ADASS publishes screening tool to prioritise allocation of new requests to authorise deprivation of liberty

This follows the Supreme Court judgment in June 2026 known as AGNI, in which the Supreme Court took the unusual step of overruling its 2014 decision in Cheshire West, which it concluded had been wrong in principle.

The screening tool sets out the criteria which indicates that an urgent response may be needed to safeguard the individuals concerned.

ADASS said: “The use of this tool must be balanced against the legal criteria for the DoLS which remain unchanged.”

According to the tool, situations that likely meet the test and therefore require a DoLS authorisation include:

• Active objections from the person to the care they are receiving or accommodation in the setting.
• Meaningful, successive attempts to leave the setting that are not simply due to disorientation.
• Sedation and medication being used frequently to control behaviour and not having been regularly reviewed, with a negative effect on the person.
• Physical restraint being used regularly, going beyond what is generally expected in the setting, causing distress to the person.
• Coercion being present throughout the care plan and the person’s wishes being overruled.
• Restrictions on family/friends visiting or wider social contact.
• The person’s current or prior wishes suggesting they would want to leave and that they are unhappy. 
• Objections from family or friends or family members seeking to move the person in an unplanned way. 
• An anticipated or active challenge to the placement or proceedings in the Court of Protection, or an application for deputyship including a deprivation of liberty.
• The person being in a psychiatric setting and having been assessed not to meet the criteria for the Mental Health Act 1983 but there being disagreement as to whether this decision is appropriate.
• The person being in hospital with any of the above factors present and not being able to be managed in the short term.
• The person being able to leave but not being allowed to were they to try to.

By contrast, situations which do not appear to meet the test as described in AGNI or situations which may previously have met the acid test but no longer meet the test as detailed in AGNI include:

• Evidence that the person is in a settled living arrangement with no evidence of objection from their or their family.
• Evidence that the person chose the care home they are in when they had the mental capacity to do so, and is not distressed there now they have lost capacity to make the decision.
• There are minimal negative impacts on the person from the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of any restrictions.
• There is no evidence of specific restraint or restrictions being used beyond what is expected in the type of setting.
• There is no sense of coercion or overruling of the person's will.
• There are no restrictions on the person’s social contacts or visits from family or friends.
• Any wish to leave would be considered or facilitated
• The placement accords with the current or past wishes of the person
• The person is receiving care/treatment in an acute hospital and the only restrictions in place are necessary to enable medical treatment and the person is not resistant.
• The person's disability or impairment is such that they cannot exercise liberty and there is no evidence of distress.
• The person is physically unable to leave but there is no evidence to suggest that they would want to leave.
• The person is in a psychiatric setting, no longer detained nor likely to be and waiting for a further placement, with no objection present and no request to leave.

Looking at renewals or further authorisations, ADASS observed that the approach to renewals “may be seen differently post AGNI” and over time these may reduce.

However, it added that currently, there still needs to be an analysis of risk.

ADASS said: “Renewals will previously have met the acid test but may not meet the AGNI test. The above criteria can be used to prioritise those renewals which are still likely to be a deprivation of liberty.

“There are still several proportionate methods which can be employed to process renewals, but these now need to be seen in the light of AGNI, for example it may no longer be adequate to use all six equivalent assessments unless there is some initial prioritisation to suggest the AGNI test will be met.”

Lastly, looking at situations where a person does not have family or friends to support them, and do not appear to meet any of the higher priority criteria, the Association advised councils to identify those who meet the criteria for having an independent mental capacity advocate (IMCA).

Then, when the IMCA report is complete, councils should screen again for any factors suggesting higher priority, the guidance states.

Last month, the ADASS endorsed guidance issued by the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) on key points from the Supreme Court judgment on what constitutes a deprivation of liberty, outlining the implications for health and social care staff, local authorities and others.

In an update note, the organisation reminded local authorities there is “no period of grace”. Therefore, the so-called 'acid test' in Cheshire West must no longer be followed.

Lottie Winson