From a case decided by the Court of Protection last week: AG (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v BMBC
Important best practice guidance to the sector has been endorsed by the Court of Protection – because covert medication can be a need, a right and done compliantly with the MCA because it constitutes a decision for an incapacitated person, even though it is a serious impingement on a person’s article 8 human rights, and therefore needs to be justified and subject to scrutiny in a DoLS situation):-
(a) Where there is a covert medication policy in place or indeed anything similar there must be full consultation with healthcare professionals and family.
(b) The existence of such treatment must be clearly identified within the assessment and authorisation.
(c) If the standard authorisation is to be for a period of longer than six months there should be a clear provision for regular, possibly monthly, reviews of the care and support plan.
(d) There should at regular intervals be review involving family and healthcare professionals, all the more so if the standard authorisation is to be for the maximum twelve month period.
(e) Each case must be determined on its facts but I cannot see that it would be sensible for there to be an absolute policy that, in circumstances similar to this, standard authorisation should be limited to six months. It may be perfectly practical and proportionate provided there is a provision for reviews(or conditions attached) for the standard authorisation to be for the maximum period.
(f) Where appointed an RPR should be fully involved in those discussions and review so that if appropriate an application for part 8 review can be made.
(g) Any change of medication or treatment regime should also trigger a review where such medication is covertly administered.
(h) Such matters can be achieved by placing appropriate conditions to which the standard authorisation is subject and would of course accord with chapter 8 of the deprivation of liberty safeguard’s code of practice.