. Background. Mr…show more content…
He had assessed Mr Brooks capacity using the two part diagnostic and functional capacity test outlined in the MCA 2005 Code of Practice (s4 (11) to s 4 (25). Although Mr Brooks was able to repeatedly communicate his wish to return home, he was unable to understand and retain important information about his condition and need for support. This undermined his ability to weigh up risks associated with leaving the ward, for example in relation to traffic or getting lost. He was therefore assessed as not having capacity related to this decision. Mental health assessment This assessment is carried out by a section 12 doctor, or ‘an appropriately qualified and experienced registered medical practitioner’ (4.35 DoLS CoP 2008). It determines whether the person is suffering from a mental disorder as defined in the Mental Health Act (MHA)1983 and considers the likely impact of a deprivation of liberty on the persons mental state through discussion with the best interests assessor. Eligibility…show more content…
Poor communication and disagreements between care providers and family have been a significant feature in several high profile cases, such as the “Neary’ case (LB Hillingdon v Neary)[3] where the local authority prevented Steven Neary from returning home and restricted contact with his family. Mr Brook’s son was consulted and would have been later appointed as his ‘representative’ with the task of providing his father with independent representation throughout the deprivation of liberty process and ‘triggering a review’ on his fathers behalf if he felt it necessary (7 DoLS CoP 2008). He understood and supported the measures being taken, seeing them as necessary to protect his father and therefore in his best interests. Had Mr Brooks not had a suitable representative, i.e.’ nobody appropriate to consult’, as defined by the DoLS Code of Practice 2008, the supervisory body would have instructed an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) on receipt of the application from the managing authority, which would have ensured that his rights were protected. (3.22 DoLS CoP

More about Acute Ward Case Study

Open Document