Understanding the interface between the Mental Capacity Act’s Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (MCA-DoLS) and the Mental Health Act (MHA)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The background to the Mental Capacity Act's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (the MCA-DoLS) regulations, which were introduced in 2009, lies in the European Convention on Human Rights.Their aim is to protect adults with a mental disorder who lack capacity to make decisions about arrangements for their care and treatment in psychiatric or general ('acute') hospitals and care homes and may be at risk of having limits that go beyond mere restriction or restraint placed on their freedom of movement.According to the regulations that set out the MCA-DoLS procedure, a deprivation of liberty, which must always be in the 'best interests' of the person to whom it applies, can only be authorised by an independent body, the Supervisory Body, following an application by a Managing Authority on behalf of a clinical team and the completion of six assessments.In contrast with care homes, in settings such as psychiatric hospitals where the Mental Health Act (MHA) can also be used, a decision may need to be made between the two statutory frameworks for civil detention.In order to provide recommendations for policy and practice, we set out to examine, first, how practitioners make decisions between the MCA-DoLS and the MHA, and, secondly, the characteristics of, and outcomes for, men and women for whom applications for, and authorisations of, a deprivation of liberty are made.The study, which was carried out from November 2010 to November 2011 used information from a number of sources.Three Supervisory Bodies, covering an ethnically diverse population of 1.7 million across metropolitan, urban, and rural areas provided anonymised completed copies of the Department of Health's standard application and key assessment Forms.We also analysed the text of other standard Forms; carried out semi-structured interviews with individuals with key roles in the application, assessment and/or authorisation process; presented brief clinical vignettes to psychiatrists and others; attended events and meetings with practitioners; and held discussions with representatives of the three Supervisory Bodies to confirm issues relating to emerging themes.In addition, data relating to the MCA-DoLS from the Health and Social Care Information Centre were collected and compared with information about the use of the MHA in order to examine and compare the characteristics and experiences of men and women subject to the two different legal frameworks.While concerns were expressed by practitioners regarding, for example, the Code of Practice and the status of guidance that is occasionally issued by the Department of We are grateful to many people: in particular, the representatives of the three Supervisory Bodies: Ms Emma Ekwegh, Mr Stephen Vickers and Mr Joseph Yow, and their colleagues,
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,030 | 0,068 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,039 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,020 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».