National Preventive Mechanism Sixth Annual Report 2014–15 living settings. The findings presented here do not provide an exhaustive account nor comprehensive piece of research, but give a picture of the types of situations and cases identified through NPM monitoring. two people living in shared accommodation in the community. Therefore, of the 29 people referred to in the examples provided by NPM members, it is concerning that 24 (83%) considered to be de facto detained had a learning disability. Examples of de facto detention by care setting 3 3 Care Home Supported Living Settings Hospital Learning Disability Hospital Mental Health 2 4 De facto detention by care group Seven of the 12 examples (58%) related to services for people with a learning disability (adults and younger people), receiving inpatient hospital treatment, residing in a health or social care setting, or receiving a health or social care service. Number of people considered de facto detained by care group 1 1 24 Learning Disability Mental Health 3 Dementia Aquired Regional Brain Injury It should be noted, however, that three of these examples described situations of de facto detention for 20 people in total; two examples related to hospital wards providing care and treatment for a total of 18 people across both wards, and another referred to 48 The remaining examples related to people with dementia (one), alcohol-related brain injury (one), and mental ill health (two adults and one younger person). Legislative frameworks There are legislative frameworks in Scotland to provide safeguards for individuals who lack the capacity to make decisions regarding their care, treatment or living arrangements independently. Currently in Northern Ireland there are less robust safeguards in place although new legislation (the Mental Capacity Bill), anticipated to be enacted in spring 2016, aims to address the gaps in legislation relating to an individual’s capacity to make decisions. In the interim, the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards guidance issued by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety provides the framework for which any practice amounting to deprivation of liberty should be considered and implemented. The examples provided by NPM members indicated a gap in the knowledge and understanding of staff providing services about what they should consider about deprivation of liberty/restrictive practices in their practice. Staff often practise in a manner that could be considered as lacking legal validity, when the safeguards of the legislative frameworks have not been applied. Only two of the examples provided demonstrated that staff were aware of the implications of their practice. These staff had tried to ensure that the circumstances and appropriate authorisations were considered