The government is consulting on the issue of people without capacity who are, in effect, informally detained. This could include many people with dementia in care homes or long stay hospitals - they do not have capacity to consent to being in the care home or hospital, but do not resist detention. If the individual resisted detention it is likely that they would be 'sectioned' under the Mental Health Act and treated compulsorily. They would then be protected by the Act's safeguards; like a right to care plan and right to have 'detention' reviewed. People who are 'informally detained' are not subject to the same safeguards as those being treated under the mental health act - they fall into the 'Bournewood gap'. The government want to know how people who do not have capacity to consent, but have not resisted being 'detained', are protected. They are particularly interested to know: Should there be a 'nominated person' formally appointed to be consulted on behalf of the person with dementia? This could be a family member or friend. Should there be a mechanism whereby a person's 'detention' in the care home or hospital is reviewed, as to whether it was still appropriate. What should trigger these reviews? What if there is a dispute between family members or with staff? What arrangements should there be for carers, friends and relatives/advocates to object to admission/'detention' – what about if there are disagreements? It would be good if there was a duty to review a person with dementia's treatment. How do you think these reviews should be carried out and who should be involved? Should it be between family and care home staff, or should an independent person be involved? I would be very grateful for any views on these and any other thoughts relating to the safeguards that should be in place for people with dementia who do not have capacity to consent to treatment and admission to hospital or care home.