Search results

Psychiatrists are among the front‐line professionals involved in the implementation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). This paper aims to explore how the safeguards are perceived and practised amongst psychiatrists.

The authors carried out a postal survey among 519 psychiatrists on their views and experiences on DOLS.

A total of 171 psychiatrists (36 per cent) responded to the survey. Nearly three‐quarters of the participants had received DOLS training and 81 per cent of individuals who had training believed that DOLS would protect the rights of vulnerable people. Almost half of both groups agreed that DOLS make a valuable contribution to the provision of necessary care in the least restrictive way possible. The most common concern raised was possible increase in bureaucratic process. Interface between the existing legislations continues to be a grey area for many practitioners with difficulties in interpreting the relevant Code of Practice. In total, 50 per cent of the participants felt DOLS should extend to community placement provisions.

The views and concerns expressed by psychiatrists in this paper are relevant to all professionals working with adults who lack capacity to consent to their care or treatment in any setting. As the process continues to widen, it is important to recognise the issues, encourage use of DOLS process to protect human rights, and to address key gaps in training.

This paper aims to identify the more accurate method of estimating a firm’s degree of operating leverage (DOL) between two popular DOL estimation techniques: that proposed by Mandelker and Rhee (M&R), and that proposed by O’Brien and Vanderheiden (O&V).

O’Brien and Vanderheiden argue that M&R measure growth in operating earnings relative to the growth in sales rather than DOL. The authors estimate the relative growth estimate, RGE, from the O&V technique (operating earnings growth rate/sales growth rate) and compare this with the DOL estimates from the M&R technique to see if they are similar.

The authors find that the DOL estimates from the M&R method are indistinguishable from the relative growth estimates from the O&V method, providing the first direct evidence that O&V’s critique is correct. The M&R DOL estimates primarily measure the growth in operating earnings relative to the growth in sales, not DOL.

A firm’s DOL is a determinant of its common stock’s systematic risk, which determines a firm’s equity cost of capital. The equity cost of capital is a fundamental part of capital budgeting, capital structure and stock price analysis. Accurately estimating a firm’s DOL is important to researchers and corporate financial managers. Existing diversity in DOL estimation techniques raises questions about the validity of various techniques and limits comparability of existing studies. This paper demonstrates why the O&V technique should be used in place of the M&R method.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse trends over time and geographical variation in Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications for adults with learning disabilities.

Secondary analysis of national- and local authority-level statistics collected and reported by NHS Digital.

There has been a sharp national increase in the number of completed and granted DoLS applications regarding adults with learning disabilities since the 2014 “Cheshire West” Supreme Court judgement, with a greater proportion of completed DoLS applications being granted. There is extreme geographical variation across local authorities in England in the rates at which DoLS applications are being made and granted.

The extreme variation in DoLS applications regarding adults with learning disabilities is highly unlikely to be a function of differences in mental capacity and living circumstances experienced by adults with learning disabilities across local authorities, and urgent attention needs to be paid to this variation.

This is the first paper to analyse the geographical variation at local authority level for completed and granted DoLS applications regarding adults with learning disabilities.

For over thirty years, one of the most overt forms of employer opposition to unionization has been anti-union campaigns conducted by union avoidance consultants. As a result, both union and employer associations have attempted to influence the provisions of the LMRDA that cover consultant activities. This article provides the first comprehensive historical analysis of the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements covering employers and consultants. The first section examines consultant reporting policy from the late 1950s to the late 1970s, a period when unions filed relatively few complaints and the DOL initiated few investigations, but the consultant industry expanded significantly. Section two examines developments in the 1980s – the period of greatest congressional and judicial activity on consultant reporting since the 1950s. The final section looks at post-1980s events and examines why organized labor has persisted with its campaign to reform government policy on consultant reporting, despite its inability to make progress on the issue over the past four decades.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of how the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) of 1974, as amended , applies to securities professionals such as registered investment advisers, registered broker‐dealers and individual registered representatives and financial planners who advise, manage, or trade for investment portfolios of private employee benefit plans and individual retirement accounts.

The paper is designed as a primer to familiarize securities professionals with the terminology, scope and subject‐matter of ERISA as it applies to benefit plan investment transactions. When appropriate, the regulatory framework of ERISA is compared and contrasted with the more familiar securities law regulatory scheme.

The various Federal laws loosely known as “ERISA” significantly impact securities professionals in connection with the marketing of financial products and services to employee benefit plans, including IRAs, and it is critical that securities professionals have a general overview of how they do so.

The research set out is only a broad summary, and covers an area of law that is rapidly developing. It should not be considered a definitive summary of the law but a starting‐point for further, in‐depth inquiry.

Any financial professional seeking to develop or market financial products and services to benefit plans can use the paper to become familiar with the framework and terminology of ERISA.

This is a reprint of a paper first published in 2004, with extensive revisions to reflect sweeping changes in the law and new developments in the financial marketplace, plus an overview of “hot topics”.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of key demographics (i.e. gender, age, education and income) on the rich Muslim consumers’ Domains of Living (DoL). DoL were broken down into being, belonging and becoming domains. Relationship between the DoL and luxury consumption behavior (LCB) was analyzed as well. Being domain included elements that indicated who one is and how one defines the self; belonging domain linked an individual to his/her environment; and becoming domain referred to the set of social activities that an individual performed.

A questionnaire-based survey was conducted to get insights into the LCB of affluent Muslim consumers and how these insights related to key demographics and DoL. The researched population was Qatari consumers who were buying luxury products and belonged to a high-income bracket. Stratified sampling method was considered appropriate because the key objective of the study was to generalize the results across the affluent Qatari population. Stratification of the population was primarily done through the selected demographic variables. This research survey, conducted in Qatar, resulted in the collection of 213 usable questionnaires. General Linear Model Multivariate Analysis and Multiple Regression Analysis were used to establish the goodness of fit and to test the proposed hypotheses.

Results indicated that there were significant LCB differences between the genders, age groups, income levels and educational background. Furthermore, there was a significant association between the three DOLs and LCB. There were indications that for affluent Qatari Muslims, consumption of luxury products had become a socially accepted norm. Fulfillment of luxury needs did not isolate rich Muslims from their family and friends or made them unhappy about luxury consumption. This behavior could be related to high levels of affluence among Qataris that makes acquisition of luxury products easy and not effort or time intensive.

Islamic luxury markets need to adopt an appropriate balance of global (considering global luxury trends) and local (based on cultural, social and religious forces) marketing strategies to engage rich Muslim consumers.

This paper presents LCB from the perspective of affluent Muslim consumers within the context of DoL and through the lens of key demographic variables.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), as part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (DoLS, 2007), was established to provide a legal framework for decision-making in respect of adults who lack capacity to make decisions in relation to their care and residence in England and Wales. The purpose of this study was to explore the DoLS decision-making process from the perspectives of health and social care practitioners when working with individuals with an acquired brain injury (ABI).

A total of 12 health and social care practitioners were interviewed in 2019–2020 about their experiences of using and making or supporting decisions in the DoLS framework with ABI survivors. Data were analysed, and a tentative explanation of variations in DoLS decision-making was developed.

Three distinct approaches emerged capturing different decision-making styles (risk-averse, risk-balancing and risk-simplifying) which appeared to influence the outcome of DoLS assessments. A range of mediating factors seemed to account for the variability in these styles. The wider contextual challenges that impact upon practitioners’ overall experiences and use of DoLS processes in their ABI practice were noted.

The findings highlight a need for changes in practice and policy in relation to how DoLS or similar processes are used in decision-making practice with ABI survivors and may be relevant to the implementation of the Liberty Protection Safeguards that are replacing the DoLS system.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to explore accounts of DoLS decision-making practices in ABI service.

The purpose of this paper is to develop alternative analytical measures for the degree of operating leverage (DOL) that reflect the impact of uncertain demand shocks in the product's market on optimal production levels, sales and profits of the firm.

The elasticity measures are constructed according to a theoretical formulation of optimal production level that corresponds to demand shocks for given predetermined levels of fixed cost.

The paper suggests two main findings. First, the analytical marginal DOL is at least twice the traditional DOL depending on the structure of the shock, the production function and demand's elasticity. The traditional DOL is equal to the measure only when large-scale negative demand prompts the firm to abandon production. Second, the paper also provides an analytical measure of DOL in terms of elasticity of profit to sales rather than to production level. Both theoretically and empirically elasticity of profit to sales can be better measured and better reflects risk.

This paper should be extended to encompass multiple shocks on demand and supply while investigating the empirical multi variants distribution of the shocks.

The model can be used by managers who are well informed about the fixed and variable costs of their firm. The model determines the mean profit- risk trade off which is an important factor in all investment decision problems.

Surprisingly and according to the best knowledge, this paper is the first attempt in the literature for alternative analytical DOLs’ formulations that is coherent with basic economic theories of optimal production level under risk.

This paper seeks to consider the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and, in particular, the extent to which the functions of supervisory bodies can, or should be, performed as part of wider “safeguarding” responsibilities.

The paper reports the views of practitioners, given in response to comments made by the Care Quality Commission.

Some practitioners believe that DoLS and safeguarding functions should be consolidated, and some, that they should remain discrete; most, however, accept that the two functions should work closely together, and also that an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act is important for each; there is a suspicion that DoLS‐activity is greatest where the two functions are kept discrete (and, it is assumed, DoLS practitioners therefore have more to prove); there is also concern about financing, particularly within discrete DoLS services, and, furthermore, some suspicion about the whole business of “safeguarding”; the Neary case continues to cast a long shadow.

This is believed to be the first time practitioners' views have been sought or at least published on this question.

The purpose of this paper is to give a brief background to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and studies which factors Best Interests Assessors consider when making a judgement on Deprivation of Liberty. It examines some of the reasons why professionals may be under-using DoLS, including lack of knowledge, complex processes and paperwork, and the pejorative nature of the word “deprivation”, and looks at a possible way forward.

The paper looks at the evidence to the House of Commons and House of Lords Committees on the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act, as well as previous and current research papers. It examines the nuances of difference between restriction and deprivation, and the cumulative impact of several restrictions, which may, in fact, amount to a deprivation, illustrated by case studies from the author's own practice.

It makes the case that health and social care professionals should err on the side of caution, by making precautionary DoLS applications, arguing that MCA DoLS is a forerunner of good practice, and that good care planning allied to judicious application of the MCA leads to better, more robust and more defensible decision making.

And it points the way to a possible future, citing the recommendations of the Select Committee on the MCA for a clearer link between DoLS and the principles underpinning the MCA, and for simplifying and clarifying the legislative provisions and the associated paperwork.