Archive

Tag Archives: mental-health

Evidence of New / Escalating Criticism of Lincolnshire Adult Social Care

Ombudsman / Care Act Failures

A recent (April 2025) LGO decision (ref 24-003-962) found fault in how LCC (via Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Trust, acting for LCC) handled a Care Act assessment and care plan for a person with mental and physical health needs. Specifically: no advocate was involved despite communication difficulties, care was inconsistent, and there was poor communication / information-sharing — this caused distress. Local Government Ombudsman

Another case (Centre for Adults’ Social Care report, June 2025) describes a woman with complex mental health needs whose move into the county triggered fragmented / inadequate support. LCC (via its partner trust) failed to provide consistent care, arranging too few hours vs her assessed need, and she suffered distress, hospital admissions, and isolation. cascaidr.org.uk

A separate Ombudsman ruling (July 2025) relates to transition from children’s to adult services. LCC made “errors in care package decisions and communications” for a young adult with disabilities (including transport for day-centre attendance), causing her to miss care. cascaidr.org.uk+1

Healthwatch Lincolnshire Feedback

The Healthwatch Lincolnshire report (2025) includes a case (Feb 2025) of an adult social care user whose health needs were compromised because of lack of proper care provision. According to the report, the person is a wheelchair user and needs increased care post-operation, but LCC could not guarantee provision for that increased care, leading to the cancellation of a surgery. Healthwatch Data

While this is not explicitly “mental health care,” it shows stress / risk in how adult social care assesses and responds to changing care-need demands — including when health interventions (surgery) would make care needs temporarily more intense.

Local Media / Policy

Lincolnshire World reported very recently (Oct 2025) that LCC officials are considering reducing the number of “active recovery beds” (mental-health-related step-down beds) from 29 to 24. That’s a significant signal: reducing capacity in part of the mental health recovery system could be seen as cutting back or deprioritising mental health care for adults. LincolnshireWorld

Complaint Statistics

In its 2024–2025 complaints report, LCC notes that 23 complaints from that year were escalated to the LGSCO about adult care. Lincolnshire County Council

While not all these will be about mental health, it suggests a non-trivial volume of serious complaints in the adult care sphere.

Interpretation & Assessment

The Ombudsman findings are the strongest concrete evidence: there are real cases where LCC has failed to provide or plan care properly for people with mental health or complex needs. These are not isolated paperwork mistakes, they have caused distress and had a material negative impact.

The Healthwatch case indicates that some people struggle to get social care to respond when their health needs (which may interact with mental health) change. That could suggest capacity / resource problems in LCC’s adult social care provision.

The proposal to reduce active recovery beds is worrying: if implemented, it could worsen recovery pathways for people needing step-down mental health care. That could be a policy direction that reduces service rather than expands it.

However, the CQC’s most recent (pilot) assessment of LCC adult social care is still “Good”, which means from a regulator’s perspective, the overall adult social care system is functioning reasonably well (though not without room for improvement, especially in certain pathways). Lincolnshire County Council+2Care Quality Commission+2

There is new and escalating criticism of LCC’s mental-health-related adult care: through Ombudsman decisions, Healthwatch reports, and potentially in policy (bed reductions).

The criticisms are not wholesale systemic collapse, but they do raise serious concerns about how well LCC is meeting the needs of vulnerable adults — particularly those with complex mental health or changing care needs.

Some of the key pressure points: assessment and care planning, continuity / consistency of care, capacity in recovery services, and responsiveness to changing needs.

Briefing Summary: Criticisms of LCC Adult Mental Health Care (2023–2025)

1. Financial & Demand Pressures

LCC’s 2024/25 financial performance review reports a significant overspend in mental health adult care:

Community supported living (for working-age / mental health clients) overspent by £3.2 million, of which £1,060,000 relates to “Growth in demand for DoLS / LPS” (Liberty Protection Safeguards) due to a much higher-than-expected increase in client numbers (94 new clients vs 25) planned). lincolnshire.moderngov.co.uk+2lincolnshire.moderngov.co.uk+2

Long-term residential mental health care also saw growth: 27 new clients, resulting in a £0.408 million overspend. lincolnshire.moderngov.co.uk+1

Short-term care (mental health) clients exceeded budgeted numbers, adding further financial pressure. lincolnshire.moderngov.co.uk+1

The budget for 2025/26 continues to forecast rising demand in mental health: LCC recognizes a 3–6% annual growth in working-age / mental health service demand. lincolnshire.moderngov.co.uk

In its executive meeting (Aug 2025), the Overview & Scrutiny Management Board flagged this as a “volatile and risk-based” budget area, with ongoing close monitoring. lincolnshire.moderngov.co.uk

Implication: LCC may be under-estimating both the scale and pace of demand growth for mental health care, risking repeated overspends and service strain.

2. Service Reduction Controversies – Active Recovery Beds

Local media (LincolnshireWorld) report that LCC is proposing to reduce the number of Active Recovery Beds (ARBs) from 29 to 24. LincolnshireWorld

These beds are used for people stepping down from hospital but not yet ready to return home, reducing them could limit “step-down” capacity. LincsOnline+1

The Council argues the reduction aligns with “presenting demand” and will improve occupancy (from ~70% to ~90%). LincolnshireWorld

However, some councillors have expressed concern: e.g., whether this reduction under-provides in the face of broader NHS / social care pressures. LincolnshireWorld+1

Implication: The proposed cut could undermine recovery capacity; critics worry demand may outstrip reduced supply, especially as patients leave hospital.

Ombudsman Findings – Assessment & Care Planning Failures

In LGO decision 24-003-962 (April 2025), the Ombudsman upheld a complaint against LCC:

LCC (via its partner, Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Trust) failed to provide reasonable adjustments in a Care Act assessment despite the complainant’s mental and physical health issues. Local Government Ombudsman

The decision-making was inconsistent: carers were not familiar with her, there was inadequate handover, and no advocate was involved even when needed. Local Government Ombudsman

The Council also made housing decisions (moving the person) that the Ombudsman found unsuitable. Local Government Ombudsman As a remedy: LCC must apologise and pay a sum to acknowledge the injustice caused. Local Government Ombudsman

A separate Cascaidr analysis (July 2025) highlights another case: LCC failed to properly manage a care package for a person with mental health and possibly autistic traits. Adult Social Care Centre

The complaint noted that LCC did not properly assess the person’s capacity or share information with providers, leaving her without adequate support. Adult Social Care Centre

The analysis argues that LCC’s assessment systems / legal understanding may be weak in dealing with complex, capacity-fluctuating mental health cases. Adult Social Care Centre

Another Cascaidr / Ombudsman case (Sept 2025): poor management of transition from children’s to adult services for a young woman with disabilities (including mental health / supportive needs). Adult Social Care Centre

The Council initially promised transport + day-centre attendance but later withdrew transport without confirming that a closer centre could meet her needs, resulting in missed care. Adult Social Care Centre

The Ombudsman found LCC at fault: decisions were made without fully checking alternatives; communication was confusing; and there was procedural failure in its authorisation processes. Adult Social Care Centre

The Council was required to apologise and pay a symbolic amount, and to remind staff about proper internal authorisation procedures. Adult Social Care Centre

Implication: There appear to be systemic weaknesses in LCC’s assessment, planning, and communication processes especially for people with complex mental health needs or transitioning from children’s services. This raises risk of unmet need, distress, and legal non-compliance.

Local Advocacy / Healthwatch Voice

Healthwatch Lincolnshire’s 2024/25 Annual Report shows increasing engagement, but also highlights challenges: while not all issues are mental health–specific, many concern social care access, capacity, and unmet needs. healthwatchlincolnshire.co.uk

In the 2024–25 interim work plan, Healthwatch identified “influencing decision-makers” and “addressing underrepresented groups” as key priorities, suggesting they are pushing for more responsive, inclusive care provision. healthwatchlincolnshire.co.uk

Local media commentary (LincolnshireWorld) also notes LCC acknowledging rising complexity in mental health care packages and growing costs:

“a major contributor to cost pressures … an increase in demand and complexity of mental health services.” LincolnshireWorld

Implication: Local citizen-led organisations are raising the alarm about escalating demand, growing complexity, and pressures on mental health adult care — suggesting these are not just financial issues but affect quality and accessibility.

Strategic & Systemic Risks

During a Council Executive meeting (July 2025), a councillor (Steve Clegg) explicitly questioned LCC’s mental health community support overspend. The Executive Director (Adult Care) acknowledged demand is rising “faster than elsewhere” and hinted at concerns over the quality of existing service delivery. Open Council Network

LCC’s written evidence to Parliament (recent submission) also warns that demand for adult mental health care is exceeding previous forecasts, putting “increasingly strained” pressure on the system. UK Parliament Committees

Implication: The financial and service pressures are not short-term or one-off: there’s a real risk that demand continues to outpace LCC’s capacity, potentially degrading care quality or forcing tough decisions (like bed cuts).

Overall Summary

Demand is rising fast: LCC is seeing more working-age / mental health adult clients than budgeted for, driving large cost overruns.

Service capacity is under threat: Proposed reductions in Active Recovery Beds raise concerns about recovery pathways.

Professional standards are being questioned: Ombudsman decisions show LCC sometimes fails in assessments, support planning, and legal duties, especially for those with complex, fluctuating mental health needs.

Local voices (Healthwatch, Councillors) are pushing back: There is growing unease about how LCC is managing this demand, both financially and in terms of service delivery.

Strategic risk is real: Unless LCC adapts, by increasing capacity, improving assessment processes, and planning strategically — there is a danger that its mental health adult care provision will become unsustainable.

A separate Cascaidr analysis (July 2025) highlights another case: LCC failed to properly manage a care package for a person with mental health and possibly autistic traits. Adult Social Care Centre

The complaint noted that LCC did not properly assess the person’s capacity or share information with providers, leaving her without adequate support. Adult Social Care Centre

The analysis argues that LCC’s assessment systems / legal understanding may be weak in dealing with complex, capacity‑fluctuating mental health casesAdult Social Care Centre

The Care Act 2014 requires councils to assess any adult who appears to need care and support, regardless of financial circumstances, and to involve the individual and any carer or anyone else they wish to be involved. Assessments must be timely, involve the person, and consider their wellbeing and desired outcomes. Care and support plans must be co-produced, include a personal budget, and be responsive to changing needs. 

When a person moves between council areas, there are statutory duties to ensure continuity of care (section 37), but they do depend on the destination council knowing that the person is on their way. 

Councils must also consider reasonable adjustments for communication and mental health needs, and ensure advocacy is provided where it is triggered by the concept of the person’s substantial difficulty engaging in the Care Act processes of assessment, care planning or revision (regardless of having a willing relative) without one being appointed. 

The failure to provide adequate care and support, or to arrange advocacy, is a breach of statutory duty.  It renders the assessment invalid, in community care and public law and that has been the case since the Haringey judgment in 2015.

Every year, tens of thousands of vulnerable adults, elderly people with dementia, individuals with learning disabilities, psychiatric patients are subject to care decisions under the UK’s Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The Act was designed as a safeguard: to ensure their rights, to assess whether they can make decisions, and to limit the use of coercion. But a growing body of evidence suggests that many Local Authorities and NHS trusts are failing at that mission. Rather than protecting autonomy, systems designed to shield people from abuse may be enabling institutional convenience.

A System Under Pressure

According to the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the system overseeing deprivation of liberty is creaking. Their 2023–24 report on DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) found that many supervisory bodies are “significantly under-resourced.” Some local authorities told CQC they lack enough assessors and cannot keep pace with soaring demand. Care Quality Commission

One local authority said they would “be doing this for around 18 months just to clear” their backlog if no new applications came in. Care Quality Commission

The problem: only 19 % of DoLS applications are completed within the legal limit of 21 days; many people wait between 12–18 months. Local Government Lawyer+2Care Quality Commission+2

Resource-constrained councils cite staffing shortages and rising caseloads as the key drivers. Local Government Lawyer

This is not a quirk – it’s systemic. SCIE (the Social Care Institute for Excellence) analysis shows 67% of local authorities assessed by the CQC still “require improvement” in their DoLS arrangements. Local Government Lawyer

When Safeguards Are Delayed, Rights Are Denied

The delays are not harmless. In some cases, people who should have formal protections under the MCA are left in legal limbo. The Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has repeatedly raised red flags:

In a high-profile case, Surrey County Council had 5,700 outstanding DoLS requests as of 31 March 2022. Bond Solon

The average time to complete an assessment in that area was 345 days, more than double the national average of 154 days. Bond Solon

The Ombudsman found that Surrey appeared to rely on an “ADASS screening tool” to prioritise, but in so doing, “were not following the legal criteria contained in the Mental Capacity Act … around time frames.” Bond Solon

In another case, Southampton City Council was criticized for its high numbers of outstanding MCA assessments and DoLS applications (382 and 404 respectively), and for delaying assessments so long that people were restricted without the legal protections they ought to have. Local Government Lawyer

Misunderstanding, Misapplication, and Mis-training

Many of the problems stem not only from resource scarcity, but from widespread misunderstanding of the MCA among professionals:

Poor Understanding by Providers

In its 2022–23 monitoring report, CQC found that some providers did not properly implement the conditions of DoLS authorisations (e.g., access to places of worship or visits), meaning the restrictions imposed might not actually reflect the person’s best interests. Care Quality Commission There was also “poor recording of mental capacity assessments.” Care Quality Commission

In some mental health settings, CQC observed that staff did not clearly understand the interface between the MCA and the Mental Health Act, leading to poor decisions about which framework to use. Care Quality Commission

Lack of Training & Governance

According to a CQC report from 2013, care staff often misunderstood even the basics of the MCA, restraint was not always recorded or considered properly, and “best interests” decisions were sometimes poorly documented. Care Quality Commission

The same report noted that, in some services, there was little attempt to maximise a person’s capacity before resorting to restrictions. Care Quality Commission

Mental Capacity Law and Policy (a specialist commentary) analysed 139 “Notices of Proposal” from 2023–24 (when new providers were registering) and found that 66 related explicitly to noncompliance with the MCA. Mental Capacity Law and Policy

Institutional Incentives Over Individuals’ Best Interests

Beyond lack of training, some systemic incentives risk tilting decisions in favour of institutions rather than individuals:

The Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) argues that resource pressures are pushing councils toward “triage approaches”: using screening tools to prioritise some cases, leaving others in backlog indefinitely. Local Government Lawyer

CQC’s State of Care report observed a “wide variation” in how different local authorities manage applications, with some applying blanket restrictions to all residents, even when less restrictive options might suffice—raising the question of whether these measures are more about institutional convenience than individual rights. Community Care

In its analysis, CQC also noted a “misconception among some providers that a DoLS application equated to an authorisation being in place.” In other words, some staff may believe applying for DoLS is enough, without fully thinking through what restraints should or should not be authorised. Community Care

Consequences for People

The human cost is considerable. The Health & Care Professionals Alliance (HCPA) published a report, The Right to Decide, collating investigations by the Ombudsman:

One person was removed from their family home in the dead of night without prior notice, without formal capacity assessments. HCPA

Another was moved 15 miles away to a care home, but no adequate best-interests process had been documented; friends and family felt cut out of decision-making. HCPA

In a third case, the complaint upheld by the Ombudsman noted that organizations had failed to collaborate and ensure the person received the care they actually needed, rather than what was convenient. HCPA

Over one year (2016–17), the Ombudsman estimated that up to 20% of adult social care complaints they investigated concerned capacity or DoLS; 69% of those cases were upheld, indicating systemic failure. HCPA

Judicial and Legal Alarm Bells

Legal scrutiny has also exposed deeper problems in how capacity assessments are carried out:

A recent Mental Capacity Report (March 2025) highlighted how local authority assessments sometimes rely on “unstructured” or flawed capacity-assessment forms that fail to align with the statutory framework of the MCA. Judges have pointed out the need for assessments to be “evidence-based, person-centred … not made to depend … upon the identification of a so-called unwise outcome.” Mental Capacity Law and Policy

The report also emphasizes the mental/clinical versus legal distinction: “insight is a clinical concept, whereas decision-making capacity is a legal concept.” When that line is blurred, local authorities risk wrongly judging people to lack capacity. Mental Capacity Law and Policy

Reform on the Horizon – But Progress Is Slow

The system’s flaws are well known, and reform has been promised for years. The Law Commission criticized the existing DoLS framework as a “bureaucratic nightmare” back in 2017, estimating that thousands were being held without proper authorisation. The Guardian Reform is due via the Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS), but even the transition has collided with delays, confusion, resource constraints, and lack of clarity among commissioning bodies. Care Quality Commission+1

Why This Looks Like “Misuse”

All this is not necessarily sinister. It may not always be malicious. But the patterns suggest that institutional pressure (caseload, funding) is influencing how the MCA is applied.

“Backlogs” are used to justify delayed or reduced protections, potentially depriving people of their legal rights.

Poor understanding of the law among providers and assessors means that deprivation of liberty sometimes happens without rigorous, lawful assessment.

Some providers treat DoLS applications as a “box tick” rather than a serious, rights-based safeguard.

There is little consistency in how authorities prioritise or justify cases, raising questions about equity and accountability.

In short: the system designed to protect autonomy may be bending to convenience.

Voices of Concern

Advocacy groups and legal commentators argue that the very architecture of DoLS makes it vulnerable to misuse.

Families bereft of influence after capacity decisions feel marginalised.

The CQC has repeatedly warned of human rights risks, urging “urgent reform” to ensure people do not remain indefinitely in restrictive settings without proper legal safeguards. Community Care

What Needs to Change

From the evidence, three priorities emerge:

Local authorities desperately need more staff trained in MCA assessments, best-interests decision-making, and authorising deprivations of liberty.

Providers must deepen their understanding of not just how to assess capacity, but why; training must embed respect for autonomy, not just risk management.

There should be clearer mechanisms to hold councils and trusts accountable when they fail or delay assessments, including robust advocacy for individuals and families, and accessible appeals.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 was meant to be a guardian of dignity, choice and protection. But in too many cases, it is being stretched—by overwork, underfunding, misunderstanding, and institutional inertia—into something else: a tool that limits liberty under the guise of safeguarding. The neglect may not always be malicious, but the effect is often the same: vulnerable people left waiting, unheard, and powerless.

Unless reform accelerates, the very safeguards meant to protect them may end up being the prison.

Locked In: How the Mental Capacity Act Is Being Bent

A 2023–25 Court of Protection Timeline

Since 2023, a steady stream of Court of Protection and family-court judgments, regulator reports and ombudsman decisions have drawn a picture of a system stretched to breaking. Chronic DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) backlogs, inconsistent legal reasoning about when someone is “deprived of liberty”, and repeated judicial reminders that local authorities and NHS bodies must follow the statutory safeguards.

The evidence does not usually show conspiratorial intent; it shows routine institutional pressure (backlogs, triage, lack of expertise) producing unlawful or inadequate use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Below I trace the most important court decisions and official findings from 2023–2025 that illustrate how those failures translate into people losing rights and legal protections.

Quick summary of the headline evidence (short)

DoLS backlogs and missed statutory timeframes have been documented by the CQC and Ministry of Justice statistics, leaving many people without timely authorisations. Care Quality Commission+1

The Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has upheld complaints where councils failed to assess DoLS requests within legal timeframes, finding people “wrongfully deprived” or left restricted without proper authorisation. Local Government Lawyer+1

Court of Protection judgments in 2023–2025 illustrate recurrent themes: disputes about whether an intervention amounts to a deprivation of liberty, whether the Mental Health Act or MCA should apply, and whether authorisations or court orders were achieved lawfully and with proper best-interests reasoning. Mental Health Law Online+2Court of Protection Hub+2

Timeline: key court decisions, regulator findings and turning points (2023–2025)

2023 Rising Court workloads; judicial scrutiny of care plans

Jan–Jun 2023 Lancashire & South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust v AH [2023] EWCOP 1

HHJ Burrows considered whether a proposed placement and care regime for AH involved a deprivation of liberty, and emphasised the need for careful, evidence-based assessment of whether restrictions go beyond what is necessary and lawful; the judgment shows how complex clinical/risk decisions become legal disputes requiring judicial oversight when the boundaries between care and confinement are blurred. Mental Health Law Online

May 2023, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & JS [2023] EWCOP 12 A judgment explored the expiry of a Mental Health Act authority and the resulting question whether a person then lacked lawful authorisation and therefore was being deprived of liberty under the MCA. The case emphasises the fragile interface between the Mental Health Act and the MCA and how administrative lapses can convert clinical placements into unlawful deprivations. Court of Protection Hub

Mid-2023, Surge in Court of Protection workload and DoLS applications Commentators and the National Deprivation of Liberty Court reported rising numbers of applications — Courts were seeing more DoL applications and challenges, creating delay and pressure on judicial lists. These workload pressures mirror the operational backlogs being reported by authorities. Community Care+1

2024. Backlogs, legal uncertainty and children’s cases

Early–Mid 2024. Court decisions emphasise rigor of capacity reasoning Judges continued to insist capacity and best-interests assessments be person-centred and evidence-based; some hearings were listed (or refused on paper authorisation) because the court would not rubber-stamp restrictions in the absence of robust reasoning. The “failed to authorise on the papers” approach demonstrates judicial unwillingness to accept weak or incomplete local authority evidence. openjusticecourtofprotection.org

Mid–2024. Record Court activity and a spike in challenges. Ministry of Justice and reporting bodies recorded sharp rises in DoL/Court of Protection activity (for example, large increases in challenges and applications in early-2024), feeding a public debate that some deprivation orders are being used as a cheaper, quicker option than community care packages. Campaigners argued the rise signalled an institutional shift towards authorising restrictions rather than funding viable community alternatives. The Guardian+1

2024 Children’s deprivation-of-liberty jurisprudence. The family and High Court continued to revisit whether parental/local-authority consent can lawfully authorise confinement of children (cases flowing from Lincolnshire CC v TGA (2022) and related 2024 hearings). These decisions underscore how confusion about who can legally “consent” to restrictions risks inappropriate or unreviewed confinements for young people. (The Court of Appeal would then revisit these issues in 2025.) 39 Essex Chambers+1

2025 Consolidation, pushback and appellate refinement

Jan–Apr 2025. Continued judicial clarification (Re V (Profound Disabilities) and related High Court judgments)

High Court judgments in 2025 examined the fine line between care that meets profound needs and state action amounting to deprivation of liberty, finding in some instances that severe disability (and incapacity to leave) meant there was no Article 5 deprivation because the person could not, physically, assert liberty in the ordinary sense. These nuanced rulings highlight inconsistency in outcomes across jurisdictions and how factual differences produce different legal results, which in turn creates inconsistent practice by local authorities. Mental Health Law Online+1

2024–2025. Ongoing CQC warnings and statistical picture CQC’s State of Care reporting for 2023–24 documented that only 19% of standard DoLS applications were processed within the statutory 21-day window and that over 120,000 people were awaiting authorisation at March 2024, a scale of backlog that the regulator described as a human-rights risk. The chronic backlogs and the use of risk-based triage were repeatedly flagged as drivers of unlawful or delayed authorisations. Care Quality Commission+1

April 2025. Court of Appeal revisits limits on local authority consent for children (J v Bath & NE Somerset Council & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 478). The Court of Appeal corrected earlier Family Division reasoning and clarified that local authorities cannot simply “consent” to confinement for children in their care in the same way parents can, a ruling that tightened a prior area of legal uncertainty and reduced scope for local authorities to rely on loose consent arguments. This is an example of appellate courts pushing back where local practice had expanded the boundaries of lawful restriction. Mental Capacity Law and Policy

Representative examples where court/regulator findings show misuse (or unlawful application) of the MCA

Administrative or procedural failures that created unlawful deprivations. The Manchester University Hospitals case shows how expiry of an appropriate authorising power can leave a person without lawful authorisation; judges have been alert to gaps where no lawful regime was in place but the person remained restricted. Court of Protection Hub

Prioritisation/triage and backlog decisions producing restrictive outcomes without timely authorisation. CQC statistics and Ombudsman decisions (e.g., Surrey County Council LGSCO findings) document councils using screening tools and prioritisation, resulting in very long waits for DoLS assessments and people effectively restricted without legal protections. Care Quality Commission+1

Confusion at the MHA–MCA interface and inappropriate use of one regime to avoid another. Judgments have repeatedly had to untangle whether the Mental Health Act or the MCA should apply; errors or delays in determining the correct legal framework have led to contested deprivations of liberty that end up in court. Court of Protection Hub+1

Use of the inherent jurisdiction/family court in place of clearer statutory routes. In children’s cases, family courts’ use of parental consent or inherent jurisdiction to authorise confinement has provoked appellate correction (2024–25) because the practice risked leaving children without the specific statutory safeguards intended by the DoLS/LPS frameworks. 39 Essex Chambers+1

What the cases show about why misuse (or inadequate use) happens

Pulling the cases and reports together shows repeated causal drivers:

Capacity and DoLS workloads are outpacing resources. Authorities adopt risk-based triage and screening tools (documented by CQC and LGSCO). Care Quality Commission+1

Knowledge gaps and weak record-keeping. Courts regularly call for evidence-based, person-centred capacity assessments and find records are often inadequate. Mental Capacity Law and Policy

Legal uncertainty (children, the MHA–MCA interface, what constitutes “state responsibility”) leads to inconsistent practice; judges correct the approach but only after rights have been restricted. 39 Essex Chambers+1

Case snapshots (short, cited extracts you can follow up)

Lancashire & South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust & Lancashire CC & AH [2023] EWCOP 1. HHJ Burrows authorises measures but stresses careful scrutiny of deprivation questions. (See mentalhealthlaw and Court of Protection Hub summaries.) Mental Health Law Online+1

Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & JS [2023] EWCOP 12. Judge found that once the MH Act authority expired, the person’s continuing restrictions triggered deprivation-of-liberty questions under the MCA. (Lesson: administrative lapse -> legal problem.) Court of Protection Hub

Stockport MBC v KB [2023] EWCOP 58 (reported analysis). Judicial analysis of community DoL applications and the kinds of medical evidence required (illustrates the court responding to poor or inconsistent local authority practice). Local Government Lawyer

Series of family/care cases on children (2022–2025). Lincolnshire CC v TGA (2022) spawned follow-on litigation and appellate correction in 2025; the arc shows local authorities and courts grappling with who may lawfully authorise confinement of children in their care. 39 Essex Chambers+1

Regulatory & statistical evidence. CQC: chronic DoLS backlogs and only 19% applications met statutory timescales (2023–24). LGSCO: formal findings that councils’ delays led to unlawful restriction in named investigations (e.g., Surrey). Ministry of Justice / court statistics: rising DoL applications and court challenges in 2024. Care Quality Commission+2Local Government Ombudsman+2

What this means for people and families (real effects shown in cases)

People have been left restricted for months without a lawful authorisation; families have been excluded from decision-making or told the only option is placement. Ombudsman and court reports give concrete examples of people moved long distances or denied contact because an adequate best-interests process was not carried out. Local Government Ombudsman+1

Conclusion — legal fixes are occurring, but slowly

Between 2023 and 2025 the courts have repeatedly had to step in to correct, fine-tune and sometimes rebuke local practice. The evidence is consistent: misuse is often not a deliberate plot but the predictable consequence of under-resourcing, inadequate training, inconsistent legal reasoning and the temptation to use deprivation orders as administratively convenient substitutes for proper social care packages. Appellate authorities (and the CQC/LGSCO) have pushed back, but only partly: operational backlogs and resource constraints mean the same problems recur across jurisdictions.

Hidden in Plain Sight: The Secrecy and Power of the Office of the Public Guardian

The role of the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) in England and Wales is, on paper, laudable. Tasked under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 with protecting some of society’s most vulnerable, the mentally incapacitated, those with severe illness or debilitation, its remit should command public trust. 

Yet for many families caught in its orbit, the reality has been something quite different: an opaque system, court-enforced gagging orders, accusations of wrongdoing levelled at innocent relatives, and little meaningful public scrutiny.

Secrecy by Default

The Court of Protection (CoP), which often works in tandem with the OPG when deputies are appointed or decisions made about capacity, remains shrouded in confidentiality. The legal framework makes it a contempt of court to publish a judgment unless the judge gives permission. As one commentary observed:

“We are finding that a significant minority of Transparency Orders prohibit identification of public bodies … for no apparent reason.” 

Practically speaking, this means families may find themselves accused of wrongdoing (or coerced into quiet settlement) while the processes, evidence and reasoning remain entirely hidden from view.

Worse still, these orders can apply to public bodies such as the OPG itself, insulating its decision-making from public scrutiny. 

Innocent Relatives Cast as Perpetrators

At the heart of the concern is that relatives, often the person closest to the vulnerable individual and already facing huge financial and emotional burdens are suspected, investigated or side-lined with minimal transparency. While specific names and dates are understandably anonymised, the patterns are evident:

Families recount being labelled as “concerned with their own interests” by the OPG or Court, despite no credible evidence of abuse.

The stress on relatives is profound. One family’s voice:

“We are all receiving medical help for the stress … it’s not stress due to my father’s illness – but due to all of this!” 

Although I could not locate a publicly-reported case in which a relative was definitively found innocent yet publicly cleared (owing to anonymity orders), the fact that the narrative of “accused relative” can proceed behind closed doors is deeply troubling. The system allows for a relative to be treated as a suspect, with the game largely hidden from view.

The Power Imbalance: Vulnerable Person vs State Apparatus

The vulnerable individual is meant to be the system’s focus. Yet the apparatus—OPG investigations, deputies, Court proceedings—can shift the locus of control away from the person and their trusted circle into a framework where state-appointed officials and judicial fiat dominate.

Some commentators argue the Court of Protection “institutionalises inequality … allows untested and hearsay evidence, restricts participation and disclosure” and thus risks breaching fair-trial standards. 

When trust and cooperation of relatives is replaced by suspicion and exclusion, the very aim of safeguarding may be undermined. Families describe how they are “never told what the goal-posts are”, “constantly moved on”, and prevented from simply being a family with their loved one. 

When the “Protector” Becomes the Gatekeeper

The OPG’s formal account of its investigative powers states that although around 2,800 investigations may be opened each year, “in most cases we find that there is no case to answer”. 

Yet this doesn’t mitigate the impact on those lives on which such investigations are launched. The act of being under investigation, being treated as a potential perpetrator, often sealed behind ‘confidentiality’, can itself be destructive: emotionally, financially and socially.

The official complaints procedure of the OPG emphasises responsiveness—aiming to reply within 10 working days, offering apologies and redress for proven mistakes.  But that only works after the damage is done. The system does little to ensuretransparency before or during the process which has the potential to pulverise a family’s trust and life.

Why It Matters

Transparency is not optional when the state effectively takes over personal decision-making, finances and care of those lacking capacity. Without clear oversight, power becomes unaccountable.

Relatives must not be collateral damage in protection systems. When a relative is treated as suspect, the family unit is fractured, and the very support the vulnerable person needs is compromised.

Public confidence in the guardianship framework demands more than good outcomes: it demands visible, understandable, and fair processes. The current veil of secrecy undermines deeper trust.

What Could Change

Defaults to openness: The CoP should adopt publication of hearings or summaries by default unless there is a compelling privacy reason—not the other way around.

Independent oversight: A body independent from the OPG should audit cases where relatives were investigated but cleared, ensuring learning and accountability.

Clearer pathways for families: When families are told they are “being investigated”, they should have the right to know the allegations, the evidence, and to respond—rather than being passive subjects.

Redress for families harmed by process: If a relative has been wrongly treated as a perpetrator, there should be accessible mechanisms for apology, compensation and restoration of name.

In Conclusion

The Office of the Public Guardian was established to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Yet somewhere along the way, the balance of power has shifted. Instead of championing the rights of the vulnerable, the system risks treating their trusted relatives as adversaries and cloaking its actions in near-total secrecy.

For a democracy that values dignity, justice and openness, this cannot stand. The very people who ought to be protected—the most vulnerable—deserve more than a system that operates behind locked doors. Families deserve more than the fear of being branded perpetrators without ever seeing the case against them.

The guardianship framework must be reformed not just in form but in spirit. And the public, including those whose voices are quieted by gagging orders must hold it to account.

A delayed discharge case is when a patient is medically ready to leave a hospital but remains there for non-medical reasons. The delay can be caused by factors like a lack of available social care, insufficient community care packages, or issues with the hospital’s own processes. These delays are a major concern as they reduce hospital bed capacity, potentially leading to poorer patient outcomes and increased healthcare costs. 

Delayed discharges: why it’s hard to say how many are due to social care capacity

Authors

Here’s a multiple-choice quiz. What percentage of delayed discharges from hospital are caused by lack of adult social care capacity? Is it:

a) Most of them

b) 50%

c) 12%

d) There’s no way of knowing for certain.

The answer is d): we just don’t know. You get half a point if you said c) because 12% is the most we can definitely attribute to lack of social care capacity from the publicly available data. However, you’d be forgiven for thinking it was b) or even a) if you simply read the media coverage. In December, the Royal College of Nursing was quoted as saying that there was ‘barely a spare bed’ left in NHS hospitals due to a lack of capacity in social care; while in January, the NHS Confederation was reported as saying that 20% of NHS bed capacity was taken up by patients who were only there because they ‘cannot get a suitable care package’.

“Yet we don’t know the number – because, with the best of intentions, we chose to stop asking.”

Yet we don’t know the number – because, with the best of intentions, we chose to stop asking. In 2020, NHS England stopped separating out reasons for delay between health and social care. The reasoning, based on discussions with health and care organisations, was that delays were often complex, and instead of allocating them to one or other partner, systems should take responsibility, rather than individual sectors.

The most recent data recording, introduced in May 2024, requires discharge hubs (or sometimes wards) to classify the causes of delay into one of five categories:

  1. Hospital process (issues within the hospital’s control, such as medication or transport)
  2. Wellbeing concerns (issues outside the hospital’s control, for example where a family has doubts about a patient’s readiness for discharge)
  3. Care transfer hub process (most commonly where the patient’s destination has not yet been decided)
  4. Interface process (typically where transfer plans are underway but have not yet been completed)
  5. Capacity (where the service needed by the patient is not yet available).

Except for hospital process, all these categories include delays that are due to both the NHS and social care. For patients with stays of at least 14 days (the only publicly available measure), on average 9,309 people were delayed each day in March 2025. Of these, 3,203 delays were ascribed to ‘capacity’, followed by interface process (2,639), hospital process (1,754), care transfer hub process (1,200) and wellbeing concerns (514).

If we focus on those 3,203 capacity delays – because lack of social care capacity is often cited as a key cause of delayed discharges – the single largest reason (966 people delayed) is lack of ‘bed-based rehabilitation, reablement or recovery services’.

https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/news-and-cases/blog/health-and-social-care-law/delayed-transfer-of-care-leads-to-100k-legal-bill-for-an-icb

This covers a wide range of health and care services, some of which are commissioned by NHS trusts, some by local authorities and some jointly. Even discharge hubs would not be able to allocate them to ‘the NHS’ or ‘social care’. The same applies to ‘home-based rehabilitation, reablement or recovery services’ (502 people delayed), which again cannot be split neatly into social care or NHS.

In fact, only three of the sub-categories – lack of home-based social care services (257), lack of residential or nursing care (762), and people waiting for restart of existing social care services (63) – are solely attributable to social care. But these account for only 34% (1,082) of the 3,203 total ‘capacity’ delays and only 12% of the total 9,309 delayed patients. The real figure for social care delays will be higher because it will include some of the bed-based and home-based rehabilitation and reablement delays but is not counted.

“Yet the NHS and social care are two distinct systems, funded differently, usually commissioned differently and often with different immediate concerns.”

Author:

Into that data vacuum has emerged a range of guesses and estimates, some more authoritative than others. For example, in March NHS England told the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee that around a fifth of bed days (note that this is a different measure to the publicly available one) lost to delayed discharge ‘are for individuals accessing adult social care packages on discharge’.

In an ideal world, it might not matter. Local systems would be working together to identify problems, avoiding blame and finding joint solutions. Perhaps most are already. Yet the NHS and social care are two distinct systems, funded differently, usually commissioned differently and often with different immediate concerns. On the NHS side, there is intense media and public concern about hospital capacity, A&E waits and ‘corridor care’. On the social care side, there is a longstanding grievance about lack of funding.

In these circumstances, it has sometimes suited both sides for lack of social care capacity to be seen as the key cause of hospital discharge delays. It allows social care to make the case for more money and deflects attention from the NHS causes of delay. This is why the headlines are tolerated, sometimes encouraged.

“It allows social care to make the case for more money and deflects attention from the NHS causes of delay. This is why the headlines are tolerated, sometimes encouraged. ”

Author:

Yet it can still rankle within social care if it is held largely responsible for a problem to which it is, in fact, only a minority contributor. There is a long and inglorious tradition of blaming social care for hospital discharge delays.

There is also irritation about the word ‘capacity’: there is plenty of capacity in care homes, says the sector (occupancy has still not quite returned to pre-pandemic level); the issue is that commissioners (in both the NHS and local authorities) are not sufficiently well organised and are unable or unwilling to pay a fair price for it.

In this difficult environment, avoiding a blame game on hospital discharge was always going to be ambitious. It’s proved to be that – and more. Time to accept reality and publish a credible official estimate of the respective responsibilities for delayed discharge of health and social care.

Further reading

Held at:County Offices, Newland, Lincoln, LN1 1YL Extract from Minutes of the Adults and Community Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee Lincolnshire County Council
A meeting of the Adults and Community Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee took place on Wednesday, 4 September 2024 at 10.00 am in the Council Chamber, County Offices, Newland, Lincoln LN1 1YL.
Debbie Barnes OBE Chief Executive
.

The Minutes stated:
Many older adults may have been misdiagnosed with mental health issues for decades, often leading to a misunderstanding of their true cognitive and emotional needs. Data was being gathered on these individuals, especially those with learning disabilities, who tend to be identified earlier in their lives, allowing for potentially more effective interventions. However, despite this positive trend, there were significant challenges in the system???? The Integrated Care Board (ICB) recognized the need for immediate action and funded various services for 16-18 year olds, aiming to create a streamlined pathway for young individuals needing support. Unfortunately, there is a national issue with excessively long waiting lists for neurodevelopmental services, which further complicated access to necessary care. Waiting times for diagnosis were reported to be up to a year (4 IN ELIZABETH’S CASE) locally for those seeking help; in some regions, it could extend to an alarming seven years elsewhere, exacerbating the situation and leaving many individuals without the support (AND CORRECT TREATMENT) they desperately needed. This stark discrepancy highlights not only the urgent need for improvements in service delivery but also the importance of re-evaluating how mental health and developmental disorders are diagnosed across different age groups.”

In Elizabeth’s case, Developmental was mentioned in the first instance and as far back as 2007 scans were not normal. Being denied pathological tests goes well beyond a year – over a lifetime combined with former area, well before moving but now detention under the MHA is in its fourth year and there should therefore be no excuses for any further delays for essential neurological tests. What is the point in a CTR that does not review treatment effectively, excluding physical health and family for a vulnerable person held long term under MH for following reasons:

When is Referral for Neurological Testing Necessary?

Referral for neurological testing may be clinically indicated in several situations, including but not limited to:

Neurological symptoms such as persistent headaches, dizziness, weakness, visual disturbances, or cognitive changes.

Manifestations of seizures or fits or neurological reactions to stimuli or potential allergens. 

Red flag symptoms indicating serious underlying conditions like a brain tumour, stroke, or multiple sclerosis.

Unexplained neurological signs after an injury or trauma, particularly head injuries, where a clinician might suspect a neurological disorder.

If a responsible clinician fails to refer a patient when such symptoms or red flags are present, and that failure leads to harm (e.g., delayed diagnosis of a serious neurological condition), there may be grounds for a negligence claim. 

A clinician might be at risk of a negligence claim if they fail to refer a patient for neurological testing when clinically indicated, especially if such a failure leads to harm that could have been avoided with appropriate testing and treatment. 

It is every bit possible that Elizabeth has been subjected to many years of inappropriate treatment due to faulty diagnosis and huge amounts of endocrine disrupting drugs, not to mention many years deprivation of liberty that could have been avoided with a more thorough medical examination. 

Case law, such as A v East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, emphasizes that clinical decisions must align with accepted medical practices. If a clinician’s actions are within the range of what a responsible body of medical professionals would consider reasonable, they are less likely to be found negligent. However, if their failure to refer deviates from such standards and causes harm, they could be held liable.

A v East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust [2017] UKSC 19:

This case concerned whether a medical professional breached their duty by failing to appropriately investigate or respond to a patient’s symptoms. Although it was about a failure in emergency care, it emphasizes the importance of considering the duty to investigate symptoms properly and the risks of failing to do so. A clinician failing to refer a patient for neurological testing might be considered negligent if it can be shown that such an investigation was warranted by the patient’s presentation.

The Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority[1997] 3 WLR 1151 case is a key ruling in clinical negligence law, refining the Bolam test (from Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]).

Ruling in Bolitho:

In this case, the House of Lords considered whether a doctor was negligent for failing to attend a child in respiratory distress, despite being called to do so by nursing staff. The doctor’s absence allegedly led to the child’s death.

The central issue was whether the doctor’s decision not to attend could be justified by the standard of practice accepted by a responsible body of medical opinion (the Bolam test). In other words, was the failure to attend a reasonable decision, according to the practices of a responsible group of doctors?

The House of Lords held that the Bolam test is not an absolute shield for professionals. Although medical practice is determined by the opinion of a responsible body of medical professionals, this does not mean that any opinion, however unreasonable, will be accepted. Courts have a role in ensuring that the medical opinion is “logical and defensible”. In essence, the court can reject a medical opinion if it is deemed illogical or irrational.

Summary of the Key Points:

The Bolitho ruling clarifies that medical professionals’ practices must be reasonable and defensible. Courts will scrutinize the validity of medical opinions in negligence cases.

It made clear that even if a practice is accepted by a body of medical professionals, if that practice is not supported by a logical or reasonable explanation, it cannot be relied upon to defend against a negligence claim.

The decision to not attend the patient in Bolitho was deemed negligent because the medical practice relied upon did not have a logical basis.

So what is the ‘logical basis’ for not sending Elizabeth for tests when they are clearly needed?

The Bolitho decision thus refined the Bolam test, adding an element of judicial oversight to ensure medical opinions are reasonable and coherent, not merely accepted by a group of professionals.

Diagnostic error in mental health: a review Bradford A, et al. BMJ Qual Saf 2024;33:663–672. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016996

There is sufficient evidence here already to link the lesions and resultant inflammation with what they misdiagnose as schizophrenia and this is even evident in Elizabeth’s former doctor’ s work: Dr Shahpesandy.

It is scandalous that with the number of patients known to be misdiagnosed that there is not a root and branch re-examining of mental health assessments. It is not psychiatrists and AMPHs who should have exclusive domaine here.  The examination is nowhere near complete without a thorough neurological and immunological/endocrinological examination.  Our national mental health policy is entirely in the sway of psychiatrists and drug companies.   

A failure in pathophysiological testing for organic contributions can significantly contribute to the prevalence of misdiagnosis in schizophrenia. Reports and studies have indicated that the prevalence of misdiagnosis in schizophrenia can be significant, with estimates often cited in the range of 10% to 40%, depending on the specific context, population, and research methodology. 

Given the complexities of diagnosing schizophrenia, it is crucial for mental health professionals to use comprehensive assessment approaches to enhance diagnostic accuracy and reduce the likelihood of misdiagnosis.

Lack of Comprehensive Assessment

Many clinicians do not conduct thorough pathophysiological assessments, such as neurological evaluations and laboratory tests, which can lead to missing underlying medical conditions that mimic or contribute to psychiatric symptoms.  Some clinicians over emphasise the subjective nature of psychotic disorders and actively discourage proper pathophysiological assessments. 

Overlapping Symptoms

Certain medical conditions (e.g., infections, autoimmune disorders, endocrine abnormalities) can present symptoms similar to those of schizophrenia. Without appropriate testing, these conditions may be misidentified as primary psychiatric disorders.

Neuroimaging and Biomarkers

Advances in neuroimaging (like MRI or CT scans) and the discovery of potential biomarkers for various conditions are important for identifying organic contributions to psychosis. If these tools are not utilized, it can result in misdiagnosis.

Co-Occurring Disorders

When an underlying medical condition is present alongside schizophrenia, it may complicate the clinical picture and lead to misunderstanding or misattribution of symptoms, resulting in a misdiagnosis.

Education and Awareness

Clinicians may not always consider organic causes when diagnosing schizophrenia, especially if they lack training or awareness about how medical issues can manifest as psychiatric symptoms.

Stigma and Assumptions

There may be an inclination to diagnose psychiatric conditions like schizophrenia without sufficiently exploring organic causes, particularly in patients with risk factors for mental illness, leading to overlooking potential medical diagnoses.

Case Reports

Numerous case studies and reports highlight instances where patients initially diagnosed with schizophrenia were later found to have organic pathologies, emphasizing the necessity of pathophysiological testing in uncertain cases.

Inadequate pathophysiological testing increases the likelihood that clinicians may overlook organic contributions to a patient’s symptoms, leading to a higher prevalence of misdiagnosis of schizophrenia. Comprehensive evaluation approaches that integrate both psychiatric and medical assessments are essential for accurate diagnosis and effective treatment.

The misdiagnosis of schizophrenia can occur for several reasons, but the following are some of the main contributing factors:

Symptom Overlap

Schizophrenia shares symptoms with various other mental health disorders, such as bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and personality disorders. This overlap can lead to confusion and misdiagnosis.

Incomplete Clinical History

A thorough assessment requires a detailed clinical history, including past medical and psychiatric treatments. When this information is lacking or overlooked, it frequently leads to inaccuracies in diagnosis.

Subjective Assessment

Psychiatric diagnoses often rely on subjective assessments of symptoms and behaviours. Variability in how clinicians interpret and diagnose these symptoms can result in inconsistencies and misdiagnosis.

Lack of Awareness or Training:

Some clinicians may not be adequately trained to recognize the nuances of schizophrenia or the range of conditions that can mimic its symptoms, leading to incorrect diagnoses.

Stigma and Assumptions

Societal stigma surrounding mental illness may lead to hasty or biased conclusions, particularly in emergency settings where rapid assessments are made under stress.

Co-occurring Disorders

Many individuals with schizophrenia may have co-occurring disorders (e.g., substance use disorders, anxiety disorders), complicating the clinical picture and leading to misdiagnosis.

Cultural Factors

Cultural differences in the expression and interpretation of symptoms can affect diagnosis. Clinicians may misinterpret culturally specific symptoms as pathological.

Insufficient Diagnostic Tools

While there are diagnostic criteria (like DSM-5 or ICD-10), there are no objective tests (e.g., blood tests or imaging) to confirm a schizophrenia diagnosis, leading to a over-reliance on observed behaviours and self-reported symptoms.

These factors highlight the need for comprehensive assessments and clinical awareness to reduce the rates of misdiagnosis in schizophrenia.

Failing to conduct thorough pathophysiological tests when diagnosing schizophrenia can have several significant serious consequences:

Misdiagnosis: 

Schizophrenia shares symptoms with other mental health disorders such as bipolar disorder, depression, and schizoaffective disorder. Without comprehensive testing, there’s a risk of misdiagnosing the condition, leading to inappropriate treatment plans.

Inappropriate Treatment: 

Inaccurate diagnosis can result in prescribing incorrect medications, which might not alleviate symptoms and could cause adverse side effects. Patients might also miss out on the benefits of effective therapeutic interventions tailored to their actual needs.

Delayed Treatment: 

Insufficient testing might delay the correct diagnosis, postponing necessary interventions. Early and accurate diagnosis is crucial for effective treatment, and any delay can worsen prognosis and lead to more significant deterioration in quality of life.

Poor Prognosis: 

Without targeted interventions, patients may experience worsened symptoms and a decline in functioning. More comprehensive evaluations can help identify specific needs and comorbid conditions, which are integral in planning effective management strategies.

Increased Healthcare Costs: 

Misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis can lead to increased healthcare costs due to unnecessary treatments, potential hospitalizations, and more extensive long-term care due to unmanaged symptoms.

Impact on Quality of Life: 

The individual may suffer from ongoing symptoms that could affect their daily life, social relationships, and occupational functioning. Effective treatment hinges on an accurate diagnosis, allowing patients to manage symptoms and improve their overall quality of life.

CAVERNOMAS

A thorough diagnostic process, including pathophysiological tests are necessary and help ensure that patients receive the right diagnosis and appropriate treatment, improving outcomes and reducing the burden of the disease.

A cavernoma, which is a type of vascular malformation in the brain, can potentially interfere with neurotransmission and lead to symptoms that might be misinterpreted as psychosis. Cavernomas are clusters of abnormally formed blood vessels that can disrupt normal brain function by causing bleeding, inflammation, or other structural changes.

Cavernomas, especially in areas like the temporal lobe, can cause seizures. Seizures can sometimes present with confusion, disorientation, or altered perceptions, which could be mistaken for psychotic symptoms. For example, if the cavernoma causes focal seizures, these could manifest as hallucinations, paranoia, or delusions, which are all features of psychosis.

Cavernomas, depending on their location, can affect areas of the brain responsible for cognition and emotion regulation. If a cavernoma leads to functional changes in these regions, it could cause alterations in behaviour or mood, potentially resembling symptoms of a psychiatric disorder.

A cavernoma can disrupt the normal flow of neurotransmitters in the brain, especially if it causes local damage to nerve cells or interferes with blood supply. Neurotransmitter imbalances can contribute to mood swings, hallucinations, or altered perceptions, which may be mistaken for psychotic episodes.

In some cases, the physical stress and changes caused by a cavernoma, such as chronic headaches, seizures, or neurological deficits, can also lead to psychiatric symptoms, such as anxiety, depression, or even psychotic-like symptoms. These may be misdiagnosed as primary mental health issues.

Given these possibilities, a thorough neurological evaluation, including imaging studies like an MRI, is crucial for distinguishing between a primary psychiatric disorder and a neurological condition like a cavernoma. If psychosis-like symptoms are present, a neurologist or psychiatrist should look at a range of factors to rule out any underlying brain pathology, including vascular malformations like cavernomas.

The misdiagnosis of schizophrenia due to underlying brain lesions or cerebral inflammation is a known but relatively underreported phenomenon. Although schizophrenia is primarily considered a psychiatric disorder, its symptoms can overlap with neurological conditions that cause similar cognitive and behavioural disturbances, like brain lesions, inflammation, or other structural abnormalities.

Cerebral inflammation and brain lesions, such as those caused by vascular malformations (like cavernomas), brain tumours, endocrine disorders and autoimmune diseases, can lead to cognitive impairments, mood disturbances, hallucinations, or delusions, which are also hallmark symptoms of schizophrenia. When these neurological issues are undiagnosed, individuals may be misdiagnosed with a primary psychiatric condition like schizophrenia, especially if there’s a lack of awareness about the neurological possibility.

As for the estimated incidence of misdiagnosis, studies suggest that it’s not uncommon for neurological disorders to be misdiagnosed as psychiatric conditions. A few estimates suggest that about 15-25% of individuals initially diagnosed with schizophrenia may actually have an underlying neurological condition, though this figure can vary widely depending on the specifics of the study and the healthcare setting. In some cases, lesions or inflammation are only discovered after further neurological and pathophysiological testing (e.g., brain imaging, MEG, EEG and inflammatory marker evaluation), which can shift the diagnosis.

However, it’s worth noting that schizophrenia has a distinctive clinical picture, and misdiagnosis tends to occur more often in cases where symptoms are atypical or the neurological signs are subtle. When there is clear evidence of brain lesions, seizures, or other neurological symptoms, a more comprehensive diagnostic approach (including imaging) usually helps differentiate between psychiatric disorders and neurological conditions.

Cerebral inflammation can indeed cause symptoms that may be misdiagnosed for psychotic disorders, especially when the inflammation affects areas of the brain responsible for cognition, mood, or perception.

Conditions that cause inflammation in the brain—such as autoimmune disorders, infections (e.g., encephalitis), neurodegenerative diseases, endocrine disorders or even conditions like multiple sclerosis—can lead to psychiatric symptoms such as delusions, hallucinations, mood swings, and confusion. These symptoms can overlap with those seen in psychotic disorders like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder with psychotic features.

Misdiagnosis and how it can be avoided:

Overlap of Symptoms

Inflammation in the brain can cause hallucinations, delusions, agitation, and paranoia, which are core symptoms of psychotic disorders.

Disorders like autoimmune encephalitis can cause severe mood swings, depression, or mania, which can sometimes be mistaken for mood disorders with psychotic features.

Problems with memory, concentration, and thinking (often seen in inflammation-related brain conditions) can be confused with cognitive symptoms seen in psychotic disorders.

Differentiating Between the Two

To avoid a misdiagnosis, it’s crucial to conduct a comprehensive medical evaluation. This should include a detailed history (e.g., recent infections, autoimmune history, or neurological symptoms), a physical exam, and neuroimaging (like MRI, MEG, EEG or CT scans) to look for signs of brain inflammation or structural abnormalities.

Certain blood tests or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tests may help identify markers of inflammation or infection in the brain. Elevated levels of certain proteins or antibodies can be suggestive of neuroinflammatory conditions. In some cases, cognitive testing can help distinguish between psychosis due to a psychiatric disorder versus cognitive dysfunction related to brain inflammation.

Sometimes, clinicians will assess how the patient responds to treatments. If psychosis is related to inflammation, it may improve with steroids, immunotherapy, or antiviral medications, which are typically ineffective for primary psychiatric disorders.

Specific Conditions to Consider

One condition that commonly mimics psychiatric disorders is autoimmune encephalitis, which can cause rapid onset psychosis, mood disturbances, and confusion. Testing for autoantibodies (like anti-NMDA receptor antibodies) can help in diagnosing this condition.

Infections such as encephalitis, meningitis, or even HIV/AIDS-related encephalopathy can cause psychiatric symptoms and should be ruled out.

MS can sometimes cause psychiatric symptoms like depression, anxiety, and psychosis due to demyelination in certain brain areas. This can be distinguished from primary psychotic disorders through MRI scans showing characteristic lesions.

Minimizing Misdiagnosis

A team approach involving both neurologists and psychiatrists can help ensure a more accurate diagnosis when symptoms overlap.

A careful review of a patient’s medical history, including autoimmune conditions, infections, or a history of trauma, can help guide clinicians toward the right diagnosis.

If symptoms of psychosis arise suddenly or change in an unusual manner, it can raise suspicion for a medical cause rather than a primary psychiatric disorder. The timeline of symptom onset, course, and any precipitating factors (like infections or medications) should be taken into account.

Ultimately, a comprehensive diagnostic workup is essential to distinguish between cerebral inflammation and psychotic disorders. Early recognition and treatment of conditions causing brain inflammation can prevent further complications and ensure that patients receive the most appropriate care.

Link to Endocrine Disorders:

If a cavernoma is located near or within areas of the brain involved in endocrine regulation, it could theoretically contribute to endocrine dysfunction. These areas include:

  1. Hypothalamus: The hypothalamus plays a central role in regulating the endocrine system via its control over the pituitary gland. A cavernoma in this region could disrupt hormone regulation and lead to a variety of endocrine disorders, such as:
    • Hypothalamic dysfunction (e.g., issues with temperature regulation, hunger, or thirst).
    • Dysregulation of pituitary hormone release (e.g., corticotropin, growth hormone, gonadotropins).
  2. Pituitary Gland: Cavernomas affecting or compressing the pituitary gland could lead to:
    • Hypopituitarism (reduced secretion of pituitary hormones).
    • Hyperprolactinemia (if pressure disrupts the inhibition of prolactin secretion).
    • Other imbalances depending on the specific hormones affected.
  3. Other Brain Regions with Secondary Effects:
    • Cavernomas causing significant intracranial pressure, hemorrhage, or secondary damage might indirectly affect endocrine function by impairing brain structures or pathways.

Rare but Documented Cases:

Although cavernomas are not commonly associated with endocrine disorders, there are reported cases of cavernomas near the hypothalamic-pituitary axis causing endocrine dysfunction. These cases emphasize the importance of the cavernoma’s sizelocation, and potential for bleeding or compression.

Symptoms to Monitor:

If an individual with a cavernoma develops symptoms suggestive of endocrine dysfunction, such as fatigue, unexplained weight changes, menstrual irregularities, or growth abnormalities, a detailed evaluation is warranted. This may include:

  • Hormonal blood tests.
  • High resolution imaging studies like MRI to assess the cavernoma’s location and size.

Conclusion:

While cavernomas do not inherently cause endocrine disorders, those located in or near endocrine-regulating brain regions (like the hypothalamus or pituitary gland) have the potential to disrupt hormonal function. It’s essential to work with a neurologist and endocrinologist to address these concerns.

Elizabeth has a recognised endocrine disorder which can lead to the effects below.  The two hormones (neurosteroids) allopregnanolone and pregnenolone may be affected by the disrupted endocrine function and the levels of these should be tested.  I consider it unlikely they have even considered this just like they have ignored the inflammatory markers that can cause limbic encephalitis.  

They ignore all of these studies even when they are written by their own people like Dr Shahpesandy.  Lots of people are detained on wards who would be able to be discharged if they were given hormonal supplements and anti-inflammatories.  Even Shahpesandy acknowledges that.   

Idiotic prescribing of anti-psychotics will in some cases make endocrine dysfunctions worse and benzos given as prnrapid tranquillisation can cause limbic inflammation. 

Low levels of allopregnanolone and pregnenolone can contribute to psychiatric symptoms, including mood disturbances and, in some cases, psychotic symptoms. These neurosteroids play essential roles in stabilizing mood, reducing anxiety, and modulating stress responses, and they can be impacted by certain endocrine disorders. Here’s a closer look at how these neurosteroids interact with mental health and endocrine function:

Allopregnanolone and Pregnenolone in Mental Health

Allopregnanolone is a potent positive modulator of GABA-A receptors, which are central to calming neural activity and reducing anxiety. It helps create a sense of stability in brain signaling, counteracting overstimulation and stress. Low allopregnanolone levels have been associated with anxiety disorders, depression, and increased stress sensitivity.

Pregnenolone serves as a precursor to other neurosteroids, including allopregnanolone, and has its own neuroprotective effects, including modulating NMDA receptors and potentially balancing dopamine and GABA neurotransmission. It has been studied in relation to schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, as low pregnenolone levels may contribute to cognitive impairment and psychosis.

Potential for Psychotic Symptoms

While low allopregnanolone and pregnenolone levels alone aren’t generally thought to cause psychosis directly, a deficiency in these neurosteroids can create vulnerability to psychotic symptoms, especially in those with predispositions or other stressors.

Neurosteroids like pregnenolone have been linked to dopamine modulation. Dopamine dysregulation is a hallmark of psychosis, particularly in conditions like schizophrenia. Reduced pregnenolone levels may therefore impact dopamine balance and contribute to hallucinations, delusions, and thought disorders.

Some research also suggests that allopregnanolone may have a stabilizing effect on mood and perception; reduced levels might leave individuals more susceptible to stress, which in extreme cases could precipitate psychotic-like symptoms in vulnerable individuals.

Low Neurosteroid Levels and Endocrine Disorders

Adrenal insufficiency (e.g., Addison’s disease) and other endocrine disorders affecting adrenal or gonadal hormones can reduce the availability of precursors needed for neurosteroid synthesis. This can lead to low levels of allopregnanolone and pregnenolone.

Disorders of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, including chronic stress and HPA axis dysregulation, can also result in altered neurosteroid production. Chronic stress suppresses the production of pregnenolone and can shift steroid synthesis toward stress hormones like cortisol rather than neurosteroids.

Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) and other hormonal imbalances involving estrogen progesterone may disrupt neurosteroid synthesis, as these hormones are involved in the pathways that produce pregnenolone and allopregnanolone. Individuals with PCOS, for example, have an increased risk of mood disorders, which may be partly related to altered neurosteroid levels.

Clinical Implications and Potential Treatments

Understanding low neurosteroid levels as part of a broader endocrine issue can help target treatments more effectively. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or neurosteroid analogs are sometimes used to restore balance in individuals with chronic deficiencies.

Pregnenolone supplementation has shown potential as an adjunctive treatment for schizophrenia and mood disorders, with some studies suggesting it can help reduce symptoms of anxiety, cognitive deficits, and even mild psychosis.

Similarly, allopregnanolone analogs, like brexanolone (approved for postpartum depression), are being explored for their potential to help with other mood and anxiety disorders, offering a novel approach to neurosteroid-based therapy.

Summary

In conclusion, low levels of allopregnanolone and pregnenolone can contribute to psychiatric symptoms, including psychosis, especially in individuals with underlying vulnerability. These deficiencies are indeed symptomatic of certain endocrine disorders, especially those affecting adrenal or sex hormones. Addressing neurosteroid imbalances through hormone therapy, neurosteroid analogs, or other supportive measures can be beneficial in managing symptoms linked to these deficits.

It is appalling that when you as a carer ask for pathological tests you are up against huge bullying and then safeguarding against you. There is no safeguarding towards the vulnerable person who needs the extensive pathological tests or for anyone whose diagnosis is in doubt denied such tests for many years. I know I am not alone in this matter and in the Scrutiny Meeting Minutes it actually highlights a national problem that needs urgent changes as if ignoring the necessity for such tests as so many lives are put at risk.

There has been a Community -‘style’ review organised, a second one, the first held last year excluding everyone in the family. This time I have written to Ms Amanda Pritchard of NHS England out of concern as it would appear nothing has been arranged fairly and I see this as a safeguarding concern.

What is a CTR?

I printed off the Care and Treatment Review Code and Toolkit (A Guide for commissioners, panel members and people who provide support). I then read carefully through each Standard and Principle. I would recommend every parent and carer print off this guide and check that the CTR is being arranged correctly and that they are included.

The purpose of a CTR Code and Toolkit is to provide a solid framework for CTRs in order for them to be delivered to a consistently high standard across England. Unfortunately, I am critical in respect of the way the CTRs have been arranged. I feel what is the point of them if they are not arranged properly and inclusive of the family/carers. The CTR is focussed on people who have been, or may be about to be admitted to a specialist mental health/learning disability hospital either under the NHS or independent sector and the ‘spirit’ in which they are carried out is paramount and rooted in principles of human rights, person-centeredness and co-production.

KLOE

Does person need to be in hospital?

Is person receiving right care

Is person involved in their care and treatment?

Are the person’s health needs known and met?

Is the use of any medicine appropriate and safe?

Is there a clear, safe and proportionate approach to the way risk is assessed or managed?

Are any autism needs known and met?

Is there active planning for the future?

Are family and carers being listed to and involved?

Are person’s rights and freedoms being protected and upheld?

It is the fourth year of detention and prior to moving she was living peacefully in the community compliant with treatment. I cannot see any of these questions, standards of principles being included in a CTR style review which I think is a complete and utter waste of time and none of the panel appear to be completely independent as I have checked.

It is supposed to be Person Centred but instead of this it would appear that institutional plans overall everything. There is no communication and with family excluded it gives me no hope that this CTR will result in fairness towards Elizabeth taking her wishes into account which is why I have turned to NHS England – Amanda Pritchard to scrutinise what is going on. Elizabeth’s wish is to come home to her independent bungalow next to family home.

The Standards are really interesting:

1.1 – Person and their family will be given information about the CTR in advance. Oh no they haven’t!

1.5 – Panel will make time available to meet separately with person and their family carer. Nothing properly arranged here.

3.1 – Where concern person’s human rights may not be being upheld. This is most certainly the case all along.

3.2 – Advocacy – provision of independent advocacy. There is no trustworthy independent advocate whatsoever as the advocates employed by the Trust have breached confidentiality in a capacity assessment on “Whether or not to have any Contact with Mother”.

3.3 – CTR will ask about legal framework for purpose eg at tribunal. THERE IS NO LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE EVEN THOUGH ELIZABETH HAS TRIED SEVERAL TIMES TO PHONE SOLICITORS – HER PHONE TAKEN AWAY AND HELD SECURELY, IN BREACH OF ART 8 HRA AND ALL CALLS SUPERVISED AND RECEPTION OF HER PHONE IS NOT GOOD. IT WOULD SEEM HER RIGHTS TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE ARE BEING OBSTRUCTED AS CALLS ARE SUPERVISED AND NO PRIVACY ACCORDING TO ELIZABETH.

4.1 CTR should take a day to complete. So in that case why have I just been invited for half an hr?

4.3 People supporting person should be at the CTR inc LA So could that be why I am only invited for just half an hour I wonder?

4.4 Physical health and general wellbeing. Private scans I paid for have indicated an anomaly (possible lesion) in the right hemisphere of the brain in an area where the meso-limbic pathway is located.

This lesion could be seen using the NHS approved DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) an internationally recognized standard for storing, transmitting, and viewing medical imaging data, including MRI brain scans. The NHS and many healthcare systems worldwide rely on DICOM-compliant software to ensure interoperability between imaging devices and systems.

In Elizabeth’s scan the apparent lesion could be observed in three planes and triangulated to an exact position in the brain. The anomaly (lesion) appeared in the Axial Plane (Top to Bottom):

Also called the transverse plane, this section runs horizontally through the body, dividing it into superior (top) and inferior (bottom) sections.

The image was also visible in the Coronal Plane (Front to Back). This plane runs vertically, dividing the body into anterior (front) and posterior (back) sections.

And in the Sagittal Plane (Side to Side) This vertical plane divides the body into left and right sections.

A mid-sagittal plane runs exactly in the middle, splitting the body into equal left and right halves. A para-sagittal plane is offset from the midline.

The potential lesion is found at the right of the interhemispheric fissure in the sagittal plane, and of the superior in the axial plane and slightly to the anterior on the coronal plane

DICOM ensures that imaging data from MRI, CT, X-rays, and other modalities can be stored, transmitted, and viewed across various systems and software platforms.

It is widely adopted in healthcare, including within the NHS, for handling medical images.

The NHS uses a range of DICOM-compliant software and systems for viewing and analysing MRI scans. These include Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS) and specialized imaging software.

Examples of DICOM-compliant software used in the NHS might include systems like GE Healthcare’s Centricity, Siemens Syngo.via, or Philips IntelliSpace Portal, among others. These are integrated with hospital IT infrastructure for seamless operation.

Under the circumstances it is necessary to re-examine this lesion under a higher resolution scanner such as the TESLA 3 or better still NEG TESLA 7 Phillips wide aperture scanner as this will improve acuity of image and reduce stress induced artifacts on the scan.

A brain lesion in the limbic pathway can potentially contribute to the development of psychotic symptoms. The limbic system, which includes structures such as the hippocampus, amygdala, thalamus, hypothalamus, and parts of the prefrontal cortex, plays a critical role in regulating emotions, memory, and behaviour. Damage or dysfunction in this system can disrupt these processes and lead to symptoms often associated with psychosis, such as hallucinations, delusions, or significant disturbances in thought and emotion.

There are a number of mechanisms linking limbic lesions and psychosis

Disrupted Emotional Regulation:

Damage to the amygdala or its connections can lead to abnormalities in emotional processing, potentially contributing to the paranoia or heightened emotional responses often seen in psychosis.

Impaired Memory and Cognitive Integration:

Lesions in the hippocampus or associated structures may interfere with the proper integration of memories and reality, possibly leading to delusional thinking.

Altered Dopaminergic Pathways:

The limbic system is closely connected with dopaminergic pathways, particularly the mesolimbic pathway. Lesions could dysregulate dopamine activity, which is strongly implicated in psychotic disorders like schizophrenia.

Disconnection Syndromes:

Lesions disrupting connectivity between the limbic system and prefrontal cortex could impair judgment and reality testing, leading to psychotic symptoms.

Neuroinflammation or Secondary Effects:

Lesions causing neuroinflammation or altering the surrounding brain environment can affect nearby circuits and neurotransmitter systems involved in psychosis.

Clinical Considerations:

Location of Lesion: The specific area and extent of the damage are critical in determining the likelihood and type of symptoms.

Co-occurring Factors: Pre-existing vulnerabilities, such as genetic predisposition, previous psychiatric history, or concurrent neurochemical imbalances, may increase the risk of psychosis.

Symptom Presentation: Depending on the nature of the lesion, psychotic symptoms might manifest in ways distinct from primary psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia.

While not every lesion in the limbic pathway will result in psychotic symptoms, there is a clear neurobiological basis for how damage to this area could contribute to psychosis. Such cases would require multidisciplinary management, combining neurology, psychiatry, and possibly neuropsychology, to address both the underlying neurological damage and the resulting psychiatric symptoms

So how on earth can a CTR ‘style’ review properly take into account all of this in a short space of time? I will ask this question to Ms Pritchard as it is most important to do these tests properly under the correct scanner.

5.10 CTR to question whether person’s care and treatment could be delivered in a non hospital setting.

YES – HOME! – How comes it is so difficult for this area to provide what was previously given in the former area. In that case then it would be cheaper to offer the private physical healthcare in the community and I as mother and carer could ensure attendance at all appointments which will save a lot of money. So much has been unnecessarily spent on wrong environments of care so far. Home is the right environment and there is so much scope for care to be provided in the home environment too unlike before.

6.3 Commissioner to write a report that all involved can understand and to ensure FAMILY AND CARERS AND OTHERS WHO NEED A COPY GET THIS WITHIN TWO WEEKS.

I am still waiting for the last report from last year and minutes. Where are these documents?

I have been invited at Elizabeth’s request to attend the CTR so I should be invited at 9.00 am until 5.00 pm not just for half an hour. This is ludicrous.

The last CTR was held in a secretive manner excluding all family and therefore nothing was done correctly and then according to Elizabeth two women approached her to tell her she was to stay where she was on the ward. No way was this done properly.

I particularly wish to be included in SECTION 7.

Section 7 gives guidance on exactly how things should be organised. The time allocated is still not enough time from between 10.30 am – 3.00 pm when the actual meeting started at 9.30 am. It says very clearly “meet with person AND THEIR FAMILY”.

A new advocate needs appointing because the current firm of advocates have breached confidentiality and I have had to complain quite rightly so. I am still waiting for my response in this respect.

According to the example the CTR ends at 5.30 pm. Especially important are the following points:

Am I safe

What is my current care like

Is there a plan for my future

Do I need to be in hosplital for my care and treatment.

The Expert by Experience is NOT independent.

There should be someone independent of the Trust as the the advocate like there was in the former area where the CTR was done correctly.

There is no mention of the Neurologist or attendance by an Endocrinologist and this is extremely wrong. This means that a despite the Transforming Care Minutes no consideration is being given to physical healthcare.

To exclude a parent and carer is extremely wrong and there is no better Expert of Opinion than a parent and carer.

If parent and carer has serious concerns on physical health as well as health and safety on treatment and the way capacity assessments have undertaken as well as safeguarding and risk assessments, then these concerns should be taken on board and taken seriously instead of being ignored. This is why the CTR should be externally scrutinised as I see this as a safeguarding concern where person, their carers and parents are dismissed like rubbish when they have valid concerns and also when there are any doubts on physical health backed by scans going back to 2007. Nothing should be left to chance if there are seizures and other evident endocrine disorders. Every person should be allowed a second opinion under Martha’s Rule and just because they are held under the MHA is no excuse to ignore the urgency of such tests. The problem is that when you as a carer dare to question and ask for pathological tests then you get backlash and bullying.

In the former area Elizabeth was properly supported for the CTR and for the first time ever before we moved they were taking her physical health very seriously. All appointments were cancelled upon moving and instead, priority was to get rid of me as the NR and try and revoke the POA as they are trying to do right now. The CTR informer area was cancelled three times before it was finally arranged correctly but Elizabeth was fortunate to have the support of NAS and Access Charity who ensured there was no cheating with the CTR. Here in Lincolnshire she has no external trustworthy advocate and therefore nothing will be done fairly like last time – a waste of time and with family excluded and no legal representation I can see absolutely nothing good in this CTR ‘style’ Review. In my opinion it is a complete and utter waste of time and geared not towards the vulnerable person’s wishes but whatever Trust and Council have contrive. I do not like the way they have tried to take away her autonomy by so many capacity assessments done incorrectly. The CTR, if arranged properly, would have been a great opportunity to communicate and discuss and resolve concerns on both sides but I see this as an underhand exercise where decisions have already been made in advance and all I want to see as a mother and carer is for my daughter’s wishes to be heard and acted upon even if it is on a trial basis in terms of her coming home and that is her wish – TO COME HOME AND TO SEE HER CAT! and be close to her family. There are plenty of opportunities in the local community for her to do everything on offer under a hospital which is not a home!.

Section 9 is a tick box check list that the Chair should ensure is based on the principles and standards laid out in the CTR Policy which is clearly is not.

Section 10 is about Discharge steps and standards. It mentions “where people are assessed as lacking capacity” “Best Interest process”. That is what they have been doing all along with Lincolnshire County Council involved from the beginning and their BI assessors but today there was no doubt that Elizabeth had capacity and even when she was drugged to the hilt at a previous hospital her wishes are still the same and that is TO COME HOME.

I have not even had a carers assessment since coming to this area. In respect of the person concerned this CTR is to ensure “someone will look at my living arrangements and make sure I do not lose my housing or right to benefits while in hospital” That somebody is ME! as her Attorney “who I would like to live with? What I want from my life? She wants to come home but certain others are trying to make out I am a bad person, this is commonplace and experienced by many carers – they try to collectively say that the relationship is bad, put safeguarding in place again you and just gang up and ruin your life by trying to label you as a “perpetrator and abuser” which is why the safeguarding and risk assessments need proper external scrutinising and safeguarding works BOTH WAYS!

I remember the discharge from former area from Wales to Northampton to a care home where practically all money was taken leaving just £30 pw and no support on managing financially and I have proof that this care home run by social services, rated good allowed her to go without food at weekends. Absolutely appalling which is why I have tried to provide a home for life – an independent detached bungalow for her. None of the care institutions in the community have worked and the urban environment of London was not good so it is completely different here. Some residents in these care institutions can be loud and any noise is very triggering for Elizabeth so a bungalow in a peaceful location is what is needed and the location of home is extremely nice and suitable. I know she could settle down in this area and that there would be no problems.

TRANSFORMING CARE

I am looking at the minutes held in July 2024 of the ADULTS AND COMMUNITY WELLBEING SCRUTINY COMMITTEE and this meeting is attended by the commissioner of the CTR and same panel as the CTR. How interesting, it states:

“Many older adults MAY HAVE BEEN MISDIAGNOSED WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES FOR DECADES. Data was being gathered on these individuals, especially those with learning disabilities who tend to be identified earlier.” This is a huge safeguarding issue yet I as Mother and carer who wishes for pathological tests done on abnormal findings on scans going back to 2007 am being bullied right now – that is how I see it. These minutes have identified huge nationwide safeguarding issues that NHS England need to address at each and every area. I have now identified further safeguarding issues on how CTRs are carried out incorrectly, not taking into account all the standards and principles and a CTR should be concerned with physical health and underlying conditions which are not catered for under the MHA. Properly arranged CTRs not CTR ‘style’ reviews are needed, with independent panels and properly arranged and organised like that in the former area was.

These minutes identify a serious national issue apart from this with long waiting lists for neurodevelopmental services. Waiting times for diagnosis were up to a year. Well in Elizabeth’s case it is coming up to 4 years under Lincolnshire and back to 2007 in former area who refused to look into matters properly so I as Attorney and Mother had to pay privately to confirm everything. When you advise the outcome of such private tests under the MH they are just ignored under the NHS.

“Diagnostic processes involved multiple professionals and efforts were being made to streamline this process to reduce waiting times. ” THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH as lives are being put at risk.

NO autism respite provision. However Elizabeth is not being recognised as someone with autism. It is however recognised within these minutes that girls and women often masked their symptoms leading to late diagnosis.

Housing needed to be addressed. Well I have addressed that issue with a detached bungalow. All that would be needed is shared lives carers or young student professionals to knock on the door like I provided privately in a scheme in the community once. This community though is completely different to London and totally caring with lots going on and work opportunities etc.

This is so true: ONE MEASURE NOT ACHIEVING TARGET IS REGARDING CARERS SUPPORTED IN LAST 12 MONTHS. I can only go by how I have been treated and would regard this as bullying. To ban you from visiting for months on end, to take away the phone, to try to isolate and stop contact by way of capacity assessment backed by her so called advocates is very sad and that is because I am asking for pathological tests that are urgently needed but being ignored.

ADULTS AND COMMUNITY WELLBEING SCRUTINY COMMITTEE AGENDA WEDNESDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2024.

I have the previous minutes also but note nothing has really changed from the last minutes and now I am seeing the names of those involved and the attendees.

1
Apologies for Absence/Replacement Members
2
Declarations of Members’ Interests
3
Minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2024
5 – 8
4
Announcements/Updates
5
Lincolnshire Safeguarding Adults Board Update
(To receive a report from Justin Hackney, Assistant Director – Adult Care and Community Wellbeing, and Richard Proctor, Independent Chair LSAB, which provides the Committee with an update on the current position of key areas of work being undertaken within the Lincolnshire Safeguarding Adults Board (LSAB))

9 – 14
6
Service Level Performance against the Corporate Performance Framework 2024-25 Quarter 1
(To recive a report from Caroline Jackson, Head of Corporate Performance, which summarises the Adult Care and Community Wellbeing Service Level Performance against the Success Framework 2024-25 for Quarter 1)
15 – 38
7
Adults and Community Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee Work Programme
(To receive a report by Simon Evans, Health Scrutiny Officer, which invites the Committee to consider its work programme)
39 – 46

Democratic Services Officer Contact Details
Name:
Tom Crofts
Direct Dial
01522 552334
E Mail Address
thomas.crofts@lincolnshire.gov.uk

Please note: for more information about any of the following please contact the Democratic Services Officer responsible for servicing this meeting

Business of the meeting

Any special arrangements
Contact details set out above.
Please note: This meeting will be broadcast live on the internet and access can be sought by accessing Agenda for Adults and Community Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday, 4th September, 2024, 10.00 am (moderngov.co.uk)
All papers for council meetings are available on: https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/council-business/search-committee-records

12 ALL AGE AUTISM STRATEGY
Consideration was given to a report and presentation introduced by Justin Hackney,
Assistant Director – Adult Care and Community Wellbeing, and presented by Catherine Keay,
Head of Commissioning for Mental Health, Learning Disabilities and Autism – NHS
Lincolnshire Integrated Care Board, which provided the Committee with an overview of
Lincolnshire’s All Age Autism Strategy. The Committee were fully guided through the
predation at appendix A of the report.
Consideration was given to the report and during the discussion the following points were
recorded:

Many older adults may have been misdiagnosed with mental health issues for
decades. Data was being gathered on these individuals, especially those with learning
disabilities, who tend to be identified earlier.

The Integrated Care Board (ICB) funded services for 16-18 year olds, but there was a
national issue with long waiting lists for neurodevelopmental services. Waiting times
for diagnosis were up to a year, locally, and up to seven years elsewhere.

Autism Champions were being rolled out across various sectors to promote reasonable
adjustments. The goal was to have these champions in every sector, including shops
and local authorities, to create autism-friendly environments.
 The Virtual Autism Hub, started in February 2024. It was involved in the children’s
diagnostic pathways and provided grants to support groups, especially in
underserved areas.

Diagnostic processes involved multiple professionals, and efforts were being made to
streamline this process to reduce waiting times.

Many autistic individuals were academically high achievers but struggled with stress
and anxiety. The Autism Hub aimed to provide support across Lincolnshire to help
these individuals develop everyday functional living skills.

There was no specialised autism respite provision. Most autistic individuals needing
social care support fell under mental health services. Creative solutions, like
organising hotel stays with care support, were being explored. The Council was also
working on gap analysis to identify needs for respite care and other services.

Increased awareness of autism had led to more referrals overall. However, girls and
women often masked their symptoms, leading to later diagnoses. Efforts were being
made to raise awareness about different presentations of autism.

Housing for autistic individuals, especially those without learning disabilities, needed
to be addressed. Ground floor accommodations were often required due to safety
concerns. The joint accommodation strategy group was working on specific needs
and bespoke tender processes for care providers.

Page 6
3
ADULTS AND COMMUNITY WELLBEING SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 24 JULY 2024
 Efforts were being made to improve data collection and understanding of prevalence
and future demand.
 There was a significant number of unemployed autistic adults. Efforts were being
made to support these individuals into employment, but there was also a need to
educate employers about hiring autistic individuals.
 There were disparities in the availability of support across different areas, with more
resources concentrated in Lincoln. Efforts were being made to address these
disparities and provide more equitable support.
RESOLVED

  1. That the report and presentation be noted, and the Committee’s support for the
    Lincolnshire All-Age Autism strategy 2023-28 be recorded.
  2. That an update on actions and improvements be reported to the Committee next year.
    13 SERVICE LEVEL PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE CORPORATE PERFORMANCE
    FRAMEWORK 2023-24 QUARTER 4
    Consideration was given to a report by Caroline Jackson, Head of Corporate Performance,
    which invited the Committee to consider the Service Level Performance against the
    Corporate Performance Framework 2023-24 Quarter 4. It was reported that 95% of
    measures were achieving or exceeding targets. One measure that was not achieving target –
    regarding carers supported in the last 12 months. It was recognised that this target was
    giving flawed indication and was scheduled needed to be reviewed in the 2024-25
    framework.
    Consideration was given to the report and during the discussion the following points were
    recorded:
     The Committee recognised that Lincolnshire was performing well when compared to
    statistical neighbours; however, improvements and progress should nonetheless
    continue to be made.
     Assurances from the Care Quality Commission were welcomed.
     It was understood that new standardised formatting for presenting data needed to be
    implemented so as to ensure effective benchmarking with other authorities.
     Client-level data was growing as a resource, which presented opportunities to inform
    and improve service delivery via a more sophisticated interrogation of data.
     The 2024-25 framework remained largely unchanged from the previous version. The
    following changes had been made:
    o PI31 – definitions had been revised.
    o PI111 – the target had been increased due to the expected expansion of the
    service.
    o PI59 – the target had been reset to give a better reflection of the service and
    meaningful intent.
    o Three additional contextual measures had been added:
    Page 7
    4
    ADULTS AND COMMUNITY WELLBEING SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
    24 JULY 2024
     PI194 – Personal wellbeing estimates – life satisfaction; happy;
    worthwhile.
     PI195 – Annual concentration of air pollution, fine particulate matter.
     PI196 – Percentage of households in an area that experience fuel
    poverty.
     Contextual measures were measured by questionnaires and survey but concerned
    subjective matters. Trends and trajectories could be garnered from these
    measurements to inform the direction of the service.
     Matters such as measuring air quality had an overlap between the two tiers of local
    government in Lincolnshire.
    RESOLVED
  3. That the report be noted, and the Committee’s satisfaction be recorded.
  4. That the 2024-25 Adult Care and Community Wellbeing Service Level Performance
    Indicators and Targets be supported.
    14 ADULTS AND COMMUNITY WELLBEING SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – WORK
    PROGRAMME

    Consideration was given to a report by Simon Evans, Health Scrutiny Officer, which invited
    the Committee to consider its planned work programme.
    No changes had been made since publication; however, it was suggested that the following
    two items be moved from the September meeting on to October:
     Day Services Update
     Director of Public Health Annual Report 2023: Follow Up
    RESOLVED
  5. That the report be noted.
  6. That the above changes be made to the work programme.
    The meeting closed at 11.30 am
    Page

Elizabeth has asked many times to work in the hospital cafe but still she has not been given the opportunity. In this area there are many opportunities with the local college and hub for autism although Elizabeth’s condition has not been identified as Autism and she is being treated as a MH patient. She is now being taken out on group leave which she enjoys however I would compare the Trust to like a religious cult who restrict and deny family contact to any parent who dares to challenge and it is not the right thing to do when that family member might have extremely valid concerns.

I do not see any members of the public invited to this scrutiny meeting but I remember once when I turned up at the former area’s scrutiny wellbeing meeting I was told it was not open to the public. I had even offered to do the minutes. Doing the minutes accurately is what is needed which is why I should be invited ALL DAY to the CTR. I wonder what the response will be if I turned up to this Council’s Scrutiny Meeting.

Now having read these minutes I think the best thing is to do the entire safeguarding openly and transparently especially as regards why I am supervised 2-1 after all this time which is putting a huge risk on the ward and their staffing levels. Safeguarding works both ways and should not just be done on a parent and carer in such an underhand manner.

The CTR is arranged for the 30th of January and I have written to NHS England about this and also asked for my invitation to be all day and for the whole thing to be rearranged properly with a completely independent panel.

The Commissioner/Chair along with another Safeguarding Professional based under the Primary Care Trust are giving the most interesting talks to Lawyers on “Challenging Families and Best Interests” How to manage challenging families!”

In answer to that – there would be no such a thing as a challenging parent and carer as if they were listened to, included and treated with respect then this would enable Trusts to work effectively in determining what is in the best interests because after all, a parent/carer is the only EXPERT BY EXPERIENCE.

I will never forget the comments of the Independent Chair of the CTR done correctly under former area. He said “The whole thing stinks!” How true! However the former area were going to send Elizabeth to the Priory in Hemel Hempstead but instead her wishes were listened to and she was allowed home. Unfortunately it is like going backwards in this area as there is no communication and families/carers are treated as though they are invisible – if this is how I am being treated there must be others. The minutes of these scrutiny meetings look like they contain same matters which have just been copied and pasted but these people are not properly safeguarding my daughter who urgently needs pathological tests after so many years of neglect from former area and current where we had hoped so much for a fresh start. Instead, it has been one hell of a nightmare and still ongoing after so very long but now disturbingly with all the attempts to revoke the POA yet again there is much going on behind everyone’s backs right now and no answer from the Public Guardian Office as yet. I will keep you all informed and these meeting should include parents and carers after all it is a scrutiny meeting.

The Conference comprised of speakers including Chair: Beverley Hitchcock, Elly Chapple, Professor Andy Bilson, Professor Luke Clements.

Trauma related practice: is a phrase increasingly used by public bodies to convey their awareness that many of those with whom they interact have experienced life changing traumas. As a rule, the traumas referred to are ‘other’ -in the sense that they are the result of adverse childhood experiences, domestic violence, mental health difficulties and so on. What is generally acknowledged is that many users of public services identify their most traumatising experiences as the way they were treated by the public bodies that they had approached for support.

Complex Systems Generated Trauma: what needs to be done: Chair: Dr Ana Laura Aiello; Mary Busk; Dr Peter Baker; Vivien Cooper OBE

Systems Generated Traumas of this kind are a daily experience for many people in contact with the social welfare system, including carers, disabled adults and disabled young people. There are a myriad of intersecting examples, but for the parents of disabled children these can include being prosecuted when their disabled child is ‘school refusing’, being refused support by children’s services when in desperate need, but then having their home inspected and their children interviewed for child protection purposes: being accused of fabricating or inducing their child’s o;;mess (FII) because they have asked for a second opinion from a health professional; being unable to access justice to gain redress for the damage done by behaviour of this kind – and so on.

About the speakers:

Ana Laura Aiello – post doctoral researcher on the Cerebra LEaP project (Leeds University) – (an innovative problem-solving project that helps families of children with brain conditions cope with the legal barriers they face. We listen to families and help them get knowledge they need to access health and social care/other support services and identify common legal preventative problems) Ana has studied law and human rights in Argentina, Spain and UK and worked for Amnesty International, Disability Rights International and CHANGE and at universities in Argentina, Spain and UK.

Beverley Hitchcock: Head of Research and Information – Cerebra

Derek Tilley: Senior Development Officer – Cerebra Legal Rights team.

Elly Chapple: Founder of #Flip The Narrative – TEDx Speaker

Luke Clements: Cerebra Professor of Law and Social Justice at the School of Law, University of Leeds

Mary Busk – worked for public/voluntary sectors and founder member of NNPCF currently working for NHS England LD and Autism Programme and spoke in a personal capacity as a family carer and mother of one disabled child.

Peter Baker – Senior Lecturer in intellectual disability at Tizard Centre, University of Kent. Has worked as a Consultant Clinical Psychologist for NHS in Sussex with leadership responsibilities for Learning Disability psychology services in E. Sussex/Brighton & Hove. He is widely published in the area of challenging behaviour and intellectual disability.

Vivien Cooper OBE – parent of young man with severe learning disabilities and Founder and CEO of Challenging Behaviour Foundation.

It was good to meet up with some of my social media contacts and see such a huge turnout of parents and carers from all over the country who have experienced the most terrible traumatic interactions with various public bodies particularly social services and an ever increasing group of us parents and carers remain in touch via discussion groups on social media to share ideas and individual negative experiences and we all agree something needs to be drastically done to change a system that is completely broken.

Our Negative Experiences:

This goes back to 2010 and even beyond this and I honestly think things have got worse. 2010 was when Elizabeth was placed in a local scheme. The placement started off well but went to pieces when a support worker left and others took over. Isolated in her individual flat where “noone knocked on her door” Elizabeth quickly declined. There was not the 24 hr support in place just members of staff who occupied one room at the top of the building and no observation through the night as to whom entered the building. I wont go into what happened but because of no security this put a vulnerable person at huge risk of abuse. That was the start of my main complaints and then you see the ugly side in terms of response. Blame was focussed on me as a parent that I visited too often however I worked full time and was on a police training course on Saturdays. CCTV cameras went missing along with all of Elizabeth’s possessions but the blame was then put on Elizabeth. She should never have been placed at this scheme and I was right to voice concerns but when you voice concerns this is when you come up against negative reactions. If they see a parent as a problem who has every justification to be concerned, quite often if a placement has not worked out then out of area solutions are funded. On huge dosage of drugs Elizabeth could not function. Health and safety/risks not followed up on and that should mean if a placement is not safe then something else needs to be provided but carers and parents are cut out.

Elizabeth has been placed in many out of area placements as far away as Wales where restrictions were in place for visitors. Following on from this private hospital was a care home where suddenly there was a poor signal and you could not get through on the phone.

Fast forward to today Elizabeth has suffered immense trauma and so have I as a parent watching her go downhill with one wrong placement after another and the guilt feeling that if we had never moved we would not be in this awful position today.

Safeguarding cutting out parents and carers is used to distance and isolate a vulnerable person. This is our current experience. It amounts to organisational abuse when someone sits writing notes constantly and you have 2-1 supervision like you are a criminal. This is going on right now and has been for the most part in the new area where we have moved.

What they do is take the phone away and basically virtually stop contact between you and the person you care for. Nothing is done correctly as far as safeguarding goes. Safeguarding should be done in an open transparent manner. If there are concerns they should include you in their meetings that go on behind your back. It is bullying to carry out safeguarding in this manner.

I have raised safeguarding myself. Elizabeth has been isolating in her room and missing meal times but then the response they give is “there is nothing we can do – she is an adult and it is up to her – we cannot force her to eat”. However bearing in mind capacity they say she has none this is surely negligence. It was not me who complained to the CQC and I think this was the reason they acted but then the same problem reoccurred.

At the moment I am totally alarmed that Elizabeth is being prescribed a combination of drugs against BNF by a locum doctor – This is the 11th one employed by an Agency. I have raised concerns and even given references to relevant research papers. Faulty prescribing can cause significant harm leading to death and injury yet many doctors just ignore this completely and carry on.

Elizabeth never had seizures before coming to this new area. The safeguarding is clearly there to protect themselves. The seizures are life threatening so it is not unreasonable that I as a mother, carer and Attorney should draw this to attention.

The treatment my daughter has had amounts to cruelty, abuse, bullying and some of the staff over the past three years have acted in a callous manner and against me Police have been used by staff calling them during my visit such as Xmas Day and then a ban lasting months and months on end by the Responsible Clinician.

All sorts of blame and accusations are thrown at you and where is this safeguarding going to end. They failed at taking away the POA but there is no means for Elizabeth ever to be discharged – a prisoner for life as they took away that under the displacement of NR and “unsuitability” claims whilst those involved in safeguarding never visited but when required had to do reports and those reports showed conditions to be squalid and negative. During this time patients had approached me in the grounds to voice their concerns and to tell me that THEY were doing the safeguarding.

Many of the parents attending this conference have had the most negative experience of social services and I was not alone. It was shocking to hear how many had experienced similarly traumatic interactions with those supposed to care. The only good experience I have ever had from social services was with my father’s social workers who instead of working against me worked together and I kept my father out of care for many years as a result.

Nothing such as the above has been my experience of social services under MH. I have never had a care act assessment done. Elizabeth has never had direct payments to enable her to have some support in the community. The reports they may are full of error and untruthfulness which has been our experience both previously and presently. There is nothing but a blame culture and in file records negative reporting against you to justify their aims.

A lot of public money could be saved not wasted if professionals worked together with families instead of against them. This worked effectively in the case of my father who had Alzheimers so I am not saying they are all bad but my experience has been the vast majority have gone out of their way to destroy family relations and cause more harm than good.

The last thing I will mention is because of my concerns I applied for police records. I know not everyone’s experience of police has been good but I actually trained with the Police and their course was excellent. I also trust the Police who have not responded in the callous way social workers have but their time has been wasted on several occasions. The police records outline the huge amount of calls Elizabeth made in desperation which is the real reason they took the phone away. Elizabeth was desperately trying to get help from the Police at a time she was according to other patients being abused by the vast majority of night staff. In certain records it stated that her calls related to her being starving hungry as because of over drugging and constant RT she isolated in her room for much of the time and the drugs were raised to double leaving her fit for nothing.

When you ask if safeguarding is in place due to excessive restrictions and raise safeguarding concerns yourself there is flat denial and refusal of a meeting that could be useful to dispel concerns (such meeting once took place behind my back ie s42 with everyone present) except the person they make out to be the perpetrator but luckily Elizabeth picked up the minutes and gave them to me. I feel like featuring them to show how vicious professionals can be behind your back.

Safeguarding should be open and transparent and not done in a biased secretive manner and because this is going on presently I am not allowed to see my daughter alone and have been deprived meaningful contact for so long I see this as extreme bullying – as one member of staff commented “it is evil to keep her from her mother on her Birthday”. It is constantly being mentioned this is being done to “keep her safe” however safe from what exactly as from her appearance Elizabeth is clearly going downhill, her face full of red marks and distressed about staff making notes during visits and most concerning is where are these notes leading and they are bound not to be pleasant. It is cruelty and abuse of power on the part of professionals to do this to a parent and carer knowing full well that this is also impacting greatly on the vulnerable patient who is clearly unhappy about all of this and then to rob her of her mental capacity in tests that were not done properly. I am talking here not just of social services but Health Boards too. It is done out of control to isolate and work towards severance of contact as I see it.

There is no greater punishment by professionals to stop a parent and carer from having contact or put enormous heavy restrictions in place and it is also detrimental to the vulnerable person to be isolated in this way. It is harmful that a team can stick together in such a way and there be no accountability. It is harmful that file notes are not accurate and contain untruthful comments. For parents and carers their lives are ruined and I would describe my life as barely worth living solely down to the way we have been treated like criminals and it is only ever one sided.


Today i have spent quite some time trying to get through to Sheffield Hallamshire Hospital where my daughter who is held a virtual prisoner under Castle Ward can have the extensive tests she needs on her physical health which the MH would appear to be obstructing. Elizabeth is having seizures that are frequent. Her Responsible Clinician says I am partly to blame for such seizures and there are heavy restrictions in place on just me right now visiting my daughter with 2-1 supervision and not allowed any time with my daughter to take her even in the hospital grounds. This is bullying to the extreme by Lincolnshire Partnership Trust. It is also huge neglect as all they have done is cancel referrals already made by a previous area that the new GP said I should take her to. Everything was put in the way of that at Ash Villa, the previous hospital. Now the RC has put massive restrictions in place contrary to the health and wellbeing of my daughter.

Elizabeth is going downhill. Her face was a mass of red blotches and forehead looked as though she had hit her head on the wall or door – a hard surface. Her knuckles were encrusted with scars that had obviously healed from bleeding. She said she had been injected again recently. She started having the seizures at Ash Villa and there was a cancer scare – they say tests for came out normal. I had private scans done. I sent them to various experts on disk and all said the same thing that certain images need to be closely investigated by Neurology. You can imagine how happy I was when finally she was referred to a Neurologist under United Lincolnshire Partnership Trust. On the 3 January was supposed to be her appointment. She was not taken there by the MH team. I turned up instead with the private scans I had done in a small window of opportunity because for the most part LPFT have stood in the way of all leave and visits highly restricted. It is almost as if they are trying to protect themselves or know more than they let on. There is clearly something physical wrong for my daughter to have such frequent fits. She is not being monitored for her blood oxygen levels and following each fit they give lorazepam which is extremely wrong so I have been told. If she has temporol lobe epilepsy the treatment would be different but Elizabeth is treated as though she is a MH patient and nothing else. LPFT have ignored all the screenings and all the past assessments done by Huntercombe who claimed she had high functioning Aspergers. That was back in 2017 under Enfield. It would appear that ALL the doctors seem to be protecting each other because today I have had to go to enormous lengths to write and enquire about these scans. Because of my grave concerns about my daughter’s wellbeing and safety on the MH ward (Castle Ward) Lincolnshire – no way should it be left to a team of MH professionals to film my daughter against her wishes having seizures. This is against GMC guidelines. Secondly her capacity is highly disputed. There are three flawed capacity assessments done purely for the purpose of getting rid of me as nearest relative which they succeeded in. All are heavily flawed and not in line with Principle 4 and Masterman-Lister case and they do not take into account the causative nexus. The causative nexus is highly important to see determine impairment. This has not been done, making all three capacity assessments not fit for purpose.

I finally got through to Sheffield who told me that absolutely nothing had been arranged.   The person concerned when to some lengths to check and refer to a supervisor.

It is hard to trust anything the NHS does as when things go wrong there is nothing but a wall of silence and it is very hard to age any kind of justice even when someone dies as a result of negligence.   There appears to be a wall of silence right now.  Certain doctors (even those assigned to look at physical health) appear to be standing in the way of my daughter’s much needed physical health referrals which has been the case since we moved to this dreadful area of Lincolnshire. The word normal most certainly does not mean normal and they are depriving my daughter of the necessary physical health referral to a Neurological ward where she could have extensive tests done to determine the real reason for the fits and not rely on just observations and comments that state “it is the mother’s fault”. The reasons for my appalling treatment is because of “concerns” by her Responsible Clinician on my part and an entire MDT all acting ultra vires against their own code of conduct and treating Elizabeth as someone who has no capacity. LPFT HAVE COMPLETELY ABUSED THE MCA AND NOT GONE ACCORDING TO NATIONAL GUIDELINES. I am now a BI assessor myself and am frankly disgusted at such enormous dishonesty and in addition after all this time she has not had proper pathological tests or any psychological input. The law is failing to protect vulnerable people such as my daughter.

I have written to Pals today, the Neurological department of ULHT, care concerns (LPFT) and my MP and here are my emails below. You should not have to go to these lengths. Elizabeth agreed to go to Sheffield. There seemed to be more concern about her breaking expensive headgear which she promised not to break than her physical health and wellbeing and the necessity to have these extensive tests. This is highly negligent on the part of the NHS. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ARRANGED FOR THE SECOND TIME as today I checked with Sheffield.

From: susan bevis
Sent: 22 April 2024 10:48
To: NEUROLOGYSECRETARIESLINCOLN (UNITED LINCOLNSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST) ulh.tr-neurologysecs.lincoln@nhs.net
Cc: PALS (ULHT) pals@ULH.nhs.uk; MARISCORECEPTION (NHS LINCOLNSHIRE EAST CCG) LECCG.MariscoReception@nhs.net; Christopher Reid Chris.Reid@parliament.uk; voiceability.org;
Subject: Elizabeth Bevis For the Attention of Dr CS
 
FOR THE ATTENTION OF DR S
I would like an appointment to discuss my daughter’s care with you.
I have today checked with Sheffield Hallamshire Hospital only to find out that NOTHING has been arranged.  E is having life-threatening seizures and I visited her yesterday.  I have grave concerns for her wellbeing. 
My daughter no longer wants to live.   She was covered in red marks, she is having constant fits which ARE NOT mental health conditions.  You are responsible for referring her to have extensive tests which Lynsey has agreed to have done.  Why has this not been done?    
This matter is subject to a high court case right now.  I would like to know your reasons for not referring my daughter to Sheffield or has she been referred elsewhere?
I would like your reasons why a MH team should film my daughter against her wishes and that you should wish to take their word when they are not qualified to comment.  I was assured by your department when I called last Wednesday that an appointment had been made and it has not as I have checked today.   How can you possibly monitor my daughter when you are not there 24/7.  
I was also told by Sheffield to contact the GP which I have done.
I would like to know the details of what exactly has been arranged.

Since moving all E’s Neurology appointments have been cancelled which is highly neglectful.  She has had several accidents and her face was absolutely covered with red marks.   I want my daughter to have the physical health checks she needs and under Martha’s Rule she is entitled to have this.  Nothing has been arranged so I need to know all the details of the appointment to pass onto the court.
Her condition in past files points to neurological not mental health.  I look forward to hearing this information from yourselves and the GP.  I have not had response to my emails from your department and I need that response today.  Thank you.   I am beginning to feel like no-one wishes for my daughter to have extensive tests done and are ignoring her physical health completely.
It is also against GMC guidelines to film a patient who has said she does not wish to be filmed.   Not having these tests done is preventing my daughter for being evaluated on her capacity ie the causative nexus which is subject to high court action right now.
Yours sincerely

Susan A Bevis  T

From: susan bevis
Sent: 22 April 2024 11:19
To: PALS (ULHT) pals@ULH.nhs.uk
Cc: NEUROLOGYSECRETARIESLINCOLN (UNITED LINCOLNSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST) ulh.tr-neurologysecs.lincoln@nhs.net; MARISCORECEPTION (NHS LINCOLNSHIRE EAST CCG) LECCG.MariscoReception@nhs.net;
Subject: Elizabeth Bevis For the Attention of Dr S (Case Ref: VA18567)
 
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I need to know the full details of the referral that was meant to be done on two occasions now to Sheffield for E to have an MRI scan done under a Tesla 3 scanner.  On two occasions now I have phoned sheffield because no-one is responding to my emails.  No appointment has been made on two occasions now despite assurances.  I therefore need a copy of the referral details as obviously I cannot go by their word.  I have spent a long time trying to get through only to be assured that absolutely nothing had been arranged.

Please therefore let me know the details of the referral and if this referral has gone to another area such as Nottingham by any chance?

I look forward to hearing from you regarding this urgent matter.

Yours sincerely

Susan A Bevis   

From: susan bevis
Sent: 22 April 2024 10:57
To: Christopher Reid Chris.Reid@parliament.uk
NEUROLOGYSECRETARIESLINCOLN (UNITED LINCOLNSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST) ulh.tr-neurologysecs.lincoln@nhs.net;

Elizabeth Bevis For the Attention of Dr CS
 
Dear Mr Reid

When I came to Dr S clinic last Wednesday I did not have an appointment arranged and did not expect to barge in front of others.  I explained that no appointment had been made for Sheffield.  Two ladies (managers) came out to see me witnessed by *******   All they could do was pass messages on to Dr S.    I was then assured that the necessary appointment for E to go under a Tesla 3 scanner had been made.  i had explained that nothing had been arranged previously and that this was being looked into and that a referral had been made when it had not been made according to Sheffield.   I am absolutely in despair to hear yet again Sheffield have no record of any appointment or referral even being made.

Please can you look into this matter and provide me with details of the appointment.   It is almost as if noone wishes my daughter to go and have the extensive tests needed and are trying to play down the necessity of it all.

The seizures are life threatening, the MH team are not monitoring her blood oxygen levels properly.  She is being treated in the most appalling manner.   I am scared for my daughter’s life.  The referral to Sheffield  was meant to extensively look into my daughter’s physical health and wellbeing and yet again for the second time nothing has been arranged.  I totally despair.

I need to know the full details of the appointment as under Martha’s Rule my daughter is entitled to a second opinion and this can only be achieved through extensive tests done through Sheffield.

This is now urgent.  I need full details of the appointment they claim had been arranged yet no-one is responding to my emails under the Neurological department of Dr S.

Yours sincerely

Susan A Bevis

2.5 years of appalling imprisonment under the barbaric NHS where not one person takes responsibility.

Everyone working together to cover their backs in the form of MDT that goes way beyond nursing and doctors codes of conduct.

Total conflict of interest at Board level with no-one taking responsibility.

In the middle of this mess is a vulnerable person now covered in marks, scratches where she is obviously totally distressed and injected frequently, missing meals and that in itself is dangerous and to make up for missing meals is taken to the shop where she may buy crisps and snacks to compensate. At least at home she would be looked after nicely and now she no longer wishes to live so she has told myself and others who have visited her.

She is treated as though she has no capacity and is being denied her physical health assessments which have not been referred as advised on two occasions.

Absolutely dreadful situation. No accountability and these doctors try to play down their responsibilities and try to put all the blame on you as a parent/carer instead of take an interest and investigate what could possibly be the cause of these life threatening seizures. To think they are more worried about her breaking equipment she is supposed to wear on her head to monitor properly than the wellbeing of my daughter.

Then I get an email from a Ms Lowe of Marisco Medical who has said she has been told not to answer my emails because I am writing to her via her own personal email address that states NHS/ICB but I just wrote back and said that can simply copy in by cc to her personal NHS email address the correct email address as what had been given to me had emails bounce back. I do not expect to hear anything but it is good communication to point out that this is the wrong email address and copy in the correct email address surely? She is supposed to be a lead safeguarding person under the GP surgery. This is a safeguarding matter they need to be aware of as two referrals have not been done. At least instead of dismissing such concerns the person should write more clearly and then why use a personal email address in the first instance to correspond with me then now say this is wrong?

So now I have to wait several days if not weeks before I get any kind of response I have asked for ie date of referral and details of what has been arranged. Why is that so difficult when Elizabeth has given consent and it seems like NOONE wants me to know anything.

In the meantime a Ms Emily Scott who is supposed to be the Clinical Lead for Castle Ward has told Elizabeth she is moving elsewhere or words to that effect that she is being taken to see a place but noone in the family is being advised of this and so the information is via Elizabeth.

When I visited Elizabeth she clearly said she wanted to come home, she misses her cat and misses her home and family. Elizabeth has spoken more than one of staff shortages on the ward and I have this in writing.

I am the only person who comes to visit each week without fail. My visits are heavily restricted 2-1. Even a prisoner is treated with more respect.

As regards capacity I had bought Elizabeth something where it indicated there was 9 pieces in a box. I had not eaten myself and after doing all her shopping for her had no chance because the visit was 2.30 and I had two pieces from that box myself. This shows tremendous capacity for Elizabeth to question where the other two pieces were. In addition to this I had bought all the nice things she wanted me to. Food is the only comfort for a patient treated like a caged animal you would see in a zoo. In a prison warders may be present and walk up and down but do not sit there taking notes of everything being said in a small cramped room, Ms Munro describes as “spacious”. So why are they doing this – it is on order. An Executive decision or that of the Responsible Clinician who is clearly not taking into account the fact that this is not conducive to recovery. It has not been taken into account that she would like some leave after all this time and only has 45 minutes so the only other enjoyment is going to the hospital shop and even that was used as punishment for appearing hostile, the subject at the time of an interlocutory injunction. This could not go forward due to county court not having the jurisdiction.

When a responsible clinician goes down the legal route first before medical concerns this is highly negligent. Why are they filming her on the ward having seizures and trying to make out this is caused by her mother. Why dont they do the responsible thing by refer her to sheffield and for the endocrinology tests as already proven in private tests there is dysfunction.

It would seem there are no standards and those at the top also work for the care quality commission and the ICB.

All I have ever wanted is for my daughter to be treated fairly.

Sadly I have chosen to live in a beautiful area that would benefit Elizabeth but she is not allowed any meaningful contact – there is complete abuse of human rights under this area. There is no accountability.


Not everyone has access to a computer or internet but I am totally inspired by my contact who is 91 having to stand up for her son who by the sounds of it has been totally misdiagnosed and denied the correct pathological tests by the NHS.

A Carer’s Story by “A” (I am using the exact words of my guest blogger as written in a letter by request)

“I have been involved with Mental health for many years as a carer for my son, even though the diagnosis is totally wrong.

My son has had nothing but persecution – stress – no life whatsoever.

Resistant to some medications.

The service should provide the resistance test, only then would patients be on the right medication.

It would save a lot of problems – also a lot of money. 

Most of all – The misery that these medications cause. They are addictive and very difficult to withdraw from.

It needs a special clinic, experienced person to make sure the withdrawal is successful. 

My son has two disabilities from the medication.

He is in a wheelchair for over 20 years suffering from TD – Tardive Dyskinesia from the medication – injury to the brain – spine (Clozapine) no dopamin in this system

Disability (Risperidone) – brain disturbance so now lacks capacity.

They only knew one thing – pills/Tablets.

The system needs to change. Put the right people in the right jobs.

Mental health destroys everything ? (The system).”

BY MY GUEST BLOGGER AGE 91 YEARS OLD

Wishing all my readers a Happy New Year. 

I can only hope 2024 will be better than the last.

Xmas was the worst I have known for a long time.  Elizabeth was not allowed home and wanted to see her cat but this was not allowed not even for one day. She is still held under heavy restrictions by Lincolnshire Partnership Trust on a never-ending section with phone taken away.  The phone restriction has been going on for some time along with visiting restrictions said to be an MDT decision but we know that this is not the case. Restrictions commenced every two weeks, then a further two weeks and then increased to every four weeks up until 26 January. Even more restrictions seem now to be in place because when I have phoned following New Year since I had not spoken to Elizabeth for some time, several staff appeared reluctant to even hand the phone to her. The Clinical Lead, ES, stated the phone would only be given if Elizabeth specifically asked for it, others said “I will see if she wants to speak to you”.   I know for a fact rest of family not treated the same but taking the phone away is very nasty and very restrictive and this is NHS not private sector care. Taking the phone away and locking it in the office or wherever makes it difficult for everyone in the family to keep in touch with Elizabeth who is cut off from the outside world and held a virtual prisoner after 2.5 years. It is not easy to get through to the ward. This is cruelty and I see it as punishment no doubt aimed at me but inflicting upon Elizabeth.  Also, Elizabeth is deprived of playing her music on her phone and seeing pictures of her cat who she misses so much. She no longer has a life and neither do I, our lives ruined by the decision I made to move to what we thought was a lovely area.  I have made a huge mistake moving here as although the immediate area is lovely I had not bargained for how ruthless the NHS is under MH care or the fact provision in the community is poor. Having said that, there is so much going on in the local area, things that Elizabeth would enjoy but instead she is locked up by a group of strangers(MDT) who think they know best and could not care less about the impact their punishment is having on the family, even those who are not under restriction are affected by taking the phone away yet there is no consideration whatsoever towards anyone. It is also forgotten about values, medical ethics and duty of care according to their individual Code of Conduct. They are in fact acting ultra vires by depriving s17 ground leave to the shop as a means of punishment for instance as instructed.

Xmas Eve, rest of family visited and reported Elizabeth “not so good”.

Xmas Day could not relax, cook a nice dinner or have people over this year.  I had just 45 minutes with a member of staff supervising in the small visitor’s room.   Elizabeth was OK at first but when the second member of staff took over she became upset by this person then a group gathered outside the visitor’s room and I was told to leave.  I had heard through Elizabeth that she had a reduction in her medication and I wanted to know what reduction she had and it was very upsetting that so many staff outside grabbed hold of her and that is when she tried to defend herself but so many of them involved and all she did was shout at them. Police were called to the ward yet again by staff told to report concerns yet these concerns were nothing like I was accused of.   It is alarming how many times Police have been called, as if they do not have enough to do for no reason.  Always there has been nothing to report and no evidence whatsoever recorded on CCTV, only members of staff who are told to report adversely so as to make me out to be someone who is hostile, aggressive, etc.  I now do not ever visit alone as I feel I am up against so many who are against me.  So Xmas was awful.  I had no idea Police had been called after I had left the premises that day.    The first I knew about this was on the 28th December at on line ward round.  I was told I was banned indefinitely by the RC for inciting Elizabeth to attack staff which was totally untrue.    I have since received another unsigned letter from the MHA legal office stating the ban is four weeks until 26 January. They are not following NHS Guidelines and have no regard to the latest Government paper on hospital/care home visits or Code of Conduct of the MHA. It seems like a never-ending ban just like Elizabeth’s never-ending section – an imprisonment for life by LPFT. I have just been told I must no longer contact the carers champion.  I must only write to one designated email address.   Since moving, I have had no carer’s assessment and was actually told previously I was not entitled to this.

Most disturbingly of all, the Neurologist appointment on the 3 January was not attended by Elizabeth and when I questioned why, I was told by ES, Clinical Lead that nothing was in the diary and no one knew anything about it.  Again this is totally untrue.  It is obvious LPFT did not want her to either have an MRI scan all along or see a Neurologist or Endocrinologist in the first instance. It seems the most important thing is the drugs they force and the law they twist to suit themselves re MHA and MCA.  All her physical health appointments were cancelled as unnecessary upon our move.   I am also banned from taking Elizabeth to any physical health appointments.   Our treatment has been even more appalling than the former area and I thought that was bad.

There does not seem to be any regard for human rights or Codes of Conduct/Guidelines.

For anyone else going through hell as we are I am going to share with you some points of law as what I am seeing is a whole group of professionals sticking together, totally disregarding their own code of conduct and ignoring the law. There seems to be no accountability.  Some of these professionals are responsible for health and wellfare of the most vulnerable patients but what has happened is several have acted ultra vires relying on colleagues and MDT backing, going along with what they are instructed to do regardless of what is correct and according to law and medical ethics and they are in breach of their own code of conduct.  Already restrictively detained under s3 MHA , Elizabeth is excessively deprived of any kind of liberty whatsoever, treated like a object not a person. It should be the least restrictive care under MHA but under LPFT, detention is more like what you would expect a restricted prisoner to have and no one seems to care less or to give a thought as to how they would feel if they were treated in this most degrading and undignified manner as Elizabeth is:

“It is no longer adequate for a medical practitioner to invoke the opinions of colleagues as authority for a decision. That mechanism known from the case of Bolam v. Friern Hospital Committee [1957] WLR 582

There is very strict policy as regards takeaways and Elizabeth loves Saturdays on the ward when patients are allowed to order a takeaway.  Whilst I would agree that takeaways are not good on a daily basis, there have been occasions where Elizabeth has been so tired she has missed all her meals and been in bed most of the day.  This is because of the huge amount of drugs prescribed have taken away every bit of quality of life leaving her with no energy and nothing but tiredness. I have drawn to attention of staff that missing meals is very bad and can affect behaviour but any sign of hostility is met with punishment and deprival of ground leave like one nurse did.  Even though she was instructed, she still went along with it and this is surely not part of her role to dish out punishment, therefore she is acting ultra vires.  On another occasion when without warning I was banned we thought we were going to the Carlton Shopping Centre but this was cancelled on the spur of the moment without warning by the RC of Castle Ward and Elizabeth was visibly upset. I had promised a meal for her and brought food to the ward and was told by a nurse that it was not permitted and to take that away along with gifts a friend brought.  It was totally undignified as Elizabeth was looking through a slit in the glass door and could see we had arrived and we were told to leave the premises and that it was an Executive decision.  I was told to get away from the door by another nurse as it was upsetting to Elizabeth. Again acting upon orders by banning a visitor to see a vulnerable patient who was excited and expecting our visit in her non existent life and these nurses stood in the way in the course of doing their job yet they acted ultra vires. It is not part of their job to ban visitors and then say it is an MDT or an Executive Decision not theirs when in fact they are the ones acting against their own Code of Conduct and even Trust Policy states about dignified care. Their actions along with the other nurse was totally undignified and degrading.

DENYING FOOD PARCELS AND TO ORDER FOOD FROM OUTSIDE 

L v Board of State Hospital [2011] CSOH 21; 2011 SLT 233

The hospital had been ultra vires in denying patients the right to have food parcels and to order food from outside.

Whilst I agree ordering of takeaways every single day is not good or healthy but neither is missing meal times and there should always be exceptions but such is the environment, more restrictive than any prison this verges on abuse.

House of Commons House of Lords

Joint Committee on Human Rights

Protecting human rights in care settings

Fourth Report of Session 2022–23

Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 13 July 2022

Ordered by the House of Lords to be printed 13 July 2022

HC 216 HL Paper 51

Published on 22 July 2022

by authority of the House of Commons and the House of Lords

This is a very interesting paper to read.

Joint Committee on Human Rights

The Joint Committee on Human Rights is appointed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases); proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders.

The Joint Committee has a maximum of six Members appointed by each House, of whom the quorum for any formal proceedings is two from each House.

Current membership

House of Commons

Harriet Harman QC MP (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham) (Chair)

Joanna Cherry QC MP (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh South West)

Florence Eshalomi MP (Labour, Vauxhall)

Angela Richardson MP (Conservative, Guildford)

Dean Russell MP (Conservative, Watford)

David Simmonds MP (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

House of Lords

Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Conservative)

Lord Dubs (Labour)

Lord Henley (Conservative)

Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)

Baroness Massey of Darwen (Labour)

Lord Singh of Wimbledon (Crossbench)

“We were also concerned to hear about ongoing issues with Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), the check that is put in place to ensure that detention in care settings is within the law and in line with the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR, and the right to liberty and security, under Article 5 ECHR. There are often unacceptable delays in authorisation of DoLS and there is often no access to legal aid if care users wish to challenge their deprivation of liberty in court. Whilst the DoLS system is going to be replaced by a new Liberty Protection Safeguards System (LPS), there is no timetable for this to be rolled out. We ask that the Government must work with the regulator and all stakeholders to ensure that providers fully understand the functioning DoLS and comply with statutory requirements, and that access to legal aid for those who wish to challenge is widened. The Government should also set a timetable for rollout of the LPS system and keep us updated on progress.

We have reported before on the visiting arrangements for those in care settings during the pandemic. Evidence submitted to this inquiry showed that through and beyond the pandemic problems persisted with providers following guidance. We also believe a lesson learnt from the pandemic was the harm caused by blanket bans on visiting. We have called in the past for the Government to legislate and do so again here. The Government must introduce legislation to secure to care users the right to nominate one or more individuals to visit and to provide support or care in all circumstances, subject to the same infection prevention and control rules as care staff. The Government must also legislate to give the CQC the power to require care settings to inform them of any changes to their visiting status, and to report live data on levels of visiting and restrictions. The CQC must make compliance with visiting restrictions a key consideration when undertaking its regulatory and monitoring roles.

Under the HRA, public authorities must act compatibly with ECHR rights. Those providing care services in care settings, however, are not all public authorities. Unless care legislation, such as the Care Act 2014, contract law, or consumer standards provide equivalent protections, there is no way for privately funded individuals in private care settings to enforce human rights on the same basis as for those in publicly funded care settings. This can mean that two residents in the same care home might have different legally enforceable rights. We recommend that the Government should consult on extending the protections of the HRA to those receiving care and support from all regulated providers, and suggest a way this could be done through an amendment of the Care Act 2014.

When something goes wrong, the users of a service should have access to an effective complaints mechanism that is capable of investigating those complaints, and putting things right, in a way that is transparent, fair, and proportionate. However, the complaints system for care users is confusing, time consuming and too often does not result in effective resolution. The system needs to become easier to navigate. Care users must not be frightened of retribution if they complain. We recommend changes to streamline the process, with the roles of the CQC, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) clarified and with all three organisations operating a “no wrong door policy”.

The right to life (Article 2 ECHR, Article 10 CRPD).

Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3 ECHR; Article 15 CRPD).

• The right to liberty and security (Article 5 ECHR; Article 14 CRPD).

• The right to family and private life (Article 8 ECHR; Articles 22 and 23 CRPD).

• Freedom from discrimination in the enjoyment of human rights (Article 14 ECHR; Article 5 CRPD).

• The right to the highest attainable standard of health (Article 12 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); Article 25 CRPD).

ARTICLE 3 DEGRADING TREATMENT WHICH APPLIES TO ELIZABETH WHO IS HAVING FORCED INJECTIONS VIRTUALLY ON A DAILY BASIS.

ARTICLE 3 HRA

The failure to give her appropriate treatment for a condition she has been diagnosed as having creates a situation where she is subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment.  Elizabeth has complex PTSD which is totally ignored by LPFT along with her physical health.

Constant Restraint and frequent RT is in breach of Art 3.

Deprivation of family rights is a consequence of this.  They say she is dangerous but have done nothing to address that, apart from to subject her to close surveillance at all times.Elizabeth likes animals and adores her cat and pigeons. She is totally misunderstood by these professionals and I would say her treatment at times has been that of cruelty and abuse.  

This is in violation of her rights under Art.3 ECHR and represents inhumane and degrading treatment as in  Sławomir Musiał  v.Poland (2009) & Raffray Taddei v. France (2010)

 Incidentally the ECHR has ruled that whatever obstacles the patient may have put in front of the treatment team that did not dispense the state from its obligations to protect their human right to being protected from inhumane and degrading treatment, Claes v. Belgium (2013).  

Right to take legal proceedings, ECHR Article 5(4) Storck v. Germany (Application No 61603/00), 16 June 2005.

Article 5(3), which deals with the rights of a person who has been detained.

“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. . . .”

The difference between a right to “take proceedings” and a right to “be brought promptly before a [court]” must be deliberate. It stops short of requiring judicial authorisation in every case. 

It leaves to the person detained the choice of whether or not to put the matter before a court. MH (by her litigation friend, Official Solicitor) (FC) (Respondent) v. Secretary of State for the Department of Health (Appellant) and others.

DENYING VISITS IN HOSPITALS ETC

Visiting Report December 2023

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/visiting-in-care-homes-hospitals-and-hospices/outcome/government-response-to-the-consultation-on-visiting-in-care-homes-hospitals-and-hospices

DISCRIMINATION

Equality Act 2010: guidance – GOV.UK

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance

Code of Conduct from the Nursing Midwifery Council and would comment on one or two points here:

1 Treat people as individuals and uphold their dignity To achieve this, you must:

1.1 treat people with kindness, respect and compassion

1.5 respect and uphold people’s human rights

3.4 act as an advocate for the vulnerable, challenging poor practice and discriminatory attitudes and behaviour relating to their care

4.4 tell colleagues, your manager and the person receiving care if you have a conscientious objection to a particular procedure and arrange for a suitably qualified colleague to take over responsibility for that person’s care

iv) A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he or she makes a decision that is unwise (see Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust v JB [2014] EWHC 342 (COP)at [7]). The outcome of the decision made is not relevant to the question of whether the person taking the decision has capacity for the purposes of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (see R v Cooper [2009] 1 WLR 1786at [13] and York City Council v C [2014] 2 WLR 1 at [53] and [54]);[2]

Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co 2003

The leading case is Masterman-Lister v Brutton& Co [2003] 3 All ER 162 in which Lord Justice Chadwick stated at paragraph 75: the test to be applied….is whether the party to legal proceedings is capable of understanding, with the assistance of such proper explanation from legal advisors and experts in other disciplines as the case may require, the issues on which his consent or decision is likely to be necessary in the course of those proceedings. If he has capacity to understand that which he needs to understand in order to pursue or defend a claim, I can see no reason why the law – whether substantive or procedural – should require the imposition of … a litigation friend and at paragraph 79: a person should not be held unable to understand the information relevant to a decision if he can understand an explanation of that information in broad terms and simple language; and … he should not be regarded as unable to make a rational decision merely because the decision which he does in fact make is a decision which would not be made by a person of ordinary prudence. The Court of Appeal re-considered the Masterman-Lister test in Bailey v Warren [2006] EWCA Civ 51. At paragraph 126 of her judgment Lady Justice Arden concluded: The assessment of capacity to conduct proceedings depends to some extent on the nature of the proceedings in contemplation. I can only indicate some of the matters to be considered in accessing a client’s capacity. The client would need to understand how the proceedings were to be funded. He would need to know about the chances of not succeeding and about the risk of an adverse order as to costs. He would need to have capacity to make the sort of decisions that arise in litigation. Capacity to conduct such proceedings would include the capacity to give proper instructions for and to approve the particulars of claim, and to approve a compromise. For a client to have capacity to approve a compromise, he would need insight into the compromise, an ability to instruct his solicitors to advise him on it, and an understanding of their advice and an ability to weigh their advice Capacity to conduct proceedings was further considered by the Supreme Court in the post-MCA case of Dunhill v Burgin (Nos 1 and 2) [2014] UKSC 18. At paragraph 13 of her judgment Lady Hale noted: The general approach of the common law, now confirmed in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, is that capacity is to be judged in relation to the decision or activity in question and not globally. Hence it was concluded in Masterman-Lister that capacity for this purpose meant capacity to conduct the proceedings (which might be different from capacity to administer a large award resulting from the proceedings). This was also the test adopted by the majority of the Court of Appeal in Bailey v Warren[2006] EWCA Civ 51, [2006] CP Rep 26, where Arden LJ specifically related it to the capacity to commence the proceedings (para 112). It would have been open to the parties in this court to challenge

that test, based as it was mainly upon first instance decisions in relation to litigation and the general principle that capacity is issue specific, but neither has done so. In my view, the Court of Appeal reached the correct conclusion on this point in Masterman-Lister and there is no need for us to repeat the reasoning which is fully set out in the judgment of Chadwick LJ.

Subject: Guidelines on Restricting Hospital Visits

Visits from friends and relatives are considered crucial in the recovery and welfare of patients and research carried out on the severe restrictions imposed during the Covid pandemic indicates a clear detrimental effect on patients who missed visits from loved ones and friends. The impact on visitors has also resulted in an increased incidence of depression and anxiety being recorded. Elizabeth had once enjoyed my visits and especially on just one occasion the two hour leave unescorted at the Carlton Centre just around the corner from the hospital.  

Excluding or restricting visits should therefore be imposed only in exceptional circumstances where there are reasonable ground for believing that a visitor may have a detrimental effect on the patients therapy. I have been told I am indefinitely banned by the RC but in order to do that surely an application should have been made by LPFT to the Court of Protection to get rid of me for good.  What they are doing is very wrong.

A decision to exclude visitors on the grounds of his or her behaviour or propensities must be fully documented and explained to the patient and where possible the appropriate person concerned.  In the case of psychiatric patients the nearest relative should be informed of any visitor exclusions and supervision decision and if it is they who are excluded or supervised an explanation in writing is to be provided to them. Nothing has been done properly.  The nearest relative who I became nearest relative to has most certainly not been informed and no proper explanation has been given other than I am said by the RC to be a “bad influence”.  I am even said to be partly the cause of the episodes that look like fits but most of these have taken place when I have not been around.  The real reason is that they want to send her far away from home and family and cut contact altogether and they are doing this by isolating Elizabeth from her family already.

A visitor may be excluded or restricted to visits under supervision if the visit is considered to be anti-therapeutic (in the short or long term) to an extent that a discernible arrest of progress or even deterioration of the patient’s mental state is evident or can reasonably be anticipated if contact is not restricted.   It is the MDT of so many, none of whom take individual responsibility who do not want me to visit and why?    It has been said “why do you think Everyone ….……..   everyone agrees with his decision, everyone of practically 30 who are invited to MDT meetings agree and every one of them going along with EXECUTIVE decision made by one or two who do not want me on the premises because they do not want information shared. That is the real reason.

An impact assessment should be carried out in consultation with the patient to assess the impact of any denial or restriction of visits on the patient’s welfare.  Where a patient lacks capacity or is impaired as to their capacity an assessment by a suitably qualified best interests assessor should be carried out to assess any negative impact that denial or restriction of visits may have on the patient.   

Here is the impact these professionals are having on my daughter as stated on Xmas Day  “I no longer wish to live”.   This is the effect of the so called “care” by LPFT rated good by the CQC.   It is the worse experience we have ever encountered.

CLINICAL CARE LPFT TRUST POLICY DOCUMENT

8. Admission to Hospital/Keeping an individual in hospital

8.1 Policy Statement Care in a residential or hospital setting should be provided at the lowest level of security and restriction based on an individualised assessment of need, risk and capacity. Alternatives to residential or hospital care such as home treatment and crisis intervention should be considered as a less restrictive alternative to hospital admission where possible.

8.2 Consent to Admission to Hospital/Keeping Someone in Hospital If the individual has the capacity to decide whether to come into hospital or remain in hospital, then informed consent should be sought in all cases. This means that the individual is given information about the environment, routine and purpose of the inpatient setting / admission. If the individual does not consent, then consideration should be given to assessment and admission under the Mental Health Act (MHA) see MHA Policy 6a. If the individual does not have capacity to consent to hospital admission, then the MHA should be considered or the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) utilised as per Policy 6b. Any restrictions should have an accompanying care plan.

 Examples of restrictions include: • Ability to leave the ward (should remain on ward for first 24 hours minimum).

 • Contact with others

• Movements within ward

• Privacy

• Discharge

• Day to day activities

• Personal care

 If an individual lacks the capacity to consent to admission and the admission is completed using the best interest framework then this should be recorded as per policy 6b and an urgent authorisation for a Deprivation of Liberty should be submitted to the Supervisory Body as per the MCA Policy 6b.   After 2.5 years held like a restricted prisoner with no respect towards family with one goal and that is to send away – far away from home and family.  Best Interest is theirs not my daughter’s and every single capacity assessment is flawed.   “Go away my Mum is the NR”   “I am not going to engage”   –  It was their wish to get rid of me as NR only for me to become NR again lol!

Advocacy should be considered and advised to the patients / carers as appropriate upon admission and discharge.   

8.3 Consent to Admission for Under 16s’ (Also refer to Chapter 18 (18.3) of the clinical care policy)

Section 131A of the Mental Health Act (1983) requires hospital managers to ensure that patients age 18 or under are admitted to an environment suitable for their age (subject to their need). This duty applies to both detained and informal patients. It is not an absolute prohibition on the admission of such patients. If the young person is deemed competent (Gillick Competency or Fraser Guidelines) and consents to admission it can proceed. Parents and guardians should be kept informed (see chapter 13 of Clinical Care Policy).   Total breach of MHA and its Code of Conduct 11:14-11:16.

Where the young person objects to information being shared with a parent or guardian who has parental responsibility then further advice should be sought from the Trust’s safeguarding or legal team.   Elizabeth is sharing information such as the assessment that took place for a care home a very long distance away from home.

In cases of a dispute, priority should be given to the ‘parent’ with whom the young person lives or to the court involved. Advice should always be sought from the Trust’s legal team where there is dispute or a lack of clarity.     Nothing but court after court and investigation after investigation since I have moved.

Information should be provided to the patient and appropriate family/carers about visiting times, mealtimes, school hours etc.      Was told I could only visit evenings but Elizabeth told me other parents were visiting during the day.  Now I am completely banned.

8.7 Visitors to LPFT Premises LPFT considers the safety and dignity of all visitors to its premises as extremely important. The link below provides guidance and procedures regarding the management of all visitors to Trust premises and includes process for managing visits by children: Please refer to visitors process within safeguarding policy 11  What they have not done is offer any alternative.  If you ban someone from visiting there should be alternative arrangements

In November 2006 the Department of Health launched a ‘Dignity in Care’ campaign with an aim to put dignity and respect at the heart of care services, which extended into Mental health Services in 2007; and is now applicable in all health and social care settings. This campaign, led by the National Dignity Council, identified a 10 point Dignity Challenge to organisations which remains fully applicable today as follows:

1. A zero tolerance to all forms of abuse

2. Supporting people with the same respect you would want for yourself or a member of your family

3. Treat each person as an individual by offering a personalised service

4. Enable people to maintain the maximum possible level of independence, choice and control

5. Listen and support people to express their needs and wants

 6. Respect people’s right to privacy

7. Ensure people feel able to complain without fear of retribution

8. Engage with family members and carers as care partners

9. Assist people to maintain confidence and a positive

10. Act to alleviate people’s loneliness and isolation.

9.2 Purpose and scope of this policy 9.2.1 To provide clear information to workers, enabling them to provide care and treatment that respects and maintains patients (service users) rights to privacy and dignity.

9.4 Privacy and Dignity

9.4.1 Privacy refers to freedom from intrusion and relates to all information and practice that is personal or sensitive in nature to an individual.

9.4.2 Dignity refers to how people feel, think and behave in relation to the worth or value of themselves and others. To treat someone with dignity is to treat them as being of worth, in a way that is respectful of them as a valued individual. In care situations, dignity may be promoted or diminished by the physical environment, the organisational culture, by the attitudes and behaviour of the care team and others; and by the way in which activities are carried out. Dignity applies equally to those service users (patients) who have capacity and to those who lack capacity.

9.4.3 Maintaining a service user’s (patient’s) privacy, dignity and respect is central to the delivery of effective health and social care, working in partnership with service users (patients) and where appropriate their carers / families.

9.4.4 Since July 2016 all organisations that provide NHS care or adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. Meeting the standard requires workers across the Trust to ensure people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss are provided with information that they can easily read or understand with support, so they can communicate effectively with health and social care services.   Sensory issues in Elizabeth’s case who cannot stand crowds, noise and bright lights which makes the current environment totally and utterly unsuitable.  She would be better off in a care farm where there are animals, a natural environment but the MDT and commissioners do not see it that way.

9.4.5 The following are examples of how to maintain a service user’s (patient’s) privacy and dignity:

Always ask a service user (patient) which name or title they prefer to be addressed by; and ensure all staff respect the service user’s (patient’s) expressed wishes.

• Ensure the Accessible Information Standard is consistently applied so all patients (service users) and carers where appropriate, are able to effectively access Trust (LPFT) services.

• Ask a patient (service user) if they wish their carer to leave for specific conversations or procedures which may compromise their privacy or dignity.

• Maintain a patient’s privacy when asking or assisting them to dress or undress.

• Close curtains or screens in areas where patients are expected to undress.

• Close observation windows in bedroom doors unless they are being used for observation at that time.

• Obtain informed consent before undertaking examinations or treatments.

• Ensure privacy and confirm the boundaries of confidentiality when discussing any confidential and sensitive issues such as diagnosis, symptomatology, sexual orientation and gender identity.

 • Respect privacy and dignity at all times, such as during the delivery of personal care, when undertaking all observational duties, when entering treatment rooms, single sex rooms or bedroom areas, toilets and bathrooms.    And do not give prone restraint by several men!

• Always knock or make your entry clear through announcing entry and waiting for a reply before entering* (* except where there is a clinical or care rationale not to do so, which includes during night periods when service users (patients) are sleeping).

• Don’t discuss worker or patient personal information with co-workers whilst carrying out care or within hearing distance of service users (patients), carers and visitors.

Ensure a service user’s (patient) choice is adhered to in respect of the gender of the staff member carrying out intimate care, such as assisting with washing or undressing.

Ensure reasonable adjustments are made to support a service user (patient) to function at their highest level possible. This may include ensuring a service user (patient) receives timely assessments, such as by a Physiotherapist or Occupational Therapist, and that related prescribed care and / or equipment is provided in a timely manner.

9.9.1 Board of Directors The Board of Directors are responsible for the Trust having policies and procedures in place which meet national and local requirements and / or legislation in order to provide a service which is based on best practice. The lead Director responsible for this policy is the Director of Nursing and Quality   Quite frankly what is the point of a Policy when no one takes any notice of it.   LPFT would do well to consider OPEN DIALOGUE.

9.9.2 Divisional Managers, Quality Assurance Leads and Team Leaders for in-patient services Divisional Managers, Quality Assurance Leads and Team Leaders for in-patient services are responsible for:

• Monitoring compliance with this policy

 • Ensuring timely reporting of any non-compliance of this policy through the DATIX incident reporting system.

• Investigating any reported non-compliance with this policy

• Implementing any actions required following audits, incidents or patient / carer / worker feedback relating to Privacy, dignity and mixed sex accommodation. This may include individual worker development where there is evidence of failure in respect of related practice.

9.9.3 In-patient Ward / Unit Managers and their Deputies In-patient Ward / Unit Managers and their Deputies are responsible for:

• Ensuring workers are aware of this policy, its content, where to access it; and their individual related responsibilities.

 • Ensuring timely reporting of any non-compliance of this policy through the DATIX incident reporting system.

• Ensuring timely recording in the service user (patient) record of the date, time and reason for the breach occurring.

• Ensuring service user/s (patient/s) and their carers (where appropriate) receive an apology and an explanation of the reason for the breach.    

• Ensuring patient safety is maintained during the period of the breach.

• Ensuring risk assessment/s, care plan/s and observation level/s are closely monitored and reviewed during the period of the breach.

• Ensuring timely escalation within service management structure where support or resource is required to ensure patient safety during the period of the breach.

• Investigating any reported non-compliance with this policy, including taking corrective action to prevent any recurrence.

9.9.4 All workers All workers are responsible for:

 • Actively promoting the service user’s (patient’s) privacy and dignity at all times.

 • Ensuring that all service users (patients) are cared for with privacy, dignity, and in single sex accommodation (as defined within Section 8.5 of this policy). Page 28 of 642

 • Ensuring they are aware of their role to support privacy and dignity including when carrying out practice such as observational work.

• Timely reporting of any breaches of this policy, including those reported to them by service users (patients), carers or other workers through the DATIX incident reporting system.

Associated Documentation

 1. NHS 13-14 Standard Contract

2. PL/CNO/2010/3, Professional Letter, Department of Health

3. DSSA Principles, September 2009, Department of Health, Gateway Reference: 12610

4. DSSA in Mental Health and Learning Disabilities, December 2009, Department of Health, Gateway Reference: 12940 5. Assessment of Same Sex Accommodation. Brief Guide for Inspection Teams (CQC 2015). 6. Accessible Information Standard Specification (NHSE 2015).

Staff must be mindful of the impact of mental health conditions on the wider family and support network, not just identified carers and next of kin, ensuring that information is shared as appropriate and wider family members are given the opportunity to seek advice, information and express any concerns they may have. Although it is recognised that the sharing of information may sometimes be difficult, it is crucial to the ongoing wellbeing of both the service users and their carers.

Staff must acknowledge that the carer is frequently the person who knows the service user best, often having regular contact over many years throughout many changes in mental health well-being, social networks and professional support.  Not recognised one bit.

The carer is often the person who has to offer support during out-of-hours crises, which can be stressful. By involving the carer in the development of the care plan and crisis plan where appropriate, or ensuring they have a copy of it, the carer can feel supported in assisting the service user to follow it.

Some service users will have entitlement to Section 117 after-care. The elements of the care plan which are provided under this entitlement must be clearly and separately articulated (see Mental Health Act Policy 6a) Help and guidance on assessment and care planning processes can be obtained from the Team Coordinator – Assessment & Care Planning. Application of the Care Programme Approach – CPA Whilst the expression Care Programme Approach was first introduced in mental health services in 1991, since the publication of Refocusing the Care Programme Approach (DoH 2008) the term Care Programme Approach is now specifically used to describe the approach used in secondary mental health care to assess, plan, review and coordinate the range of treatment and support needs for people in contact with secondary mental health services who have complex characteristics as defined below. CPA care and support must be discussed and agreed with the service user and the practitioners involved in the care. Where there is disagreement within the Multi-Disciplinary Team about the level of support from CPA, advice should be sought from relevant clinical leads or managers within the service, such as the Team Leader, Divisional Manager, Quality Lead or Clinical Director. Where there is a disagreement that cannot be resolved, the service user can appeal against the decision

This may be the last blog for some time on my part. What I would like to see is choice and there is none. There is no care in the community and we live in a District where provision is poor although there is a wonderful charitable sector and a lovely community. This would have all benefitted Elizabeth greatly. Like so many other parents and carers I have turned to social media but now I can see I could be doing this for the rest of my life and getting nowhere whatsoever. I am now taking a different route as there is no more choice and also I am one of many affected. It is not right or fair for parents to have to fight fo their sons and daughter’s because of organisational abuse by powerful public bodies.