Quarterly analysis of Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Assessments (England) Quarters 1 to 3 2009/10

Hospitals and care homes are making use of new measures designed to protect people unable to give consent for their care.The Mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were introduced by law on 1 April 2009 to provide a legal framework for depriving someone of their liberty where they are unable to give informed consent regarding their care. The statistics presented here provide the first official information about authorisations to legally detain a person using the legislation.The safeguards apply to people aged 18 and above who suffer from a mental disorder of the mind (such as dementia or a profound learning disability) and who lack capacity to give consent to the arrangements made for their care and / or treatment. The safeguards cover people in all hospitals and care homes in the statutory, independent and voluntary sectors.A rigorous, standardised assessment and authorisation process is used to ensure only appropriate use is made of the safeguards.Key facts?The number of authorisation requests were: 1,772 in quarter 1 1,681 in quarter 2 and, 1,869 in quarter 3. ?Of the total assessments completed in each quarter, a higher proportion were for females than for males ?For each quarter, around three out of four assessments were made by local authorities while the remaining ones were made by primary care trusts. ?The percentage of authorisations granted leading to someone being deprived of their liberty varied between 33.5 per cent and 50.7 per cent across quarters 1 to 3. ?At 31 December 2009 1,074 people were subject to such authorisations.Quarterly analysis of Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Assessments (England) Quarter 1 (0.31MB)Quarterly analysis of Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Assessments (England) Quarter 2 (0.31MB)Quarterly analysis of Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Assessments (England) Quarter 3 (0.31MB)Have your say - give us your comments on this publication��

Dementia Special Care Units in Residential Care Communities: United States, 2010

Assisted living and similar residential care communities provide an alternative to nursing homes for individuals with dementia who can no longer live independently .Individuals with dementia can live in residential care communities that have dementia special care units, or in a more traditional setting where these residents are integrated with residents without dementia. This report compares residential care communities with and without dementia special care units. Read more.

Engagement Plan: Review of AHP Support for Children with Statements of Special Educational Needs in Special Schools and Mainstream Education

This engagement plan outlines the collaborative and partnership approach with key stakeholders in the first phase of the Review of AHP Support for Children with Statements of Special Educational Needs in Special Schools and Mainstream Education. It provides detail on how communication objectives will be met.It gives information on:Stakeholder Analysis for Phase One of the ReviewMembership of the Project BoardMembership of the Professional Stakeholder Reference Group

Project Initiation Document Phase One: Scoping Exercise within special schools

This Project Initiation Document outlines the purpose and plan of Phase One of the Review of AHP Support for Children with Statements of Special Educational Needs in Special Schools and Mainstream Education.

Terms of Reference for Project: Review of AHP Support for Children with Statements of Special Educational Needs in Special Schools and Mainstream Education

This is the Terms of Reference for the review of Allied Health Professional (AHP) support for children/young people with statements of special educational needs.It outlines expectations of the review and should be read in conjunction with the Project Initiation Document (PID) for Phase 1of the review, the Terms of Reference for the Project Board and the Engagement Plan for phase 1.

Terms of reference for Project Board: Review of AHP Support for Children with Statements of Special Educational Needs in Special Schools and Mainstream Education

This is the Terms of Reference for the Project Board of the review of Allied Health Professions (AHP) support for children/young people with statements of special educational needs.It outlines the:Purpose of the Project BoardResponsibilities of the Project BoardMembership of the Project Board

Teeth matter! Caring for your children's teeth: advice for parents and carers of children with special needs

This booklet explains how to care for the teeth of children with special needs.

Phase 2 Parent/Carer Questionnaire: Review of Allied Health Professions��' (AHP) support for children/young people with a statement of special educational needs

We want to know what you think about the AHP services for your child. We will also seek views of AHPs and teachers who work with your children and we will use them all to inform our decisions. This phase of the review is focusing on current AHP services for children/young people with a statement of special educational needs enrolled in mainstream schools and learning support centres/units attached to a mainstream school.

Review of AHP Support for Children with Statements of Special Educational Needs in Special Schools and Mainstream Education: Phase 2 Engagement Plan

This engagement plan outlines the collaborative and partnership approach with key stakeholders in the second phase of the Review of AHP Support for Children with Statements of Special Educational Needs in Special Schools and Mainstream Education. It provides detail on how communication objectives will be met. It gives information on: Stakeholder Analysis for Phase Two of the Review Membership of the Project Board Membership of the Professional Stakeholder Reference Group

Summary Interim Report on Findings and Interim Themes from Phase 1 of the review of Allied Health Professions (AHP) support for children/young people with a statement of special educational needs (SEN)

Summary Interim Report on Findings and Interim Themes from Phase 1 of the review of Allied Health Professions (AHP) support for children/young people with a statement of special educational needs (SEN)This interim report is outlining the service principles agreed by the Project Board and the themes identified throughout engagement and information gathering.

Introduction to the special issue on employment discrimination against immigrants

Purpose - This editorial aims to introduce the special issue on employment discrimination against immigrants. Design/methodology/approach - The first part is a commentary on key issues in the study of employment discrimination against immigrants. The second part presents the five articles in the special issue. Findings - The papers in this special issue focus on a variety of issues associated with employment discrimination against immigrants. For example, they consider: discrimination based on accents; differences among justice perceptions among immigrants and non-immigrants; the effects of negative stereotypes on workplace outcomes; the treatment of Hispanic immigrants; and the reasons for the lack of research on Hispanic immigrants. Research limitations/implications - The author comments on key issues that researchers of employment discrimination against immigrants have to take into account. These issues include: the appreciation of the diversity among immigrants; an understanding of the complexity of employment discrimination research; openness to cross-disciplinary approaches; and the consideration of employment discrimination within the context of the immigrant experience. The five articles that make up the special issues vary in their nature (empirical, critical), methodologies (quantitative, qualitative), locations (United States, Germany, and Canada), and implications. Practical implications - The issues discussed in the papers have important implications for understanding and overcoming employment discrimination against immigrants. Originality/value - The Journal of Managerial Psychology invited this special issue to initiate psychological research on employment discrimination against immigrants. The intent is to draw the attention of organizational scholars to the large, yet under-studied immigrant segment of the workforce.

Why Public Health Agencies Cannot Depend on Good Laboratory Practices as a Criterion for Selecting Data: The Case of Bisphenol A

In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION: Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS: Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.