‘Barry’ is an older gentleman with a diagnosis of dementia. He was assessed as lacking the capacity to make decisions about where he lived and deprived of his liberty under a DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty). He had recently moved from supported living into a residential care home.
Under Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, someone deprived of their liberty in a care home or hospital can make an application to the Court of Protection to have these arrangements reviewed. Barry objected to his placement at the care home, so this process (known as an s.21A challenge) had been initiated. A Cloverleaf Advocate, ‘Phil’, was allocated as Barry’s Care Act Advocate to support in a Care Review with the Social Worker as part of the ongoing challenge process.
Barry’s presentation in relation to his dementia had declined during the s.21A challenge process. In particular, he would repeatedly and anxiously talk about his money. He also became more isolated, spending lots of time alone in his room, and frequently expressing frustration at his situation.
Phil met Barry on a number of occasions and discussed his thoughts and feelings. In particular, they talked about Barry’s concerns about his money and how he used to handle his money. During the Care Review it became apparent that at his previous placement, Barry had always had a bag of coins that he liked to keep on him.
Over the course of several visits, Phil built a good relationship with Barry, who opened up and told him how he liked to have newspapers to read and that this was important to him. Phil noticed that Barry seemed to enjoy his visits and preferred one-to-one chats with him.
The Court of Protection responded to the s.21A challenge, deeming it was in Barry’s best interest for him to stay at the care home. Through effective advocacy, Phil supported Barry to secure four hours of one-to-one support a week to enable him to leave the care home, helping to tackle Barry’s isolation and stop him spending so much time on his own in his room. It was agreed that if Barry did not want to go out on a particular day, he could have his one-to-one support inside instead.
During the Care Review, Phil also requested that Barry receive newspapers on a weekend, and advocated for him to have some money on his person to try and alleviate his fears about his access to money.
This case is a powerful example of how advocacy can help people to have their voices heard. Even though it was ruled to be in Barry’s best interest to remain in the care home, Phil’s support helped ensure his care was tailored to his needs and wishes, and he got the support that was right for him.
If you’d like to learn more about Care Act Advocacy, please visit: Care Act Advocacy – Cloverleaf Advocacy
