The Bournewood case generated legal inconsistencies that notionally have been solved through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS).
If someone's liberty is "restricted," this can lawfully happen within the Mental Capacity Act 2005 framework, if it's in the person's best interests. An example would be someone saying they wish to leave a care home and return home, but they're guided to have a cup of tea and moments later they're happy and chatting with other residents.
If the resident was hammering at the door, 'phoning for taxis to take them away all the time, sneaking out at every opportunity and adamantly refused to stay, that crosses from "restriction" to "deprivation" of liberty and the DOLS framework kicks in.
Grand. Folks get appropriate care, within a lawful framework.
On to a conversation I overheard this week :
Community mental health nurse (band 7 CPN) : "The patient's settled, the occasional comments she'd rather be at home can be managed as 'restriction' of liberty, not 'deprivation' in the care you've now structured in the detail within your care plans."
Care home manager : "Great, thank you."
CMHN : "If she progresses and makes persistent, active attempts to leave, we'll need to consider DOLS."
Manager : "Oh yes, we use doll therapy all the time to distract them."