MCA DoLS Service
London Borough of Lambeth
31 December 2010
Dear Ms Series,
Please find below the answers to your questions regarding the Freedom of Information request (Information on deprivation of liberty authorisations) you made to the London Borough of Lambeth on 6 December 2010.
As requested, these figures only include standard authorisation requests received from care homes and not hospitals, and only cover the period from 1 April 2009 to 1 November 2010.
Please be advised that I have had to clarify my answers to your questions to take account of the correct terminology that should be used.
1)How many applications for urgent authorisations for a deprivation of liberty have you received from managing authorities of care homes?
The Supervisory Body does not receive applications for urgent authorisations – the Managing Authority issues the urgent authorisation to itself, independent of the Supervisory Body. For any urgent authorisation that is issued, the Supervisory Body receives the accompanying standard authorisation request in respect of the relevant person.
The number of standard authorisation requests the London Borough of Lambeth has received where there was also an urgent authorisation issued in respect of the relevant person is 25.
2)How many applications for standard authorisations for a deprivation of liberty have you received from managing authorities of care homes? (Please count separate applications relating to the same individual as separate).
In light of the response provided for question one I have rephrased the response to question two.
The number of standalone standard authorisation requests the London Borough of Lambeth has received (i.e. those requests where there was no urgent authorisation issued in respect of the relevant person) is 61.
3)How many of these applications for urgent authorisations for a deprivation of liberty have been rejected because they failed the ‘best interests’ assessment?
Of the 25 standard authorisation requests the London Borough of Lambeth has received where there was also an urgent authorisation issued in respect of the relevant person, NINE failed to meet the best interests requirement.
a. How many of these best interests assessments have failed on the grounds that the detention is not in a person’s best interests and where a deprivation of liberty has been found to be already occurring? FIVE
Please note that in two of these five cases, the BIA found that the person was NOT being kept in the care home in circumstances that amounted to deprivingthem of their liberty; however, the BIA did tick box E1 on Form 10 (the best interests assessment) which indicated that the person waslikely to be subject to anunauthorised deprivation of liberty.
4)How many of these applications for a standard authorisation for a deprivation of liberty have been rejected because they failed the ‘best interests’ assessment?
Of the 61 standalone standard authorisation requests the London Borough of Lambeth has received, 41 failed to meet the best interests requirement.
a. How many of these best interests assessments have failed on the grounds that the detention, where it is felt it will occur, will not be a in person’s ‘best interests’? NONE
5)How many section 39C IMCA’s have been appointed in total to represent people who are subject to a deprivation of liberty authorisation application in a care home?
FOUR Section 39C IMCAs have been appointed to represent relevant persons subject to a deprivation of liberty authorisation in a care home.
6)How many section 39D IMCA’s have been appointed in total to represent people who are subject to a deprivation of liberty authorisation application in a care home?
Section 39D IMCAs are not appointed to represent people subject to a deprivation of liberty; they are appointed to provide support to either the relevant person who is subject to a deprivation of liberty authorisation, their representative, or both the relevant person and the RPR.
The number of Section 39D IMCAs that have been appointed is ONE.
7)How many cases have occurred where the deprivation of liberty authorisation has been appealed in the Court of Protection? NONE
a. In how many of those cases, if any, did the Court overturn the deprivation of liberty authorisation?NOT APPLICABLE
b. In how many of those cases, if any, did the Court place further conditions on the deprivation of liberty authorisation?NOT APPLICABLE
8)In how many instances has the deprivation of liberty assessment process been triggered by a third party contacting the supervisory body about a possible unlawful deprivation of liberty?NONE
To clarify, the London Borough of Lambeth has received two third party requests to assess whether or not unauthorised deprivation of liberty is occurring. However in both cases, the deprivation of liberty assessment process was not triggered since the BIA found that there was no deprivation of liberty occurring.
9)In how many instances has the deprivation of liberty assessment process been triggered by the Care Quality Commission contacting the supervisory body about a possible unlawful deprivation of liberty? NONE
10) Separately, for standard and urgent applications, please indicate which authorizations related to people whose care was funded by the local authority and those where funding was provided by other sources (e.g. health funding, privately commissioned etc).
Of the 25 standard authorisation requests the London Borough of Lambeth has received where there was also an urgent authorisation issued in respect of the relevant person,
20 were for people whose care was funded by the London Borough of Lambeth,
ONE was for a person whose care was jointly funded by the London Borough of Lambeth and the Integrated Mental Health Service,
ONE was for a person whose care was funded by the Integrated Mental Health Service,
ONE was for a person whose care was funded by Lambeth PCT, and
ONE was for a person whose care was funded by Croydon PCT,
ONE was for a person whose care was privately funded.
Of the 61 standalone standard authorisation requests the London Borough of Lambeth has received,
37 were for people whose care was funded by the London Borough of Lambeth,
FOUR were for people whose care was funded by the Integrated Mental Health Service,
SEVEN were for peoplewhose care was funded by Lambeth PCT,
SIX were for peoplewhose care was funded by Croydon PCT,
ONE was for a person whose care was funded by Greenwich PCT,
ONE was for a person whose care was funded by Lewisham PCT,
TWO were for peoplewhose care was funded by Sutton & Merton PCT,and
THREE were for peoplewhose care was privately funded.
Data supplied by Emma Ekwegh, MCA DoLS Service Coordinator.