New DoLS figures: protecting rights through clearer review and records

Read the figures without losing sight of the person

Of the standard applications completed during the reporting year, 22.8% met the 21-day timeframe. The mean completion time across completed applications was 117 days. Completion can include closure without a full assessment; it does not always mean an authorisation was granted. ^[1]

These measures describe activity and delay. They do not establish whether an individual’s care was lawful, appropriate or effective. The methodology expressly warns against drawing conclusions about personal outcomes or local-authority efficiency. One authority, Redbridge, did not submit data. ^[2]

The practical question is therefore local: does your service have an accurate account of its outstanding matters and a clear route for raising concerns? A national average cannot answer it.

Check that the team is working from the current position

DHSC’s September update says assessment must consider the person’s particular circumstances and multiple factors. The former single acid test is no longer the current approach. The guidance also stresses the significance of wishes, feelings and possible objection. ^[3]

Arrange a focused discussion with the person responsible for mental capacity practice. Which training materials, induction notes and local procedures have been checked against the update? Give staff a named route for questions they cannot resolve confidently.

Uncertainty needs appropriate advice and escalation. It should never become an instruction to stop applying for safeguards or cancel existing authorisations across the service. DHSC continues to direct practitioners towards the relevant processes where there is doubt. ^[3]

Make the next action visible in the existing record

Use the records your service already maintains. Identify the current arrangements, application or authorisation status, relevant dates, conditions where applicable, responsible person and next action. Distinguish information confirmed by the local authority from an unanswered request.

Connect that information with the care plan. Record meaningful changes, the person’s communication and concerns, and how these have been brought to the right professional’s attention. A neat spreadsheet is of limited value if the shift team cannot find the action it needs.

Agree cover for the person coordinating this work. A process dependent on one manager’s memory becomes fragile during leave or absence. Share sensitive information only through appropriate channels and with those who need it.

Give staff time to recognise and raise a concern

This is where governance connects with workforce support. A refresher session needs space for staff to discuss situations from practice, understand their own responsibilities and recognise when they need help. Attendance alone cannot establish that the team understands the change.

Build a short review into supervision or an existing quality meeting. Ask staff how they would report a person’s distress or objection, where they would record changed circumstances and who would respond. Use anonymised learning where possible, with service-specific decisions taken through the proper channels.

Cost the manager time, staff release and any competent training or legal support required. The aim is a reliable process that helps people receive appropriate consideration, rather than another task added to an already crowded rota.

Agree the advice route before a difficult case arrives

Confirm the contact and escalation arrangements with the relevant local-authority team. Keep a record of the question raised, the response received and any action agreed. A submitted application or follow-up email should remain distinguishable from a resolved decision.

Care homes, hospitals and community services do not all use the same authorisation route. These statistics concern care homes and hospitals in England; they should not be used as a picture of supported living or care in someone’s own home. ^[2]

Where arrangements are disputed, unclear or changing, seek advice appropriate to the person and setting. An editorial checklist cannot determine whether a particular restriction amounts to deprivation of liberty.

Finish with a review you can use

Choose a manageable sample of records through your quality process. Check whether the recorded position is current, the next action has an owner and staff know how to raise a change. Set a review date and follow unresolved points through.

Look for better understanding, clearer records and timely escalation. Fewer applications or faster administrative closure should not become targets detached from people’s rights. The result worth pursuing is a team that knows what needs attention and can explain what it has done.