7,367
edits
Difference between revisions of "Consenting to Admission to a Care Facility"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Consenting to Admission to a Care Facility (view source)
Revision as of 20:02, 24 July 2014
, 20:02, 24 July 2014no edit summary
Nate Russell (talk | contribs) |
Nate Russell (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
* the design of the community care facility and its physical resources | * the design of the community care facility and its physical resources | ||
* the health, safety and dignity of other persons in care | * the health, safety and dignity of other persons in care | ||
* any criteria set by, or advice or information from, a funding program ([[ | * any criteria set by, or advice or information from, a funding program ([[{{PAGENAME}}#References|1]]) | ||
==Assessing Capacity for Admission== | ==Assessing Capacity for Admission== | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
==Use of the Mental Health Act to Admit Older Adults to Residential Care== | ==Use of the Mental Health Act to Admit Older Adults to Residential Care== | ||
The Mental Health Act ([[ | The Mental Health Act ([[{{PAGENAME}}#References|2]]) is also sometimes used to admit cognitively impaired (and sometimes non-impaired older adults) into residential care facilities if they cannot consent or will not consent to go. | ||
In some instances these involuntary detention cases come about as a result of a person having an unaddressed health problem, an alcohol or other substance use problem, or the person is living in perceived unsafe conditions, including suspected abuse or neglect by others. In a typical situation, family expresses concern, and they then contact Mental Health or police to bring the person to the hospital. In other situations, the person may be living alone with few community supports. She or he has not selected anyone as substitute decisionmaker (that is, has not done advance planning) and refuses to go to a facility. | In some instances these involuntary detention cases come about as a result of a person having an unaddressed health problem, an alcohol or other substance use problem, or the person is living in perceived unsafe conditions, including suspected abuse or neglect by others. In a typical situation, family expresses concern, and they then contact Mental Health or police to bring the person to the hospital. In other situations, the person may be living alone with few community supports. She or he has not selected anyone as substitute decisionmaker (that is, has not done advance planning) and refuses to go to a facility. | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
A person can challenge the involuntary placement (detention) through a Mental Health Review Board hearing (s. 25). In the alternative, they can apply directly to the Supreme Court to challenge their involuntary detention (s.33). Both remedies are rarely used for older adults, and these remedies exist more in theory than in practice. The Best of Care report questioned the fairness of involuntarily detaining people under the Mental Health Act, and then charging them residential care facility fees for the “privilege” of being involuntarily detained. | A person can challenge the involuntary placement (detention) through a Mental Health Review Board hearing (s. 25). In the alternative, they can apply directly to the Supreme Court to challenge their involuntary detention (s.33). Both remedies are rarely used for older adults, and these remedies exist more in theory than in practice. The Best of Care report questioned the fairness of involuntarily detaining people under the Mental Health Act, and then charging them residential care facility fees for the “privilege” of being involuntarily detained. | ||
The more pressing legal issue, however, may be whether or not the Mental Health Act is an appropriate mechanism when someone has a concern about an older adult’s living situation. In case law, the Mental Health Act has not been considered a violation of the person’s Charter (section 7 and 9) rights, largely because of the two physician certification process. ([[ | The more pressing legal issue, however, may be whether or not the Mental Health Act is an appropriate mechanism when someone has a concern about an older adult’s living situation. In case law, the Mental Health Act has not been considered a violation of the person’s Charter (section 7 and 9) rights, largely because of the two physician certification process. ([[{{PAGENAME}}#References|3]]) However if the certificates are signed based on limited if any information and the person is effectively “forced” into care, there is an arguable legal case that the involuntary detention violates the person’s Charter rights. | ||
The British Columbia Ombudsperson specifically found that the health authorities’ use of sections 22 and 37 of the Mental Health Act to involuntarily admit seniors to mental health facilities and then transfer them to residential care was being done without clear provincial policy to ensure that the Mental Health Act is used as a last resort. This omission meant the Ministry was not acting in a way that assured older adults were not unnecessarily deprived of their civil liberties. ([[ | The British Columbia Ombudsperson specifically found that the health authorities’ use of sections 22 and 37 of the Mental Health Act to involuntarily admit seniors to mental health facilities and then transfer them to residential care was being done without clear provincial policy to ensure that the Mental Health Act is used as a last resort. This omission meant the Ministry was not acting in a way that assured older adults were not unnecessarily deprived of their civil liberties. ([[{{PAGENAME}}#References|4]]) Advocacy groups have noted that the involuntary detention provisions of the Mental Health Act endure long past the admission process, and have long lasting repercussions for the individual in residential care. For example, it effectively strips individuals of the health care rights that they would otherwise enjoy. ([[{{PAGENAME}}#References|5]]) | ||