Assessment of patient capacity to consent to treatment

[Competency: general principles and applicability in dementia]

INTRODUCTION

Competency means the capacity to make responsible and balanced decisions. This may be performed in clinical settings (decision-making abilities on treatment or risky diagnostic procedures) and also in daily-life activities (financial matters, nursing home admittance, contracts, etc.). Competency is linked to the ethical principle of autonomy and to a horizontal doctor-patient interaction, far from ancient paternalistic relationships. It is contemplated in the Spanish law as the patient's right to be informed and to make free choices, particularly in cases of dementia.

DEVELOPMENT

The competency that we assess is the so-called natural or working capacity. It is specific for an action or task. The level of required capacity depends on the decision: higher for critical ones, lower for low-risk decisions. The assessment process requires noting the patient's capacity to understand, analyse, self-refer and apply the information. There are some guides available that may be useful in competency assessments, but nevertheless the final statement must be defined by the physician in charge of the patient and clinical judgement. Capacity is directly related to the level of cognitive deterioration. Nevertheless, specific cognitive tests like MMSE (mini-mental) have a low predictive value. The loss of competency is more associated with the so-called legal standards of incapacity (LS). These encompass a five steps range (LS1-LS5), which may detect the incapacity from the mild levels of dementia. The cortical functions that are the best predictors of incapacity are language and executive dysfunctions. These explain the incapacity in cases of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, and have been studied more.

CONCLUSIONS

Incapacity is common and it influences the clinical decision-making process. We must be particularly cautious with clinical trials of dementia. It also involves other areas of daily life, particularly financially related ones, where limitations are present from the mild cognitive impairment level. The neurological community has already produced specific and invaluable documents like the one from Sitges, although in our opinion this community has to increase its awareness, and also its involvement as much in the clinical as in the research sides of this field.

Informed consent in psychiatry clinical research: A conceptual review of issues, challenges, and recommendations

Obtaining informed consent in psychiatry clinical research involving subjects with diminished mental abilities and impaired consent capacity has been a challenge for researchers, posing many ethical concerns and procedural hurdles due to participants' cognitive deficits and impaired ability to judge reality. Regulations seem inadequate and provide limited guidance, not sufficient to address all the ethical issues inherent in different situations related to obtaining consent from decisionally impaired persons. Researchers are struggling to find a balance between risk-benefit ratio, research advancement, and autonomy of study subjects. Inspired to improve the consent process in psychiatry clinical research, many studies have been conducted focusing on various informed consent-related ethical concerns, with the aim of developing appropriate strategies and optimizing the informed consent procedure in psychiatry clinical research, overcoming the ethical concerns. This article critically reviews the various ethical issues and consent challenges, their underlying reasons, and investigates the appropriate strategies and practices needed to be adopted while obtaining informed consent from subjects with impaired consent capacity, participating in psychiatry clinical research.

Judgment in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's disease

Judgment is the capacity to make decisions after considering available information, contextual factors, possible solutions and probable outcomes. Our aim was to investigate previous research studies regarding assessment of judgment in older adults with different degrees of cognitive impairment. To this end, a search of Pubmed and Lilacs electronic databases for studies published from January 1990 until August 2011 in English, Spanish and Portuguese was carried out. The terms used were "judgment" combined with the terms "dementia" or "Mild Cognitive Impairment" (MCI) or "Alzheimer's disease" (AD). Some studies showed that MCI and AD patients had impaired judgment. There is a lack of specific methods to measure judgment capacity, and data on judgment abilities in older adults with MCI and dementia are scarce. No studies with specific measures of judgment capacity in other dementias were found.

Mental incapacity in hospitalised patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Decisions to insert percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes may be difficult because patients have serious underlying disease, and the procedure has associated risks. Patients may also lack mental capacity to consent to PEG insertion. This study aimed to prospectively determine the prevalence of mental incapacity in hospitalised patients undergoing PEG insertion.

METHODS

Mental capacity was assessed using the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T) in 72 consecutive inpatients referred for PEG insertion. Cognitive function was measured using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Sixty eight inpatients and 69 outpatients having diagnostic upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy were similarly studied.

RESULTS

Thirty nine of the PEG patients had suffered stroke, and none had a primary diagnosis of dementia. Seventy four % (53/72) of inpatients referred for PEG, 22% (15/68) of inpatients having UGI endoscopy, and 3% (2/69) of outpatients having UGI endoscopy, lacked mental capacity, p < 0.001. MMSE scores were normal in just 18% of inpatients having PEG, in 72% of inpatients having UGI endoscopy, and in 91% of outpatients having UGI endoscopy, p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Amongst inpatients undergoing PEG insertion there is a high prevalence (three-quarters patients) of mental incapacity to consent to this important intervention. Decisions have to be made on behalf of most inpatients referred for PEG insertion.

Mental capacity and consent to treatment in psychiatric patients: the state of the research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The past three decades have seen the emergence of the field of decision-making capacity research. The growth has been such that there are several reviews covering a variety of subtopics within the field. The goal is to briefly summarize the state of research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Most studies in this field use the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tools for the decisional capacity assessment. Studies in psychiatric patients indicate incapacity is common (20-30%), but the majority are capable of making treatment decisions. Positive symptoms (hallucinations, delusions); negative symptoms (unusual thought content, conceptual disorganization); severity of symptoms; involuntary admission; lack of insight and treatment refusal were the stronger predictors for incapacity in acute and cognitive dysfunction in chronic patients.

SUMMARY

Mental capacity has complex relationships with psychopathological variables, and these relationships are different according to diagnostic group. More research is needed to determine the clinical parameters related to the lack of capacity to make treatment decisions in psychiatric patients.

Capacity to vote in persons with dementia and the elderly

The capacity to vote in patients with mental illness is increasingly questioned. The objective of this study is to evaluate this capacity in a group of subjects with dementia (Alzheimer's disease) and other elderly subjects without dementia. With a sample of 68 subjects with dementia and 25 controls living in a senior residence, a transversal study was carried out over 4 months. Subjects were evaluated with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Competence Assessment Tool for voting (CAT-V). The results were more positive for the Doe criteria (as part of the CAT-V), and a correlation was found with the MMSE in subjects with dementia and, to a lesser degree, in the controls. We conclude that the capacity to vote is related to cognitive deterioration and, within that, is more related to understanding and appreciation.

Ethical issues in palliative care

Ethical problems in medicine are common, especially when caring for patients at the end of life. However, many of these issues are not adequately identified in the outpatient setting. Primary care providers are in a unique and privileged position to identify ethical issues, prevent future conflicts, and help patients make medical decisions that are consistent with their individual values and preferences. This article describes some of the more common ethical issues faced by primary care physicians caring for patients with life-limiting illness.

The assessment of decisional capacity

The physician must explain the treatment or procedure in detail including risks, benefits, and alternative options; the patient's choice must be voluntary; the patient must demonstrate his or her ability to understand the risks and benefits of their choice; and the patient must be able to manipulate information in a logical way. These criteria must be met in order for the process of informed consent to be valid.

A memory and organizational aid improves Alzheimer disease research consent capacity: results of a randomized, controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Early and progressive cognitive impairments of patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) hinder their capacity to provide informed consent. Unfortunately, the limited research on techniques to improve capacity has shown mixed results. Therefore, the authors tested whether a memory and organizational aid improves the performance of patients with AD on measures of capacity and competency to give informed consent.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with AD randomly assigned to standard consent or standard plus a memory and organizational aid.

INTERVENTION

Memory and organizational aid summarized the content of information mandated under the informed consent disclosure requirements of the Common Rule at a sixth grade reading level.

MEASUREMENTS

Three psychiatrists without access to patient data independently reviewed MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR) interview transcripts to judge whether the patient was capable of providing informed consent. The agreement of at least two of the three experts defined a participant as capable of providing informed consent. Secondary outcomes are MacCAT-CR measures of understanding, appreciation and reasoning, and comparison with cognitively normal older adult norms.

RESULTS

AD intervention and control groups were similar in terms of age, education, and cognitive status. The intervention group was more likely to be judged competent than control group and had higher scores on MacCAT-CR measure of understanding. The intervention had no effect on the measures of appreciation or reasoning.

CONCLUSIONS

A consent process that addresses the deficits in memory and attention of a patient with AD can improve capacity to give informed consent for early phase AD research. The results also validate the MacCAT-CR as an instrument to measure capacity, especially the understanding subscale.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.Gov#NCT00105612, http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00105612.

Consent in impaired populations

Impairments in patients with dementia and other disorders affecting cognition may have a negative impact on their capacity to provide consent to treatment or to participation in research. A growing literature confirms that even patients with mild cognitive impairment may experience decrements in decisional abilities, findings that are more pronounced still in the early stages of dementia. However, most patients with mild dementia probably remain competent to provide a valid consent to treatment or research, and even some patients with moderate dementia may retain capacity in particular circumstances. Clinical evaluation of decisional competence has been augmented by structured approaches, including reliable instruments that may be used in the clinical setting. To avoid needlessly depriving patients of their right to make health care decisions, evaluations should be designed to maximize patient performance. However, when substitute consent is necessary, state laws generally provide a range of options, including advance directives and familial consent.

A prospective observational study of decisional capacity determinations in an academic medical center

OBJECTIVE

The main goals, of this observational study were to clarify and categorize decisional capacity assessments performed by a psychosomatic medicine (PSM) consult service at an academic medical center. Areas of investigation included types of decisional capacity requests, the relationship between Folstein Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) and PSM decisional capacity determination, psychiatric diagnoses of patients, and the agreement between primary clinician capacity assessment and that of the PSM clinician.

METHOD

This was a prospective study of 100 consecutive decisional capacity consultations. Twelve requests were for second consultations for patients previously seen, for a net of 88 patients.

RESULTS

In 77 cases, patients lacked decisional capacity. Assessments for capacity to leave against medical advice (AMA), capacity to accept medical/surgical procedures, capacity to refuse medical/surgical procedures, and capacity to participate in discharge planning were nearly equally frequent. An MMSE cutoff score of < 21 was found to be 100% specific and 69% sensitive for identifying the patients without capacity, while a cutoff of < 24 was found to be 83% sensitive and 90% specific for identifying patients without capacity. The primary psychiatric diagnosis was a cognitive disorder in 52 cases. In 38 of the 39 cases where the primary team believed the patient lacked capacity, the PSM service agreed. In only two of the seven cases where primary teams believed patients had capacity did the PSM team agree.

CONCLUSIONS

The MMSE was a useful predictor of capacity determination by PSM personnel, but using MMSE alone results in a number of erroneous determinations. Cognitive disorders were the most common primary psychiatric diagnoses in decisional capacity cases. Primary teams tended to be more accurate when they found patients to lack capacity.

Capacity to give surgical consent does not imply capacity to give anesthesia consent: implications for anesthesiologists

There is precedent in medicine for recognizing and accepting intact decisional capacity and the subsequent ability to provide valid consent in one treatment domain, while simultaneously recognizing that the patient lacks decisional capacity in other domains. As such, obtaining consent for anesthesia for a surgical procedure is a separate entity from obtaining consent for the surgery itself. Anesthesia for surgery and the surgical procedure itself are separate treatment domains and as such require separate consents. Anesthesiologists should understand the independence of these functionally linked consent processes and be vigilant with respect to the informed consent process. The cases reported in this article show that capacity for surgical consent may be inadequate for consent to anesthesia because anesthesia involves more abstract concepts requiring a higher cognitive state than surgery, thus requiring a higher state of cognitive capacity for understanding.

Assessment of the capacity to consent to treatment in patients admitted to acute medical wards

Background

Assessment of capacity to consent to treatment is an important legal and ethical issue in daily medical practice. In this study we carefully evaluated the capacity to consent to treatment in patients admitted to an acute medical ward using an assessment by members of the medical team, the specific Silberfeld's score, the MMSE and an assessment by a senior psychiatrist.

Methods

Over a 3 month period, 195 consecutive patients of an internal medicine ward in a university hospital were included and their capacity to consent was evaluated within 72 hours of admission.

Results

Among the 195 patients, 38 were incapable of consenting to treatment (unconscious patients or severe cognitive impairment) and 14 were considered as incapable of consenting by the psychiatrist (prevalence of incapacity to consent of 26.7%). Agreement between the psychiatrist's evaluation and the Silberfeld questionnaire was poor (sensitivity 35.7%, specificity 91.6%). Experienced clinicians showed a higher agreement (sensitivity 57.1%, specificity 96.5%). A decision shared by residents, chief residents and nurses was the best predictor for agreement with the psychiatric assessment (sensitivity 78.6%, specificity 94.3%).

Conclusion

Prevalence of incapacity to consent to treatment in patients admitted to an acute internal medicine ward is high. While the standardized Silberfeld questionnaire and the MMSE are not appropriate for the evaluation of the capacity to consent in this setting, an assessment by the multidisciplinary medical team concurs with the evaluation by a senior psychiatrist.

Mental capacity assessments among general hospital inpatients referred to a specialist liaison psychiatry service for older people

BACKGROUND

Mental capacity has been little studied among older general hospital inpatients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was undertaken of routinely collected data (age, gender, ethnicity, admission diagnosis, psychiatric diagnosis, Mini-mental State Examination score, whether capacity was assessed, the outcome of that assessment, and discharge destination) on referrals to a liaison psychiatry service for older people (2003-2006) from medical and surgical teams at a large London teaching hospital.

RESULTS

1267 patients were referred to the service, of whom 379 (30%) were assessed for capacity. The most common mental capacity issues were placement (303 assessed of whom 54% lacked capacity), treatment (86 assessed, 59% lacking capacity) and finances (70 assessed, 79% lacking capacity). Cognitive impairment, dementia and delirium, rather than mental disorders were associated with incapacity. Those assessed and deemed to lack capacity for placement decisions were twice as likely to be placed in a care home, and four times as likely to be placed in an elderly mentally ill (EMI) facility, independent of dementia diagnosis and cognitive functioning.

CONCLUSION

Referrals to a liaison psychiatry service for older people for assessment of mental capacity are common. The main mental capacity issues in older people were those linked to discharge planning. The relatively high proportion of those found to have capacity when capacity had been queried by referring clinicians attests to the important role of specialist liaison teams, particularly in complex cases, in protecting the autonomy of vulnerable older people, and avoiding institutionalization.

The vote of acute medical inpatients: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

There may be ethical issues associated with allowing certain inpatients to vote as some may be cognitively impaired. During the 2007 elections in France, we conducted a prospective observational study on voting among hospitalized patients.

METHOD

Patients hospitalized in an Internal Medicine and Geriatric Department on election day were included. The primary outcome was the turnout among registered inpatients, and secondary outcomes were Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores and reasons for abstention.

RESULTS

Of 142 inpatients (mean age 73 years), 84 were eligible to vote, and 22 actually voted (turnout 25.2%). Among the voters, 23% had an MMSE score of less than 12; 58% of abstentions were procedure-related.

DISCUSSION

In our study, some inpatients did not vote as a result of procedural issues. When patients with severe cognitive impairment vote, there is a potential risk of vote diversion. Voting procedures should be improved to give inpatients easier access to the ballot while protecting them from the risk of fraud.

Clinical interview assessment of financial capacity in older adults with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease

OBJECTIVES

To investigate financial capacity in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) using a clinician interview approach.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

SETTING

Tertiary care medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

Healthy older adults (n=75) and patients with amnestic MCI (n=58), mild AD (n=97), and moderate AD (n=31).

MEASUREMENTS

The investigators and five study physicians developed a conceptually based, semistructured clinical interview for evaluating seven core financial domains and overall financial capacity (Semi-Structured Clinical Interview for Financial Capacity; SCIFC). For each participant, a physician made capacity judgments (capable, marginally capable, or incapable) for each financial domain and for overall capacity.

RESULTS

Study physicians made more than 11,000 capacity judgments across the study sample (N=261). Very good interrater agreement was obtained for the SCIFC judgments. Increasing proportions of marginal and incapable judgment ratings were associated with increasing disease severity across the four study groups. For overall financial capacity, 95% of physician judgments for older controls were rated as capable, compared with 82% for patients with MCI, 26% for patients with mild AD, and 4% for patients with moderate AD.

CONCLUSION

Physicians and other clinicians can reliably evaluate financial capacity in cognitively impaired older adults using a relatively brief, semistructured clinical interview. Patients with MCI have mild impairment in financial capacity, those with mild AD have emerging global impairment, and those with moderate AD have advanced global impairment. Patients with MCI and their families should proactively engage in financial and legal planning, given these patients' risk of developing AD and accelerated loss of financial abilities.

Substitute consent for nursing home residents prescribed psychotropic medication

BACKGROUND

Prescribing psychotropic medications for persons with dementia who lack capacity to give informed consent requires proxy consent under NSW Guardianship legislation.

OBJECTIVE

To survey current practice in complying with legislation and regulations in prescribing psychotropic medications for nursing home residents.

METHOD

In three Sydney nursing homes, the files of 77 residents identified as having dementia, being on a psychotropic medication and not having capacity to give informed consent, were audited.

RESULTS

In only 6.5% of cases were all regulations adhered to; a further 6.5% attempted and partially completed substitute consent requirements. The problem and the nature of the treatment were documented in 70.1% of cases. In 16.9% of files the only documentation of the prescribed medication was in the medication chart. Doses of medications prescribed were within accepted guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Current regulations and legislation are not being observed. Recommendations are made as to how to make them more practicable.

Capacity to make a decision about discharge destination after stroke: a pilot study

Objective: To investigate the effect of cognitive problems and other factors on the capacity to make a decision about discharge destination and to compare the impressions of multidisciplinary team (MDT) members regarding capacity with a formal assessment.

Design: Between-subjects comparison design.

Setting: One stroke rehabilitation unit.

Subjects: Thirty-four stroke patients.

Procedure: For six months, all patients admitted to a stroke rehabilitation unit were asked to take part after one week and assessed on the outcome measures.

Main outcome measures: The multidisciplinary team completed questionnaires regarding risk, capacity and referral plans. All participants had a cognitive assessment. Capacity was assessed blind to the results of the cognitive assessment and independently rated by another assessor. Clinical and demographic information were collated.

Results: No significant association was found between cognitive functioning and capacity (P>0.05). Age, weeks post-stroke, Barthel and dysphasia were not significantly associated with capacity (P>0.05). Multidisciplinary team members were often unsure about the capacity of people to make decisions. Inter-rater reliability for the capacity assessment was reasonable (72%; P=0.06).

Conclusions: The preliminary conclusions are that cognitive test scores, age and dysphasia are not good predictors of capacity to decide about discharge destination in stroke patients receiving rehabilitation. Impressions of capacity should not be used to determine the need for a formal capacity assessment.

The impaired hypothyroid patient: ethical considerations and obligations

OBJECTIVES

Analyze the ethical duties and dilemmas involved in treating the severely hypothyroid patient.

DESIGN

A critical review of the literature was conducted with respect to clinical ethics issues pertaining to severe hypothyroidism; legal and ethical guidelines for consent and capacity in the context of severe hypothyroidism; health case law involving the duty to warn third parties; and comparable clinical conditions resulting in impaired driving and the performance of critical tasks.

MAIN OUTCOME

Neuropsychological studies and accepted clinical experiences verify the variable degrees of intellectual and neurological impairment consequent to severe hypothyroidism. Thus, severely hypothyroid patients are considered impaired in the performance of specific tasks, such as driving. Consequent to that, they may be agents of harm as a result of their impairment if they are not warned against driving or performing other duties affecting public safety. Severely hypothyroid patients may lack the capacity to make an informed decision, even when warned against driving or other tasks, and some may ignore such warnings.

CONCLUSIONS

The legal and ethical "duty to warn" may trump confidentiality and HIPAA in cases where the activity of impaired patients seriously affects public safety. Not only do health care providers have a clear duty to warn patients not to drive, but in some extreme cases, may have a duty to warn third parties when a patient's driving or occupational duties place the public in harm's way.

Is the degree of cognitive impairment in patients with Alzheimer's disease related to their capacity to appoint an enduring power of attorney?

BACKGROUND

Clinicians are often asked to retrospectively assess a patient's capacity to create an Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA). This study will investigate if capacity to create an EPA is significantly related to the degree of cognitive impairment in Alzheimer patients, and whether Mini Mental State Examination score (MMSE) is a good predictor of a patient's capacity. It also considers if socio-demographic factors are related to a patient's capacity to create an EPA.

METHODS

Participants with a DSM-IV diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease were recruited from the Old Age Psychiatric service at the Queen Elizabeth Psychiatric Hospital, Birmingham, UK. A cognitive assessment of each patient was performed using the MMSE, followed by two independent assessments of their capacity to create an EPA made using a semi-structured interview.

RESULTS

There was a significant association between level of cognitive impairment and capacity to create an EPA: chi(2) = 35.15 (P<0.0001). MMSE score significantly predicted capacity status (OR=1.6, 95% CI 0.863-0.979). Optimal sensitivity (86.6%, CI 67.4-95.5%) and specificity (82.2% CI 67.4-91.5%) were obtained using a cutoff MMSE score of 18. Positive predictive value (PPV): 75.8% (95% CI 57-88%), negative predictive value (PNV): 90.2% (CI 76-97%). No socio-demographic factors were significantly associated with capacity to create an EPA.

CONCLUSIONS

The MMSE could be used as a screening tool to help inform a clinical capacity assessment in patients with Alzheimer's disease. It is important that patients always undergo individual clinical assessments where possible, but in situations where direct assessment is not possible MMSE score could be used to aid retrospective assessments of capacity to create an EPA.

Ethical questions in the treatment of subjects with dementia. Part I. Respecting autonomy: awareness, competence and behavioural disorders

The document deals with some ethical issues raised by the treatment of demented people. In particular the conceptual and empirical aspects of the assessment of awareness and competence of these patients are analysed, as well as the dilemmas related to the treatment of behavioral disorders.

Medical information and surrogate designation: results of a prospective study in elderly hospitalised patients

OBJECTIVES

To determine the preferences of French elderly inpatients concerning medical information and surrogate designation in life-threatening situations.

METHODS

Intention-to-act questionnaire was completed by two geriatricians during a patient interview in the week following admission in three geriatric units in France. The participants were elderly patients (> or =70 years) with adequate cognitive performance for decision making as assessed by the Mini Mental State Examination. The impact of socio-demographic factors, level of confidence in medical care, cognitive or physical disability on surrogate designation and amount of medical information expected were measured.

MEASUREMENTS

Impact of socio-demographic factors, level of confidence in medical care, cognitive or physical disability on surrogate designation and amount of medical information expected.

RESULTS

426 consecutive elderly patients were recruited. 32.6% wanted to receive complete information about their care and 77% declared they would want to be informed if they were in a life-threatening situation. 4.5% reported they would not want any medical information. A family member was designated as surrogate by 73% of the patients. In 28%, a second surrogate was also designated, usually the family physician (22%) or a member of the hospital medical staff (10%). Polytomous logistic regression analysis was used to assess determinants of the amount of information expected and social and medical parameters. MMSE score, the presence of physical disability, a low level of confidence in medicine and the presence of children were identified as independent determinants of a high level of information expectation.

CONCLUSION

Elderly hospitalised patients expressed a strong desire to receive extensive information and were willing to designate a surrogate in a life-threatening situation. The surrogate was usually a family member alone or with another person, usually a practitioner.

Assessment of decision-making capacity in older adults: an emerging area of practice and research

The convergence of the aging of our society, the increase in blended families, and an enormous intergenerational transfer of wealth has greatly expanded the incidence and importance of capacity assessment of older adults. In this article we discuss the emergence of capacity assessment as a distinct field of study. We review research efforts in two domains: medical decision-making capacity and financial capacity. Existing research in these two areas provides a first pass at many key questions related to capacity assessment, but additional studies that replicate, extend, and improve on this research are urgently needed. An agenda for future is detailed that recommends studies of a wide range of capacity constructs, focusing on clinical markers of diminished capacity, methods to improve clinical assessment, and the many intersections of law and clinical practice.

The inter-rater reliability of mental capacity assessments

BACKGROUND

Assessing mental capacity involves complex judgements, and there is little available information on inter-rater reliability of capacity assessments. Assessment tools have been devised in order to offer guidelines. We aimed to assess the inter-rater reliability of judgements made by a panel of experts judging the same interview transcripts where mental capacity had been assessed.

METHOD

We performed a cross sectional study of consecutive acute general medical inpatients in a teaching hospital. Patients had a clinical interview and were assessed using the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T) and Thinking Rationally About Treatment (TRAT), two capacity assessment interviews. The assessment was audiotaped and transcribed. The raters were asked to judge whether they thought that the patient had mental capacity based on the transcript. We then divided participants into three groups - those in whom there was unanimous agreement that they had capacity; those in whom there was disagreement; and those in whom there was unanimous agreement that they lacked capacity.

RESULTS

We interviewed 40 patients. We found a high level of agreement between raters' assessments (mean kappa=0.76). Those thought unanimously to have capacity were more cognitively intact, more likely to be living independently and performed consistently better on all subtests of the two capacity tools, compared with those who were unanimously thought not to have capacity. The group in whom there was disagreement fell in between.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that clinicians can rate mental capacity with a good level of consistency.

Competence, capacity, and informed consent: beyond the cognitive-competence model

Only competent persons can give informed consent to health care. Current approaches define competence in essentially cognitive terms, thereby ignoring the fact that someone may be cognitively competent yet lack the capacity to give a valid consent. I outline a more robust theory of competence that includes not only cognitive but also emotional and valuational parameters. I then distinguish competence from capacity, and indicate the role this distinction can usefully play in the extended and continuing care setting. I also show how this distinction is consistent with several recent Canadian legal decisions, and outline its usefulness in interpreting and applying relevant provincial statutes.

Empirical advances in the assessment of the capacity to consent to medical treatment: Clinical implications and research needs

The clinical evaluation of capacity to consent to treatment occurs in the medical setting and is based on legal foundations of informed consent and capacity. Clinical judgment is still the "gold standard" for capacity determination, although it can be unreliable. In the past 10 years the empirical basis for these assessments has been advanced considerably by the introduction of a number of instruments designed to assess capacity to consent to treatment. In this paper, we review studies, mostly with older adult populations, that consider the cognitive and non-cognitive correlates of consent capacity, rates of impaired capacity in various patient groups, the relation of instrument-based to clinician-based capacity assessment, and the inter-rater and test-retest reliability of consent capacity assessment. We also overview key research focusing on factors influencing, and procedural and processing variables involved in, medical decision-making. We conclude that these studies have yielded quite varied results, and promote no consensus regarding the reliability and validity of instrument-based consent capacity assessment. Overall, the results of these studies provide some guidance for clinicians, but, at present, practitioners should view these instruments as supplemental resources rather than benchmarks for assessment. However, this first generation of instruments provides a good foundation for future research, which should continue to systematically study aspects of reliability and validity, most especially construct validity, in well-defined patient populations.

The use of the mini-mental state examination in recruitment for substance abuse research studies

BACKGROUND

Substance abuse is associated with cognitive impairment. Participation in clinical addiction research can be cognitively demanding. Screening tools can identify cognitively impaired subjects. We examined the use of the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) as an entry criterion in three randomized controlled substance abuse clinical trials.

METHODS

In each of the three studies, we calculated the proportion of subjects excluded due to MMSE scores (<21) suggestive of cognitive impairment. We estimated the potential impact on enrollment based on the number of excluded subjects. Separately, for two of the studies, we assessed the impact of cognitive function on participation in follow-up using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of all persons screened for enrollment, 1.6% (171/10,791) were ineligible based solely on a MMSE score of <21. We estimate that 119 of these 171 ineligible persons would have consented and enrolled. These 119 persons would have represented 9.3% of all enrolled subjects across these studies. For subjects in a study in an inpatient detoxification unit, a higher MMSE score was associated with higher odds (adjusted odds ratio 1.15, 95% CI 1.03-1.30) of completing at least one follow-up assessment. A similar impact on subject follow-up was not observed in a study of medical inpatients with unhealthy alcohol use (adjusted odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.86-1.20).

CONCLUSION

Screening for cognitive impairment using the MMSE excludes a small, but substantial, number of persons from addiction research studies. Cognitive ability, as captured by the MMSE may impact follow-up. These data support cognitive screening of substance abuse research subjects.

Informed consent for research in ICU obtained before ICU admission

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the procedure of the informed consent for ICU research obtained before ICU admission.

DESIGN

Prospective, open, observational study.

SETTING

20-bed surgical ICU of a tertiary teaching university hospital and the ward before and after ICU.

PATIENTS

Patients, scheduled for elective cardiac surgery, who accepted to participate in a coagulation study.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients underwent the same informed consent procedure, including an oral presentation of the coagulation study and an informative leaflet the day before surgery on the ward.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Between January and August 2001, we included 38 patients; 36 survived ICU. Ten to 12 days after surgery, 8/36 (22%) patients did not know they had participated in a study, and 9/36 (25%) could not recall the study purpose and the related risk. Patients with incomplete recall stayed longer in ICU [median (range): 4 (3-6) vs 3 (1-5) days; p = 0.004]. None of these patients (0/9 vs 10/27; p < 0.04) had read the informative leaflet AND asked at least one question during the informed consent procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Even when the informed consent is obtained in the most optimal conditions for ICU research, its ethical value remains questionable. Indeed, a substantial number of patients were unaware of their study participation, or of the related purpose and risks. When the ICU stay is prolonged, we should at least repeatedly and actively (re)-inform patients about their study participation.

The capacity to appoint a proxy and the possibility of concurrent proxy directives

With the projected increase in the number of persons with dementia (who eventually lose their capacity to give informed consent to treatment and research), third-party decision-making will become even more common than it is today. We argue that, because there are situations in which an appointed proxy is preferred over a de facto surrogate, it is ethically important to understand the capacity of persons with dementia to delegate their decision-making authority regarding treatment and research decisions. In this paper, focusing mainly on the research consent context, we examine the idea that persons suffering from neurodegenerative disorders may retain significant abilities-including sufficient capacity for delegating one's authority for giving consent to research-even if they are not capable of giving independent consent themselves. We first propose a rationale for assessing the capacity to appoint a proxy and then describe a novel interview instrument for assessing the capacity to appoint a proxy for research consent.

When does decisional impairment become decisional incompetence? Ethical and methodological issues in capacity research in schizophrenia

Most decision-making capacity (DMC) research has focused on measuring the decision-making abilities of patients, rather than on how such persons may be categorized as competent or incompetent. However, research ethics policies and practices either assume that we can differentiate or attempt to guide the differentiation of the competent from the incompetent. Thus there is a need to build on the recent advances in capacity research by conceptualizing and studying DMC as a categorical concept. This review discusses why there is a need for such research and addresses challenges and obstacles, both practical and theoretical. After a discussion of the potential obstacles and suggesting ways to overcome them, it discusses why clinicians with expertise in capacity assessments may be the best source of a provisional "gold standard" for criterion validation of categorical capacity status. The review provides discussions of selected key methodological issues in conducting research that treats DMC as a categorical concept, such as the issue of the optimal number of expert judges needed to generate a criterion standard and the kinds of information presented to the experts in obtaining their judgments. Future research needs are outlined.

Decisional capacity in mental illness and substance use disorders: empirical database and policy implications

Debates on decisional capacity in people with mental illnesses or substance use disorders have tended to be heated. Yet, they are often based not on empirical data but on personal opinions and experiences. The empirical database in this area is quite limited, but has been growing in recent years. The following discussion focuses on relevant clinical investigations. We consider variations across and within different diagnoses, barriers to decision-making, methods for assessing capacity-interview versus instruments, choosing from among different capacity instruments, decisional capacity-is it a state or a trait?, triggers for assessment of decisional capacity, methods for enhancing capacity, and decisional capacity in people with substance use disorders. Finally, we discuss some relevant health policy recommendations.

Ten Myths About Decision-Making Capacity

As a matter of practical reality, what role patients will play in decisions about their health care is determined by whether their clinicians judge them to have decision-making capacity. Because so much hinges on assessments of capacity, clinicians who work with patients have an ethical obligation to understand this concept. This article, based on a report prepared by the National Ethics Committee (NEC) of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), seeks to provide clinicians with practical information about decision-making capacity and how it is assessed. A study of clinicians and ethics committee chairs carried out under the auspices of the NEC identified the following 10 common myths clinicians hold about decision-making capacity: (1) decision-making capacity and competency are the same; (2) lack of decision-making capacity can be presumed when patients go against medical advice; (3) there is no need to assess decision-making capacity unless patients go against medical advice; (4) decision-making capacity is an "all or nothing" phenomenon; (5) cognitive impairment equals lack of decision-making capacity; (6) lack of decision-making capacity is a permanent condition; (7) patients who have not been given relevant and consistent information about their treatment lack decision-making capacity; (8) all patients with certain psychiatric disorders lack decision-making capacity; (9) patients who are involuntarily committed lack decision-making capacity; and (10) only mental health experts can assess decision-making capacity. By describing and debunking these common misconceptions, this article attempts to prevent potential errors in the clinical assessment of decision-making capacity, thereby supporting patients' right to make choices about their own health care.

Decision-making capacity of elderly patients assessed through the vignette method: imagination or reality?

This article evaluates whether providing hypothetical or realistic information influences the assessment of decision-making capacity in elderly patients with (and without) cognitive impairment. Decision-making capacity was assessed by means of a clinical vignette that presented a choice about whether to undergo an endoscopic procedure. The following standards of decision-making capacity were evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively: ability to evidence a choice, to understand, to reason, and to appreciate a situation. The vignette was presented to patients in either a hypothetical or real situation. In the hypothetical situation cognitively impaired patients performed significantly poorer than cognitively non-impaired patients on all abilities associated with decision-making capacity (with the exception of evidencing a choice). The realistic situation showed the same pattern among cognitively impaired and non-impaired patients in their ability to understand and in the total vignette score. Both types of patients reasoned about and appreciated the realistic situation equally well. Qualitative analysis revealed that patients gave comparable answers in both hypothetical and realistic situations. The answers were not related to standards of decision-making capacity. Moreover, personal circumstances were taken as a reference point for making a decision, regardless of the situation. We did not find any major differences between the hypothetical and realistic situation. Our findings do raise questions about the validity of hypothetical vignettes, however, especially when used with cognitively impaired persons.

Prevalence of mental incapacity in medical inpatients and associated risk factors: cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Although mental incapacity is becoming increasingly important in clinical practice, little information is available on its frequency in medical inpatients. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of mental incapacity in acutely admitted medical inpatients; to determine the frequency that medical teams recognised patients who did not have mental capacity; and to identify factors associated with mental incapacity.

METHODS

Over an 18-month period, we recruited 302 consecutive acute medical inpatients. Participants were assessed with the MacArthur competence tool for treatment and by clinical interview. Cognitive impairment was measured by the mini-mental state examination.

FINDINGS

72 (24%) patients were severely cognitively impaired, unconscious, or unable to express a choice and were automatically assigned to the incapacity group. 71 (24%) refused to participate or could not speak English. Thus, 159 patients were interviewed. Of these, 31% (95% CI 24-38) were judged not to have mental capacity. For the total sample (n=302), we estimated that at least 40% did not have mental capacity. Clinical teams rarely identified patients who did not have mental capacity: of 50 patients interviewed, 12 (24%) were rated as lacking capacity. Factors associated with mental incapacity were increasing age and cognitive impairment.

INTERPRETATION

Mental incapacity is common in acutely ill medical inpatients, and clinicians tend not to recognise it. Screening methods for cognitive impairment could be useful in detecting those with doubtful capacity to consent.

Health professionals' views on standards for decision-making capacity regarding refusal of medical treatment in mild Alzheimer's disease

This study was designed to determine which elements professionals consider important for evaluation of decision-making capacity. Survey with a vignette case report of an individual with mild dementia was mailed to four groups of individuals: 1. members of the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine, 2. chairs of Veterans Affairs (VA) Ethics Advisory Committees (EACs), 3. randomly selected geriatricians who were members of the Gerontological Society of America (GSA), and 4. randomly selected psychologists who were members of the GSA. Two hundred thirty-seven psychiatrists, 95 VA EAC chairs, 103 geriatricians, and 46 psychologists responded to this survey. The majority of the respondents endorsed all five basic elements as necessary for determination of decision-making capacity in the presented vignette, but only a minority of respondents endorsed all five basic elements, and a small proportion of respondents endorsed only one or two elements. The results indicate that physicians do not use uniform standards for assessment of decision-making capacity.

Assessing decision-making capacity in the setting of palliative care research

This paper begins with a discussion of why concerns about decision-making capacity are warranted in palliative medicine research. Next, procedures for assessing decision-making capacity are discussed. It concludes with recommendations to guide the judicious use of these procedures in the design of palliative care research.

Alzheimer's disease patients' and caregivers' capacity, competency, and reasons to enroll in an early-phase Alzheimer's disease clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To examine the capacity, competency, and reasons for enrolling of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and of their caregivers in an early phase AD clinical trial.

DESIGN

Interviews were conducted with patients with AD, nondemented older persons, and caregivers.

SETTING

Participants' homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifteen patients with mild to moderate AD, 15 age- and education-matched nondemented older persons, and 15 patient caregivers.

MEASUREMENTS

Capacity was measured using the MacArthur Competency Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR); a study coordinator who reviewed audiotapes of the capacity interviews judged competency, and the reasons for a decision were determined by coding the capacity interviews.

RESULTS

On all measures except the ability to make a choice, patients performed worse than controls (understanding: z = 3.2, P =.001; appreciation: z = 2.8, P =.005; reasoning: z = 3.5, P =.0005), and caregivers (understanding: z = 3.8, P =.0002; appreciation: z = 3.0, P =.003; reasoning: z = 3.6, P =.0003). Using the controls' performance to set psychometric criteria to define capacity, the proportions of patients with adequate understanding, appreciation, and reasoning were six of 15 (40%), three of 15 (20%), and five of 15 (33%). All caregivers and nine of the 15 (60%) patients were competent. Reasons for enrolling typically featured the potential benefit to the patients' health or well-being and altruism that was expressed as a desire to help other patients and their families or a desire to contribute to scientific knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

The MacCAT-CR, in particular its understanding scale, is a reliable and valid way to assess patient capacity and competency to enroll in an early-phase clinical trial. Although many patients have significant impairments in their capacity, some mild-stage patients are competent. Reasons for enrolling in an early-phase trial blend an expectation of therapeutic benefit and a desire to help others.

Evaluation of do not resuscitate orders (DNR) in a Swiss community hospital

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of an intervention on the understanding and use of DNR orders by physicians; to assess the impact of understanding the importance of involving competent patients in DNR decisions.

DESIGN

Prospective clinical interventional study.

SETTING

Internal medicine department (70 beds) of the hospital of La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine junior physicians in postgraduate training.

INTERVENTION

Information on the ethics of DNR and implementation of new DNR orders.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Accurate understanding, interpretation, and use of DNR orders, especially with respect to the patients' involvement in the decision were measured. Junior doctors writing DNR orders had an extremely poor understanding of what DNR orders mean. The correct understanding of the definition of a DNR order increased from 31 to 93% (p<0.01) after the intervention and the patients' involvement went from 17% to 48% (p<0.01). Physicians estimated that 75% of their DNR patients were mentally competent at the time of the decision.

CONCLUSION

An intervention aimed at explaining the ethical principles and the definition of DNR orders improves understanding of them, and their implementation, as well as patient participation. Specific efforts are needed to increase the involvement of mentally competent patients in the decision.

Informed consent for medical research by the elderly

Much has been written about the possible lack of capacity of the elderly, especially certain vulnerable populations of older individuals, to give informed consent for medical research. Several small studies have shown a deficit for comprehension of consent material, by the elderly, especially those with less education, but this appears small in comparison to an overall deficit in the general population. A number of investigations have suggested that deficits in executive control functions (ECFs) may be related to lack of capacity to make clinical judgments, but these have yet to be applied to research. Many methods have been piloted to measure capacity and to improve comprehension, some of which may help, although none has been proved conclusively to do either. As the elderly experience significant morbidity and mortality from a vast array of illnesses, the use of the elderly as subjects of medical research is especially important. To prevent older individuals from being coerced into participating or potentially being harmed by scientific investigation, they must give informed consent to their involvement. However, there are many studies to suggest that they are not well informed. A discussion ensued in the 1970s and 1980s about whether or not the elderly deserved special protection as a class of individuals, based on their possible increased risk during medical experimentation, but it was ultimately decided that, because the majority of elderly are perceived to be cognitively intact, they need not receive additional safeguards (High & Doole, 1995, Behavioral Science and Law, 13, 319-335). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2000 (Federal Registrar Rules and Regulations, 46, 8366-8392) reviewed existing protections for subjects of human research and deemed they were inadequate, issuing new guidelines. This article reviews evidence that differences exist between the ability of young and old in their capacity to give consent. Alterations in methods of obtaining consent may help individuals to give a more informed consent, and even enable subjects who lack the capacity to consent, such as cognitively impaired individuals, to participate in research. However an ideal means of screening or altering the consent process has yet to be devised. Many of these methods are briefly considered.

Anticoagulant patient information material is written at high readability levels

BACKGROUND

Warfarin therapy requires frequent monitoring and dose adjustment. Elderly patients with atrial fibrillation, prior stroke, and lower literacy skills may have difficulty reading brochures that explain dosing instructions, procedures to follow, and the risks and benefits of anticoagulants. In general, it is recommended that brochures be written at or below the 6th-grade level. We determined the readability of patient information material being offered to patients receiving anticoagulants.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We used the SMOG grade formula to measure readability of written patient materials. We obtained 50 brochures commonly used in anticoagulation management units from industry and health advocacy groups. Patient information was related to atrial fibrillation (16%, n=8), warfarin (44%, n=22), low-molecular-weight heparins (12%, n=6), or other related topics (28%, n=14). The mean readability was found to be grade 10.7 (95% CI 10.1 to 11.2); none had a readability score at the 6th-grade level or below, 12% of the brochures had readability scores at the 7th- to 8th-grade levels (n=6), 74% at the 9th- to 12th-grade levels (n=37), and 14% at higher than 12th-grade level (n=7). The readability grade level was similar for brochures produced by industry or health advocacy groups (P:=0.9) but higher for information obtained from the Internet (12.2+/-1.3 grades) compared with other sources (10.3+/-2.1 grades; P:=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient education materials related to the use of anticoagulants are written at grade levels beyond the comprehension of most patients. Low-literacy brochures are needed for patients on anticoagulants.

Cognitive models of physicians' legal standard and personal judgments of competency in patients with Alzheimer's disease

OBJECTIVES

To investigate measures of patient cognitive abilities as predictors of physician judgments of medical treatment consent capacity (competency) in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD).

DESIGN

Predictor models of legal standards (LS) and personal competency judgments were developed for each study physician using independent neuropsychological test measures and logistic regression analyses.

SETTING

A university medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

Five physicians with experience assessing the competency of AD patients were recruited to make competency judgments of videotaped vignettes from 10 older controls and 21 patients with AD (10 with mild and 11 with moderate dementia).

MEASUREMENTS

The 31 patient and control videotapes of performance on a measure of treatment consent capacity (Capacity to Consent to Treatment Instrument) (CCTI) were rated by the five physicians. The CCTI consists of two clinical vignettes (A-neoplasm and B-cardiac) that test competency under five LS. Each study physician viewed each vignette videotape individually, made judgments of competent or incompetent under each of the LS, and then made his/her own personal competency judgment. Physicians were blinded to participant diagnosis and neuropsychological test performance. Stepwise logistic regression was conducted to identify cognitive predictors of each physician's LS and personal competency judgments for Vignette A using the full sample (n = 31). Classification logistic regression analysis was used to determine how well these cognitive predictor models classified each physician's competency judgments for Vignette A. These classification models were then cross-validated using physician's Vignette B judgments.

RESULTS

Cognitive predictor models for Vignette A competency judgments differed across individual physicians, and were related to difficulty of LS and to incompetency outcome rates across LS for AD patients. Measures of semantic knowledge and receptive language predicted judgments under less difficult LS of evidencing a treatment choice (LS1) and making the reasonable treatment choice (LS2). Measures of semantic knowledge, short-term verbal recall, and simple reasoning ability predicted judgments under more difficult and clinically relevant LS of appreciating consequences of a treatment choice (LS3), providing rational reasons for a treatment choice (LS4), and understanding the treatment situation and choices (LSS). Cognitive models for physicians' personal competency judgments were virtually identical to their respective models for LS5 judgments. For AD patients, shortterm memory predictors were associated with high incompetency outcome rates (over 70%), a simple reasoning measure was associated with moderately high incompetency outcome rates (60-70%), and a semantic knowledge measure was associated with lower incompetency outcome rates (30-60%). Overall, single predictor models were relatively robust, correctly classifying an average of 83% of physician judgments for Vignette A and 80% of judgments for Vignette B.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple cognitive functions predicted physicians' LS and personal competency judgments. Declines in semantic knowledge, short-term verbal recall, and simple reasoning ability predicted physicians' judgments on the three most difficult and clinically most relevant LS (LS3-LS5), as well as their personal competency judgments. Our findings suggest that clinical assessment of competency should include evaluation of semantic knowledge, verbal recall, and simple reasoning abilities.

Consistency of physicians' legal standard and personal judgments of competency in patients with Alzheimer's disease

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the consistency of physician judgments of treatment consent capacity (competency) for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) when specific legal standards (LS) for competency are used, and to identify the LS most clinically relevant to experienced physicians.

DESIGN

Control and AD patient participants were videotaped being administered a measure of capacity to consent to medical treatment. Study physicians viewed videotapes of these assessments individually and made competency judgments for each participant under different LS followed by their own personal judgment of competency.

SETTING

A university medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were 10 older controls and 21 patients with AD (10 with mild and 11 with moderate AD). Five physicians with experience assessing the competency of AD patients were recruited from the geriatric psychiatry, geriatric medicine, and neurology services of a university medical center.

MEASUREMENTS

The 31 participants were videotaped performing on a measure of treatment consent capacity (Capacity to Consent to Treatment Instrument) (CCTI). The CCTI consists of two clinical vignettes (A-neoplasm and B-cardiac) that test competency under five LS. Vignette A and B assessments were videotaped separately for each participant (total videotapes for sample = 62). Each study physician viewed each videotaped vignette individually, made judgments under each of the LS (competent or incompetent), and then made his/her own personal competency judgment. Physicians were blinded to participant diagnosis. Within participant group, consistency of physician judgments was evaluated across LS and personal judgments using percentage agreement and kappa. Agreement between personal and LS judgments for the AD group was evaluated for each physician using logistic regression.

RESULTS

As expected, physicians as a group generally demonstrated very high percentage agreement in their LS and personal competency judgments for the control group. For the AD group, mean percentage judgment agreement among physicians ranged from a high of 84% (LS1) (evidencing a treatment choice) to a low of 67% (LS3) (appreciating consequences of treatment choice). Mean percentage agreement for personal competency judgments was 76%. For the AD sample, kappa analyses for physicians as a group demonstrated significant agreement not attributable to chance for LS5 (understanding treatment situation/choices) (k = 0.57, P = .001), LS4 (providing rational reasons for treatment choice) (k = 0.39, P = .04), and also for personal judgments (k = 0.48, P = .009). Analysis of LS judgment agreement within physician indicated that physicians applied the LS as discrete standards. Within-physician and for the AD sample, personal competency judgments were associated significantly with judgments on LS5 (P = .001), LS4 (P = .004), and LS3 (P < .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Experienced physicians demonstrated significant agreement assessing competency in AD patients when judgments were based upon specific legal standards. Personal competency judgments of physicians showed a substantially higher level of agreement than found in a previous study, where specific LS were not used. These results suggest that consistency of physician competency judgments can be enhanced if they are guided by knowledge of specific LS. Physicians' personal competency judgments were most closely associated with comprehension and reasoning LS, the most conservative and clinically appropriate standards for deciding competency.