alzheimer questions

nicter

nicter wrote: »

This only happens if the father was placed on a section 3 of the mental health act. It is more likely he was placed on a section 2 which is an assesment order and doesnt attract continuing care funding

Just wanted to clarify that funding afforded by being on a section 3 (117 aftercare) is different to funding from continuing care. Continuing care is awarded according to a strict criteria for complex physical/mental health needs
Didnt want to confuse you op as I mentioned in an earlier post that your father may be eligible for continuing care

nicter

Errata wrote: »

One way of getting out of funding CHC is to lift a section. If you post on the over 50's board there are a number of people with in depth experience of CHC, self funding, charges being placed on property to repay council funding etc.

This is not strictly true Im afraid. Even if a section 3 is rescinded the entitlement to 117 aftercare remains. 117 entitlement can be removed but is a complex procedure and doesnt often happen

Errata

nicter wrote: »

This is not strictly true Im afraid. Even if a section 3 is rescinded the entitlement to 117 aftercare remains. 117 entitlement can be removed but is a complex procedure and doesnt often happen

Sorry, I think we're at cross purposes. As you pointed out, it's likely that the father was detained under a section 2. I should have used the word renewed, rather than lifted - a slip of the keyboard I'm afraid.
Clearly, if the father can now walk out of the hospital at any time of his choosing then a section detaining him no longer exists, but I suspect he can't.
I think it is still worth the OP trying for CHC (Continuing Health Care) before the father moves to a care home.

spaghetti_monster

Hi!
Just to clarify - he was placed there on a section 2 (after a violent attack during which the police were called). A week or two ago they said the section was lifted, but not that he would go on to section 3 (they said this was a possibility when he first went in.)
I'm not sure what you mean that he could choose to walk out any time he wants - because he really wants to and tries the locked doors all the time! (Like most of the others there too apparently......) Maybe that we would take him out of hospital and back home?

Errata

spaghetti_monster wrote: »

Hi!
Just to clarify - he was placed there on a section 2 (after a violent attack during which the police were called). A week or two ago they said the section was lifted, but not that he would go on to section 3 (they said this was a possibility when he first went in.)
I'm not sure what you mean that he could choose to walk out any time he wants - because he really wants to and tries the locked doors all the time! (Like most of the others there too apparently......) Maybe that we would take him out of hospital and back home?

Thanks for clarifying. What I was trying to get at is that if he is no longer under a section legally detaining him in hospital, but wants to leave - what prevents him from doing so? Not the section, it no longer exists - but he's still locked up and can't get out. This isn't an uncommon situation but the hospital and staff have no legal authority to prevent someone from leaving hospital if they wish to unless they are there under a section. Locking the doors prevents him from leaving and doesn't involve any paperwork or accountability; I would speculate that any of his requests to staff that they let him out are not complied with.

dangers

FIL is in a locked door unit and has a 'deprivation of liberty' order (?) against him as he keeps trying to leave but it would be totally inappropriate to let him do so. This order is done in conjunction with Social Services.

nicter

Have sent you a pm spaghetti

nicter

dangers wrote: »

FIL is in a locked door unit and has a 'deprivation of liberty' order (?) against him as he keeps trying to leave but it would be totally inappropriate to let him do so. This order is done in conjunction with Social Services.

Was going to post about this dangers but didnt want to look as if I was being argumentative

moggitymog

Errata wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying. What I was trying to get at is that if he is no longer under a section legally detaining him in hospital, but wants to leave - what prevents him from doing so? Not the section, it no longer exists - but he's still locked up and can't get out. This isn't an uncommon situation but the hospital and staff have no legal authority to prevent someone from leaving hospital if they wish to unless they are there under a section. Locking the doors prevents him from leaving and doesn't involve any paperwork or accountability; I would speculate that any of his requests to staff that they let him out are not complied with.

Don't want to confuse things but if he doesn't have capacity then it's best interest and deprivation of liberty, however i am sure that the hospital have all this in hand.
Spag, don't worry about future placement the ward will ask appropriate homes to assess him and he will go on leave first to make sure they can manage him prior to discharge

Errata

Have I missed or misunderstood that the OP's father is subject to a Deprivation of Liberty order.?
Apologies to the OP if I have.