We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Clinicians need to be vigilant about whether the court’s intervention is required because of a dispute or specific legal requirement in relation to their patient. Circumstances may arise when it is necessary to obtain authority from a court regarding the lawfulness of a treatment (either to be given or withdrawn) when a patient refuses, lacks capacity or there is a difference of opinion regarding best interests. In other cases, a judgment from the court may protect a clinician from claims that they have acted unlawfully. Of course, the courts are also there to safeguard the welfare of the patient. We discuss the role of the First-Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) and that of decision-making capacity of patients to participate in tribunal proceedings. We then explain the Court of Protection and its powers, and the pathways for application to the court, as well as the evidence that a clinician may be required to provide. We consider common health and welfare cases that the Court of Protection may be asked to decide on and then discuss the role of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in protecting the vulnerable but capacitous.
Discharge planning of older people with dementia to a domestic or care home setting can present difficult practical, legal and ethical dilemmas to the hospital clinician. There may be a different and challenging profile of risks whichever strategy is pursued, but undoubtedly the issue of where someone lives or the care they receive has profound personal importance. Decision-making around these issues exemplifies the tension between preserving autonomy and protection of the individual. A hospital admission can act as a watershed point whereby a view is taken that the person requires a different approach to their care. If the person comes from a domestic setting, this may lead to instigating or modifying an existing care package or moving to a care home. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that the services available in the community for this large and growing patient group are inadequate, the applicable legal framework itself is often complex and unwieldy and, inevitably, the planning process involves more than a single agency. We discuss the key legislation, guidance and processes relating to discharge of a person with dementia from both general and psychiatric hospital settings.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.