Agenda Item - East Sussex County Council

Appendix 1
4.46 The results show that the most significant increase in outcomes for alleged
perpetrators is in the management of access to the victim.
Use of the Independent Mental Capacity Advocate Service (IMCA)
4.47 There were 6 Deprivation Of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) referrals where
the IMCA was involved to speak up for the person or person’s
representative.
4.48 There were 228 other referrals where the IMCA spoke up for the person in
health and social care decisions where the person was befriended.
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards
4.49 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) is a lawful means of authorising
the deprivation of liberty for those without capacity in order to carry out
safe care in a person's best interests where no other proportionate way
exists. East Sussex encourages registered managers in care homes and
hospitals to request DOLS for a person in their care whenever necessary.
4.50 Up until the end of March 2010, 158 DOLS referrals were received.
4.51 Most of those needing DOLS continue to be older people in the active
stages of dementia living in care homes and hospitals (95%). A very much
smaller number have been those of working age with Learning Disability,
acquired brain injury or other specialist condition. The DOLS service
continues to be delivered from a small specialist team on behalf of both
Adult Social Care and the Primary Care Trusts across the county, and as
needed for our residents beyond. This work is supplemented by the work
of our IMCA providers POhWER, a national advocacy organisation of high
reputation.
4.52 To date DOLS in the form of unauthorised deprivation of liberty has
resulted in further wider safeguarding investigation on 3 occasions where
the deprivation of liberty was assessed as not in the person's best interests
and therefore unlawful.
Complaints Information relating to Safeguarding
4.53 This year the Complaints Unit recorded 7 complaints about the
safeguarding process, this was a 22% reduction from last year, when we
received 9 complaints. The complainants were all relatives of the service
user/victim.
1 (14%) of these complaints was upheld
2 (29%) of these complaints were partly upheld
4 (57%) of these complaints were not upheld
4.54 There were no clear themes, although shortfalls in communication with the
complainant ran through most complaints. For example:
• 2 complainants felt that the case conference was overwhelming and
their views were not heard.
41