Tests of competency to consent to treatment

Assessment of Decision-Making Capacity in 97 Hospitalized Patients With Cancer: A Call for Standardization

Hospitalized patients with cancer face pivotal decisions that will affect their cancer care trajectory and quality of life, but frequently lack decision making capacity (DMC). Standardization is conspicuously missing for inpatient oncology teams and for consultation-liaison psychiatrists performing DMC assessments for patients with cancer. This study sought to characterize a single institutional experience of psychiatric consultations to assess DMC. We conducted a retrospective chart review of 97 consecutive psychiatric consultations for DMC from 2017 to 2019. Demographic, hospital-based, and psychiatry consult differences were assessed based on the reasons for DMC evaluation (uncertainty, patient refusal, and emergency) and whether patients had decisional capacity. Out of 97 consultations, 56 (59%) hospitalized patients with cancer were unable to demonstrate capacity. Consultations came from medical services almost exclusively. Only 5% of primary teams documented their own DMC evaluation. Only 22% of DMC evaluation by consultation-liaison psychiatrists documented four determinates of DMC. Few commented on reversibility or tenuousness of DMC, and the identification of agents/surrogates; however, psychiatry consultants were more likely to follow up on patients without DMC. One-third of patients died in the hospital and two-thirds of patients were deceased 3 months after the consult. Given the substantial heterogeneity in the documentation of DMC evaluations in this retrospective chart review, we call for more rigor and standardization in documentation of DMC evaluations.

Reliability of clinical judgment for evaluation of informed consent in mental health settings and the validation of the Evaluation of Informed Consent to Treatment (EICT) scale

Introduction

The competence assessment to give informed consent in the legal and healthcare settings is often performed merely through clinical judgment. Given the acknowledged limited reliability of clinician-based evaluation in the mental health sector, particularly for the assessment of competence to consent, our objective was to ascertain the dependability of clinical judgment when evaluating the ability of schizophrenia patients to make choices about their health.

Methods

The potential convergence between clinical evaluation and scores from a new standardized assessment (the "Evaluation of Informed Consent to Treatment" - "EICT" scale) was therefore tested. The scale assesses four dimensions of competence, specifically how patients normally understand information relating to care (Understanding); how they evaluate the choice of treatment in terms of risk/benefit ratio (Evaluating); how they reason coherently in the decision-making process (Reasoning); and, finally, their ability to make a choice between treatment alternatives (Expressing a choice). Thirty-four outpatients with schizophrenia were evaluated for their competence to consent by five referring clinicians with different backgrounds (psychiatrist, forensic psychiatrist, geriatrician, anesthetist, and medico-legal doctor). Inter-raters variability was tested through correlation analyses between the scores obtained by the clinicians on a modified version of the Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF) designed specifically to subjectively assess functioning in each of the four competence dimensions. Two validated competence scales (Mac-CAT-T, SICIATRI-R), and a neuropsychological battery were also administered along with scales for evaluating neuropsychiatric symptoms severity and side effects of medication.

Results

Clinical judgments of the individual specialists showed great inter-rater variability. Likewise, only weak/non-significant correlations were found between the EICT subscales and the respective clinicians-rated GAF scales. Conversely, solid correlations were found between the EICT and MacCAT-T subscales. As expected, healthy controls performed better in the ability to give informed consent to treatment, as measured by the three scales (i.e., EICT, MacCAT-T, and SICIATRI-R), and neuropsychological test performance. In the comparisons between patients who, according to the administered EICT, were able or not able to give informed consent to treatment, significant differences emerged for the Phonemic verbal fluency task (p = 0.038), Verbal judgments (p = 0.048), MacCAT-T subscales, and SICIATRI-R total score. Moreover, EICT exhibited excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.96 to 0.98 for the four subscales) while the Item Analysis, by measuring the correlation between each item of the EICT and the total score, was excellent for all items of all subscales (alphas ranging from 0.86 to 0.98).

Discussion

In conclusion, our findings highlighted that the assessment of competence exclusively through clinical judgment is not fully reliable and needs the support of standardized tools. The EICT scale could therefore be useful in assessing general competence to consent both in healthcare and legal contexts, where it might be necessary to evaluate the effective competence of patients with psychiatric disorders. Finally, this scale could serve as a valuable tool for decisions regarding whether and to what extent a patient needs support.

Non-Psychiatric Treatment Refusal in Patients with Depression: How Should Surrogate Decision-Makers Represent the Patient's Authentic Wishes?

Patients with mental illness, and depression in particular, present clinicians and surrogate decision-makers with complex ethical dilemmas when they refuse life-sustaining non-psychiatric treatment. When treatment rejection is at variance with the beliefs and preferences that could be expected based on their premorbid or "authentic" self, their capacity to make these decisions may be called into question. If capacity cannot be demonstrated, medical decisions fall to surrogates who are usually advised to decide based on a substituted judgment standard or, when that is not possible, best interest. We propose that in cases where the patient meets the widely accepted cognitive criteria for capacity but is making decisions that appear inauthentic, the surrogate may best uphold patient autonomy by following a "restorative representation" model. We see restorative representation as a subset of substituted judgement in which the decision-maker retains responsibility for deciding as the patient would have, but discerns the decision their "truest self" would make, rather than inferring their current wishes, which are directly influenced by illness. Here we present a case in which the patient's treatment refusal and previously undiagnosed depression led to difficulty determining the patient's authentic wishes and placed a distressing burden on the surrogate decision-maker. We use this case to examine how clinicians and ethicists might better advise surrogates who find themselves making these clinically and emotionally challenging decisions.

Capacity Reconceptualized: From Assessment Tool to Clinical Intervention

Capacity evaluation has become a widely used assessment device in clinical practice to determine whether patients have the cognitive ability to render their own medical decisions. Such evaluations, which might be better thought of as "capacity challenges," are generally thought of as benign tools used to facilitate care. This paper proposes that such challenges should be reconceptualized as significant medical interventions with their own set of risks, side effects, and potentially deleterious consequences. As a result, a cost-benefit analysis should be implemented prior to imposing such capacity challenges, and efforts should be made to minimize such challenges in situations where they are unlikely to alter the course of treatment.

Reconsidering Capacity to Appoint a Healthcare Proxy

Clinicians are often called upon to assess the capacity of a patient to appoint a healthcare agent. Although a consensus has emerged that the standard for such assessment should differ from that for capacity to render specific healthcare decisions, exactly what standard should be employed remains unsettled and differs by jurisdiction. The current models in use draw heavily upon analogous methods used in clinical assessment, such as the "four skills" approach. This essay proposes an alternative model that relies upon categorization and sliding scale risk assessment that can be used to determine to how much scrutiny the proxy appointment should be subjected and how much certainty of accuracy should be required in order to maximize the patient's autonomy and ensure that her underlying wishes are met.

Clinical Issues in the Assessment of Competency

The evaluation of a patient's competency to consent to treatment, regardless of the test of competency used, can be substantially affected by a number of clinical factors. The authors point out that, in assessing competency, the clinician must consider 1) psychodynamic elements of the patient's personality, 2) the accuracy of the historical information conveyed by the patient, 3) the accuracy and completeness of the information disclosed to the patient, 4) the stability of the patient's mental status over time, and 5) the effect of the setting in which consent is obtained. Inattention to these factors can lead to errors in assessment of competency that can have important implications for patient care. Reprinted from Am J Psychiatry 1981; 138:1462-1467, with permission from American Psychiatric Association Publishing. Copyright © 1981.

Anything You Do Not Say Can Be Used against You: Volitional Refusal to Engage in Decisional Capacity Assessment

AbstractThe most widely accepted model of decisional capacity assessment requires that a patient communicate a clear and consistent choice to the evaluator. This approach works effectively when patients prove unable to express a choice owing to physical, psychological, or cognitive limitations. In contrast, the approach raises ethics concerns when applied to patients who volitionally refuse to communicate a choice. This article examines the ethical issues that arise in such cases and offers a rubric for addressing decisional capacity under such circumstances.

Decision-Making Capacity in Healthcare: Instruments Review and Reflections About its Assessment in the Elderly with Cognitive Impairment and Dementia

The prevalence of neurodegenerative diseases has been significantly increasing in the last decades, and it is expected to continue to grow. These health disorders can impair patients' decision-making capacity in healthcare. The capacity to make healthcare decisions is a fundamental pillar of informed consent, therefore, it should be carefully assessed. Clinicians' assessment, when not supported by a standardized tool, has revealed to be unreliable, so the recourse to an instrument of capacity assessment is crucial. The present paper aims to identify and summarize published instruments of healthcare decision-making capacity. To do so, a search of peer-reviewed articles in English, Portuguese and Spanish was conducted. A total of eighteen articles, detailing seventeen assessment instruments were selected. Instruments differ on format, structure, assessed abilities and psychometric properties. Likewise, instruments' targeted population also varies, with a few being specifically developed for patients with dementia. Although a high number of instruments were found, there is still no gold standard for healthcare decision-making capacity assessment. The lack of a gold standard highlights the need for more research in this field, as well as an effort to develop guidelines and normative data, in order to improve clinical practices.

Medicolegal Implications of Mild Neurocognitive Disorder

INTRODUCTION

The syndromes of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild neurocognitive disorder (MiND), often prodromal to dementia (Major Neurocognitive Disorder), are characterized by acquired clinically significant changes in one or more cognitive domains despite preserved independence. Mild impairment has significant medicolegal consequences for an affected person and their care system. We review the more common etiologies of MiND and provide a systematic review of its medicolegal implications.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed English literature on medicolegal aspects of MCI or MiND using comprehensive search terms and expanding our review to include sources cited by these reports.

RESULTS

Impairment of memory, executive function, social cognition, judgment, insight or abstraction can alter an individual's abilities in a variety of areas that include decision making, informed consent, designation of a surrogate decision-maker such as a health care proxy, understanding and management of financial affairs, execution of a will, or safe driving.

CONCLUSION

Even mild cognitive impairment can have significant behavioral consequences. Clinicians can assist care partners and persons with MCI or MiND by alerting them to the medicolegal concerns that often accompany cognitive decline. Early recognition and discussion can help a care system manage medicolegal risk more effectively and promote thoughtful advance planning.

Equality in the Informed Consent Process: Competence to Consent, Substitute Decision-Making, and Discrimination of Persons with Mental Disorders

According to what we propose to call “the competence model,” competence is a necessary condition for valid informed consent. If a person is not competent to make a treatment decision, the decision must be made by a substitute decision-maker on her behalf. Recent reports of various United Nations human rights bodies claim that article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities involves a wholesale rejection of this model, regardless of whether the model is based on a status, outcome, or functional approach to competence. The alleged rationale of this rejection is that denying persons the right to make their own treatment decisions based on an assessment of competence necessarily discriminates against persons with mental disorders. Based on a philosophical account of the nature of discrimination, we argue that a version of the competence model that combines supported decision-making with a functional approach to competence does not discriminate against persons with mental disorders. Furthermore, we argue that status- and outcome-based versions of the competence model are discriminatory.

Decision-making capacity evaluations: the role of neuropsychological assessment from a multidisciplinary perspective

Decision-making capacity (DMC) in aging adults has become increasingly salient as the number of older adults, life expectancy, and the amount of wealth to be transferred from older generations have all increased. The accurate and reliable determination of older adults’ DMC is a particularly important topic given its implication in legal, financial, and health decisions. Based upon the four-ability DMC model promulgated by Appelbaum and Grisso in the 1980’s, a number of MacArthur Competence Assessment Tools have been developed and widely utilized. However, these tools do not include cognitive testing or other sources of objective data and have limited validity in a medico-legal setting, necessitating additional options for the evaluation of DMC. This is significant from the perspective of the patient because they have a vested interest in accurate and objective assessment of their DMC across domains.

Given the disparities in the assessment of DMC, the authors propose, through this debate article, that the evaluation of DMC in the aging adult population utilize a combination of traditional interview and domain specific instruments and neuropsychological testing. To achieve a consensus on the issue, medical experts in a number of fields related to capacity evaluation, including psychiatry, neurology, neuropsychology, and general medicine were consulted and recruited as authors. Experts in Swiss law and ethics were also consulted and provided input.

A tendency to focus on a single capacity, and in particular, the ability to consent to medical treatment, arose in the literature. Similarly, there are many instruments purporting to evaluate a single capacity (e.g., consenting to medical treatment, managing finances), while other areas important to the evaluation of DMC received little attention (e.g., activities of daily living, the ability to live independently, to marry, to resist undue influence, and to make a will or advanced care directive). Medical and legal experts in the multidisciplinary group agreed that there is a clear need for more consistency across evaluation of DMC domains and that a combined approach of traditional methods and neuropsychological testing provides a more thorough evaluation and better serves the patient.

A Comparative Analysis of the Treatment of Decision-Making by or for Patients with Neurodegenerative Diseases in Four Legal Jurisdictions

Dementia is associated with the gradual impairment of mental ability. The population of people suffering from dementia is as large as 50 million. Most dementia cases result from various neurodegenerative diseases (NDs) linked by a progressive degeneration of neurons. Among NDs, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most frequent cause of dementia and accounts for 60- 80% of cases. Certain pathological changes on the cellular and subcellular level occur even 15 years before the manifestation of clinical symptoms of AD. This first asymptomatic phase of AD is considered a preclinical stage, whereas mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is the symptomatic pre-dementia stage. The third, fully symptomatic phase of AD is dementia due to AD. The presence of specific proteins in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) may be considered as a characteristic feature of some NDs. The measurement of their CSF concentrations, together with neuropsychological examination and neuroimaging, may be useful for diagnosing AD. The collection of CSF samples is performed by lumbar puncture, which is a medical procedure that requires obtaining informed consent from patients. While asymptomatic AD patients have full legal capacity, those with dementia require a legal guardian who will represent them. Thus, the objective of this study is to compare the legal systems regulating the legal capacity issue in the USA, U.K. (England and Wales), Germany, and Poland. These countries have been chosen as examples of three different types of legal orders, according to the sources of law, i.e., civil law, common law, and case law.

Effects of Visual Aids for End-of-Life Care on Decisional Capacity of People With Dementia

Purpose This study evaluated the decision-making capacity of persons with mild and moderate dementia on end-of-life care when using visual aids. A secondary purpose was to learn whether the judges naive to the experimental conditions would rate participants' decisional abilities as better when augmented by visual aids, thereby validating the behavioral changes due to the use of these external support. Method Twenty older adults with mild and moderate dementia demonstrated Understanding, Expressing a Choice, Reasoning, and Appreciation of 2 medical vignettes under 2 counterbalanced conditions: verbal alone or verbal with visual aids. Transcripts were analyzed and scored to measure decisional skills. Twelve judges rated participants' decisional abilities using a 7-point Likert scale. Results Participants demonstrated significantly better overall decisional capacity in Understanding, Reasoning, and Appreciation when supported by visual aids during the decision-making process. No significant differences between conditions were found in Expressing a Choice, the decisional skill Logical Sequence under Reasoning, and Acknowledgment under Appreciation. Overall, the judges' ratings validated these outcomes; the judges' ratings reflected greater agreement in the visual condition than in the verbal condition. Conclusions Findings indicated that visual aids (a) improved the decision-making capacity of individuals with dementia in comprehending medical information, employing supportive reasons, and relating this information to his or her own situation and (b) contain the potential for judges who majored or are majoring in speech-language pathology to reach a stronger consensus when determining the decision-making capacity of individuals with dementia.

How Bioethics and Case Law Diverge in Assessments of Mental Capacity: An Argument for a Narrative Coherence Standard

Clinical assessments of mental capacity have long been guided by four basic cognitive criteria (understanding, appreciation, ability to reason, communication of decision), distilled directly from widespread legal precedent in common law cases of informed consent and refusal. This article will challenge the sufficiency of these legal criteria at the bedside on the assertion that clinicians and bioethicists who evaluate decisional capacity face questions far deeper than the mere presence or absence of a patient's informed consent. It will then present an additional standard beyond the existing cognitive criteria - to be called the Narrative Coherence Standard - that may begin to bridge the gap between the existing legal standards and higher-order bioethical priorities. This standard will be treated with a philosophical argument for its use, as well as a detailed exploration of its technical components and conceptual underpinnings.

Neuropsychological Predictors of Decision-Making Capacity in Terminally Ill Patients with Advanced Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to identify the neuropsychological underpinnings of decision-making capacity in terminally ill patients with advanced cancer.

METHOD

Participants were 108 English-speaking adults. More than half (n = 58) of participants had a diagnosis of advanced cancer and were receiving inpatient palliative care; the rest were healthy adults. Participants completed a measure of decision-making capacity that assesses four legal standards of capacity (Choice, Understanding, Appreciation, and Reasoning), and several measures of neuropsychological functioning.

RESULTS

Patients with terminal cancer were significantly more impaired on measures of capacity and neuropsychological functioning. Surprisingly, in the terminally ill sample, there were no significant correlations between neuropsychological functioning and decision-making capacity.

CONCLUSION

The terminally ill sample exhibited high levels of neuropsychological impairment across multiple cognitive domains. However, few of the measures of neuropsychological functioning were significantly associated with performance on the decisional capacity subscales in the terminally ill sample. It is possible that end-of-life decisional capacity is governed by general, rather than domain-specific, cognitive abilities.

Assessment of mental capacity to consent to treatment in anorexia nervosa: A comparison of clinical judgment and MacCAT-T and consequences for clinical practice

Informed consent requires adequate mental capacity to consent to treatment. Mental capacity (MC) to consent to treatment refers to the ability to make medical decisions. MC is assessed in a general psychiatric interview, but this clinical assessment is known to overestimate mental capacity in patients and the inter rater reliability is low. The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T) has emerged as the gold standard to assess mental capacity to consent to treatment. The MacCAT-T is a semi-structured interview designed to aid clinicians in this assessment and has shown good inter rater reliability in patients with schizophrenia and other mental disorders, but has hardly been studied in patients with anorexia nervosa. Patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) regularly avoid treatment, even when severely ill and discussion includes assessing MC to consent to treatment. The aim of this study is to compare clinical judgment and the MacCAT-T in evaluating MC in patients with AN which in turn may influence use of the MacCAT-T in daily practice. In a sample of 70 consecutively referred severely ill patients with AN with a mean BMI of 15.5 kg/m² and a mean duration of illness of 8.6 years, clinical assessment of MC by experienced psychiatrists and the outcome of the MacCAT-T interview were compared. Agreement (κ-value) was calculated. Agreement between clinical assessment and outcome of the MacCAT-T was questionable (κ 0.23). Unlike in other psychiatric populations, clinicians judged a high proportion of patients with AN as having diminished MC. The MacCAT-T can be useful in assessing MC in AN when used in addition to clinical judgment to aid clinicians in complex cases. Why clinicians judge a relatively high proportion of patients with AN as having diminished MC, in contrast to lower proportions in other psychiatric disorders, is an area in need of further research.

Assessing the Decision-Making Capacity of Terminally Ill Patients with Cancer

OBJECTIVE

Despite the clinical, ethical, and legal magnitude of end-of-life decision-making, the capacity of terminally ill patients to make the medical decisions they often face is largely unknown. In practice, clinicians are responsible for determining when their patients are no longer competent to make treatment decisions, yet the accuracy of these assessments is unclear. The purpose of this study was to explore decision-making capacity and its assessment in terminally ill cancer patients.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients with advanced cancer receiving inpatient palliative care and 50 healthy adults were administered the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T) to evaluate decision-making capacity with regard to the four most commonly used legal standards: Choice, Understanding, Appreciation, and Reasoning. Participants made a hypothetical treatment decision about whether to accept artificial nutrition and hydration for treatment of cachexia. Participants' physicians independently rated their decision-making capacity.

RESULTS

Terminally ill participants were significantly more impaired than healthy adults on all MacCAT-T subscales. Most terminally ill participants were able to express a treatment choice (85.7%), but impairment was common on the Understanding (44.2%), Appreciation (49.0%), and Reasoning (85.4%) subscales. Agreement between physician-rated capacity and performance on the MacCAT-T subscales was poor.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the MacCAT-T revealed high rates of decisional impairment in terminally ill participants. Participants' physicians infrequently detected impairment identified by the MacCAT-T. The findings from the present study reinforce the need for engagement in advance care planning for patients with advanced cancer.

Informed consent to medication in long-term psychiatric in-patients

Aims and Methods

We wished to ascertain to what extent patients had given informed consent to their medications. Therefore, 68 long-term psychiatric in-patients were interviewed about their knowledge and attitudes towards their medications.

Results

Two-thirds of patients did not know the purpose of their medication; one-tenth knew about the side-effects. Longer length of stay, older age and voluntary status were associated with less knowledge. Despite poor knowledge, most patients accepted their treatment. However, few realised that they had any choice.

Clinical Implications

The prevalence of true informed consent is low among this group and raises issues about patients' rights.

Competence and consent to treatment in children and adolescents

English law on young people's consent to treatment and competence is complex and can even appear contradictory. For example, competent minors can consent, but their refusal can be overruled by the consent of a person with parental authority or by the court. This paper is an attempt to make sense of the topic for clinicians. It includes a discussion of the law and the small body of relevant research evidence. There are clinical case examples, checklists and guidelines for good practice. However, it is not a substitute for legal advice, which should be sought wherever doubt remains.

Mental capacity: Different models and their controversies

Modern legislation in the UK addressing the issue of decision-making ability uses tests of mental capacity based on the individual's ability to understand relevant information given to them. Alternative models of mental capacity do exist, but are largely considered defunct. This article reviews these alternative models and considers their importance. Far from being irrelevant to modern views on mental capacity, these models have already been incorporated into legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005. A better understanding of these models can improve clinicians’ understanding of mental capacity in general. Modern controversies such as the impact of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) are discussed and ways in which our understanding of mental capacity may have to change in the future are addressed.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

•

Is decision-making capacity an "essentially contested" concept in pediatrics?

Key legislations in many countries emphasize the importance of involving children in decisions regarding their own health at a level commensurate with their age and capacities. Research is engaged in developing tools to assess capacity in children in order to facilitate their responsible involvement. These instruments, however, are usually based on the cognitive criteria for capacity assessment as defined by Appelbaum and Grisso and thus ill adapted to address the life-situation of children. The aim of this paper is to revisit and critically reflect upon the current definitions of decision-making capacity. For this purpose, we propose to see capacity through the lens of essential contestability as it warns us against any reification of what it means to have capacity. Currently, capacity is often perceived of as a mental or cognitive ability which somehow resides within the person, obscuring the fact that capacity is not just an objective property which can be assessed, but always operates within a dominant cultural framework that "creates" that same capacity and defines the threshold between capable and incapable in a specific situation. Defining capacity as an essentially contested concept means using it in a questioning mode and giving space to alternative interpretations that might inform and advance the debate surrounding decision-making.

Autonomy in Depressive Patients Undergoing DBS-Treatment: Informed Consent, Freedom of Will and DBS' Potential to Restore It

According to the World Health Organization, depression is one of the most common and most disabling psychiatric disorders, affecting at any given time approximately 325 million people worldwide. As there is strong evidence that depressive disorders are associated with a dynamic dysregulation of neural circuits involved in emotional processing, recently several attempts have been made to intervene directly in these circuits via deep brain stimulation (DBS) in patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD). Given the promising results of most of these studies, the rising medical interest in this new treatment correlates with a growing sensitivity to ethical questions. One of the most crucial concerns is that DBS might interfere with patients' ability to make autonomous decisions. Thus, the goal of this article is to evaluate the impact DBS presumably has on the capacity to decide and act autonomously in patients with MDD in the light of the autonomy-undermining effects depression has itself. Following the chronological order of the procedure, special attention will first be paid to depression's effects on patients' capacity to make use of their free will in giving valid Informed Consent. We suggest that while the majority of patients with MDD appear capable of autonomous choices, as it is required for Informed Consent, they might still be unable to effectively act according to their own will whenever acting includes significant personal effort. In reducing disabling depressive symptoms like anhedonia and decrease of energy, DBS for treatment resistant MDD thus rather seems to be an opportunity to substantially increase autonomy than a threat to it.

Click yes to consent: Acceptability of incorporating informed consent into an internet-based testing program for sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections

BACKGROUND

Autonomous use of online health care services without interaction with a health care provider challenges existing models for achieving informed consent (IC); current examinations of this issue have focused on commercial direct-to-consumer genetic testing. As IC is integral to publicly funded clinical testing services, we incorporated pre-test concepts necessary for IC in GetCheckedOnline (GCO), British Columbia's online sexually transmitted and blood-borne infection (STBBI) testing service.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the acceptability of this IC step and its design options among potential users during usability testing of GCO.

METHODS

English-speaking participants≥19years were recruited from Craigslist and among provincial STI clinic clients for usability testing of an early version of GCO, which included a consent webpage presenting 8 pre-test statements for review prior to completing testing. Participants were interviewed regarding their acceptability, perceptions, and understanding of the consent page; transcripts were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

We conducted 13 interviews (9 males, 4 females; 9 self-identified as heterosexual; all had previously tested for STBBI). We identified three main themes: i) the meaning of IC (consent page viewed as important and for protection of individual and organization; participants demonstrated varying understandings of specific components); ii) the impact of previous experience on understanding IC (participants understood difference between online and in-person testing; IC concepts were better understood by participants with more testing experience); iii) the role of website design on achieving IC (design of page to disrupt speedy click-throughs was valued and demonstrated seriousness of the consent page).

CONCLUSIONS

Our careful attention to both content and design of the consent page of GCO was highly valued by potential users of the service, and effective in disrupting routinization of consent on websites. We argue that principles of IC apply equally in online self-testing programs as in clinical practice, and can be effectively achieved without detracting from the user experience.

The recovery of factors associated with decision-making capacity in individuals with psychosis

BACKGROUND

There is limited data on the recovery of factors associated with decisional capacity in patients with psychosis.

AIMS

To study the relationship between changes in mental capacity, symptoms and global functioning using structured measures during treatment for psychosis.

METHOD

Fifty-six patients with psychosis were assessed for capacity to consent to treatment on admission and at 6 and 12 weeks following treatment. The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool - Treatment, the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale and the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale were used to measure mental capacities, symptom severity and global functioning respectively. Treating consultants rated capacity to consent, masked to these measures.

RESULTS

Greater impairments on all measures were found in patients assessed as lacking capacity. These improved with treatment over 12 weeks with significant effect sizes (0.5 to 0.6). Stronger correlations between mental capacities, positive symptoms (-0.47) and global functioning (0.56) were noted in the first 6 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Impairments in capacity in acute stages of psychosis are related to symptom severity and functional impairment. They improve during treatment, particularly in the first 6 weeks.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

None.

COPYRIGHT AND USAGE

© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2017. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) license.

Consent and competency in elders with Alzheimer's disease

This article will examine the elements of informed consent as they affect elders with Alzheimer's disease. The components of voluntariness, information, and competency will be reviewed. Case examples involving involuntary psychiatric treatment, institutionalization, and guardianship are examined as they relate to this vulnerable population. Important themes involve the presumption of competence, autonomy, beneficence, paternalism, and the power differential in the relationship between service provider and service recipient.

Conceptual Models and Guidelines for Clinical Assessment of Financial Capacity

The ability to manage financial affairs is a life skill of critical importance, and neuropsychologists are increasingly asked to assess financial capacity across a variety of settings. Sound clinical assessment of financial capacity requires knowledge and appreciation of applicable clinical conceptual models and principles. However, the literature has presented relatively little conceptual guidance for clinicians concerning financial capacity and its assessment. This article seeks to address this gap. The article presents six clinical models of financial capacity : (1) the early gerontological IADL model of Lawton, (2) the clinical skills model and (3) related cognitive psychological model developed by Marson and colleagues, (4) a financial decision-making model adapting earlier decisional capacity work of Appelbaum and Grisso, (5) a person-centered model of financial decision-making developed by Lichtenberg and colleagues, and (6) a recent model of financial capacity in the real world developed through the Institute of Medicine. Accompanying presentation of the models is discussion of conceptual and practical perspectives they represent for clinician assessment. Based on the models, the article concludes by presenting a series of conceptually oriented guidelines for clinical assessment of financial capacity. In summary, sound assessment of financial capacity requires knowledge and appreciation of clinical conceptual models and principles. Awareness of such models, principles and guidelines will strengthen and advance clinical assessment of financial capacity.

Assessment of Healthcare Decision-making Capacity

It is often necessary for neuropsychologists, clinical psychologists, and other healthcare professionals to assess an individual's capacity to consent to treatment related to healthcare. This task can be challenging and requires a delicate balance of both respect for individuals' autonomy, as well as the protection of individuals with diminished capacity to make an autonomous decision. The purpose of the present review is to provide an overview of the conceptual model of decisional capacity as well as a brief summary of some of the currently available instruments designed to help evaluate medical decision making. In addition, current empirical literature on the relationship between neuropsychological abilities and decision-making capacity is discussed and a brief set of recommendations is provided to further aid clinicians or consultants when they are required to complete the ethically important but difficult task of making determinations about healthcare decision-making capacity.

Refusal of Treatment by Mentally Competent Patient: The Choice of Doctor-Patient Relationship Models

Introduction: In modern medicine professional relationship between the clinician and the patient is patient-centered. Patients become actively involved in the treatment decision making process and are encouraged to express their health-related preferences. Some patients may, however, refuse a favorable risk/benefit ratio treatment. This manuscript presents three cases of refusal of treatment by mentally competent surgical patients and discusses differences in their management. Conclusion: To achieve the best medical outcome for patients who possess the Actual Understanding test of mental competence clinicians use the deliberate model of medical professional relationship. For patients demonstrating the Understanding test of mental competence and wishing to utilize their health-related preferences physicians are obliged to deploy the interpretive model of doctor-patient relationship. In mentally competent patients with an illness-induced acute psychological regression the interpretive model of doctor-patient relationship as an initial strategy and cognitive behavior therapy can be useful in modifying treatment rejecting behavior and improving medical outcome.

Informed consent for low-risk thyroid cancer

Significant barriers to informed consent surround the clinical management of adult patients with well-differentiated thyroid cancer. The literature reveals lack of disclosure surrounding clinical equipoise; confusing and conflicting terminology; and an insufficient number of prospective trials with proper ethical oversight. We provide guidance for valid consent to treatment in this population, and propose stipulative definitions for a variety of terms used in this context. Three critical areas are addressed: surgical management, radioactive iodine management and nonvalidated practice. Sound ethical frameworks for valid consent in patients with low-risk thyroid cancer include consent to observational (or ‘active surveillance’) research protocols, consent to nonvalidated practice and consent when there are opposing standards of care due to insufficient data and disagreement among the community of experts.

Do we need a threshold conception of competence?

On the standard view we assess a person's competence by considering her relevant abilities without reference to the actual decision she is about to make. If she is deemed to satisfy certain threshold conditions of competence, it is still an open question whether her decision could ever be overruled on account of its harmful consequences for her ('hard paternalism'). In practice, however, one normally uses a variable, risk dependent conception of competence, which really means that in considering whether or not to respect a person's decision-making authority we weigh her decision on several relevant dimensions at the same time: its harmful consequences, its importance in terms of the person's own relevant values, the infringement of her autonomy involved in overruling it, and her decision-making abilities. I argue that we should openly recognize the multi-dimensional nature of this judgment. This implies rejecting both the threshold conception of competence and the categorical distinction between hard and soft paternalism.

Impairment of medical decisional capacity in relation to Karnofsky Performance Status in adults with malignant brain tumor

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the relationship between medical decisional capacity (MDC) and Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) in adults with malignant brain tumors.

METHODS

Participants were 71 adults with primary (n = 26) or metastatic (n = 45) brain tumors. Testing to determine KPS scores and MDC was performed as close together as possible for each patient. Participants were administered a standardized measure of medical decision-making capacity (Capacity to Consent to Treatment Instrument [CCTI]) to assess 3 treatment consent abilities (ie, appreciation, reasoning, and understanding). Capacity classifications (ie, capable, marginally capable, and incapable) were established using cut scores previously derived from healthy control CCTI performance.

RESULTS

The majority of participants had KPS scores of 90-100 (n = 39), with the remainder divided between KPS scores of 70-80 (n = 26) and 50-60 (n = 6). Comparisons between persons with KPS scores of 90-100 or 70-80 revealed significant differences on the CCTI consent standards of understanding and appreciation. Participants with KPS ratings of 90-100 achieved 46% capable classifications across all CCTI standards, in contrast with 23% of participants with KPS ratings of 70-80, and 0% of participants with KPS ratings of 50-60.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial portion of brain-tumor patients with KPS scores reflecting only minimal disability nonetheless demonstrated impairments on standardized measures of MDC. Clinicians working with this adult population should carefully screen for capacity to make clinical treatment decisions regardless of functional/performance status.

Eliminating mental disability as a legal criterion in deprivation of liberty cases: The impact of the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities on the insanity defense, civil commitment, and competency law

A number of laws that are associated with deprivations of liberty, including the insanity defense, civil commitment, guardianship of the person and numerous competency doctrines in the criminal context, require proof of mental disability as a predicate. The Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities commands signatory states to eliminate that predicate. Summarizing principles set out in my book Minding Justice: Laws That Deprive People With Mental Disability of Life and Liberty, I explain how this seemingly radical stance can be implemented. Specifically, this article proposes adoption of an "integrationist defense" in the criminal context, an "undeterrability requirement" when the state seeks preventive detention outside of the criminal process, and a "basic rationality and self-regard test" for incompetency determinations. None of these proposals requires proof of a mental disorder as a predicate condition.

Palliative care in the ambulatory geriatric practice

Geriatrics and palliative care often overlap. This article focuses on 2 areas where the disciplines may differ in their approach. The first is planning for extreme illness and death, with explicit acknowledgment that limiting therapy might be a good idea. This situation is likely to have a different impact in the course of a routine geriatrics visit than in a palliative care context. The second is pain management, especially chronic pain. In patients with sharply limited life expectancy, the risk/benefit equation tilts easily toward narcotic use. In frail elders working to remain independent, the calculus may be quite different.

The capacity to refuse psychiatric treatment: a guide to the law for clinicians and tribunal members

OBJECTIVE

In some Australian states clinicians and mental health tribunal members are already required to assess a person's decision-making capacity before involuntary treatment can be applied. Professionals in other jurisdictions will likely soon be required to do the same as mental health law reform in most Australian jurisdictions makes the assessment of decision-making capacity a central component of the process of providing unconsented psychiatric treatment. We provide a guide to the legal issues around the capacity to refuse psychiatric treatment to assist with this task.

METHOD

We review the legislation in the four Australian states most advanced in the mental health law reform process and use examples from clinical practice and the common law to describe how decision-making capacity should be assessed by these statutory standards.

RESULTS

Clinicians and tribunal members will primarily be required to judge whether a person with mental illness can understand the information relevant to the treatment decision and whether he or she can use or weigh that information to come to a decision. A person with a mental illness is presumed to have capacity, but that presumption can be rebutted. Capacity is specific to the decision at hand and cannot be determined by the nature of the decision made.

CONCLUSIONS

The information provided should assist clinicians and tribunal members to make determinations of decision-making capacity around treatment refusal in the context of mental illness.

The limits of autonomy in thyroid oncology

Abstract: 

It is widely believed that respecting patient autonomy obligates practitioners to accede to all patients’ preferences and requests regardless of potential consequences to their health or to the professional integrity of the practitioner. This is a false belief that misrepresents the basic theoretical concepts surrounding the principles of autonomy and respect for persons, which must be balanced with other core medical ethical principles. There are many situations in which there are limits to autonomy. This clinical ethics article, intended for clinicians, will discuss various conditions in which autonomy-limiting principles and concepts apply, which are specific to the thyroid oncology context. The ethical and legal obligations of thyroid oncologists in such situations will also be explored.

[Awareness and understanding of consent in Alzheimer's disease]

Before a patient can take part in a clinical research, French legislation requires his/her free, express and informed consent. In the same way, the information must be given in a clear, fair and appropriate manner. However, in the context of Alzheimer's disease, one might wonder about the patient's capacity to consent. The goal of our research was to study the capacity to provide informed consent in a group of patients with mild Alzheimer's disease and in a control group, using two specialized clinical vignettes inspired by Marson's studies. The aim of the study was to assess discernment in capacity to consent to a treatment and to determinate the possible links between impaired capacities to consent and cognitive and behavioral impairments involved in Alzheimer's disease. The data collected confirm that the capacity to make and maintain a choice is preserved while the capacities to appreciate the consequences of choosing a treatment, to reason and to understand the treatment situation are already impaired in mild Alzheimer's disease. The impairment of these capacities can be linked to dysexecutive syndrome, apathy and impaired self-awareness. Caregivers and family should take into account the risk of weakened capacities of discernment as soon as possible.

Neuropsychological performance within-person variability is associated with reduced treatment consent capacity

OBJECTIVE

The capacity of older adults to make healthcare decisions is often impaired in dementia and has been linked to performance on specific neuropsychological tasks. Within-person across-test neuropsychological performance variability has been shown to predict future dementia. This study examined the relationship of within-person across-test neuropsychological performance variability to a current construct of treatment decision (consent) capacity.

METHODS

Participants completed a neuropsychological test battery and a standardized capacity assessment. Standard scores were used to compute mean neuropsychological performance and within-person across-test variability. Assessments were performed in the participant's preferred location (e.g., outpatient clinic office, senior center, or home). Participants were recruited from the community with fliers and advertisements and consisted of men (N = 79) and women (N = 80) with (N = 83) or without (N = 76) significant cognitive impairment. Participants completed the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Treatment and 11 neuropsychological tests commonly used in the cognitive assessment of older individuals.

RESULTS

Neuropsychological performance and within-person variability were independently associated with continuous and dichotomous measures of capacity, and within-person neuropsychological variability was significantly associated with within-person decisional ability variability. Prevalence of incapacity was greater than expected in participants with and without significant cognitive impairment when decisional abilities were considered separately.

CONCLUSION

These findings are consistent with an emerging construct of consent capacity in which discrete decisional abilities are differentially associated with cognitive processes and indicate that the sensitivity and accuracy of consent capacity assessments can be improved by evaluating decisional abilities separately.

Assessing decision-making capacity at end of life

OBJECTIVE

Patients with terminal illness often face important medical decisions that may carry ethical and legal implications, yet they may be at increased risk for impaired decisional capacity. This study examined the prevalence of impairment on the four domains of decisional capacity relevant to existing legal standards.

METHOD

Twenty-four adults diagnosed with a terminal illness completed the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment, a semi-structured measure of decision-making capacity and measures of cognitive functioning and psychological distress.

RESULTS

Approximately one third of the sample demonstrated serious impairment on at least one domain of decisional capacity. The greatest proportion of impairment was found on subscales that rely heavily on verbal abilities. Decisional capacity was significantly associated with cognitive functioning and education, but not with symptoms of anxiety or depression.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to examine decisional capacity in patients with terminal illness relative to legal standards of competence. Although not universal, decisional impairment was common. Clinicians working with terminally ill patients should frequently assess capacity as these individuals are called on to make important medical decisions. Comprehensive assessment will aid clinicians in their responsibility to balance respect for patient autonomy with their responsibility to protect patients from harm resulting from impaired decisional capacity.

Ethical issues in the management of thyroid disease

The focus of this article is on clinical ethics issues in the thyroid disease context. Clinical ethics is a subspecialty of bioethics that deals with bedside ethical dilemmas that specifically involve the provider-patient relationship. Such issues include consent and capacity; weighing therapeutic benefits against risks and side-effects; innovative therapies; end of life care; unintended versus intentional harms to patients or patient populations; and healthcare access. This article will review core ethical principles for practice, as well as the moral and legal requirements of informed consent. It will then discuss the range of unique and universal ethical issues and considerations that present in the management of autoimmune thyroid disease and thyroid cancer.

Decision-making capacity should not be decisive in emergencies

Examples of patients with anorexia nervosa, depression or borderline personality disorder who have decision-making capacity as currently operationalized, but refuse treatment, are discussed. It appears counterintuitive to respect their treatment refusal because their wish seems to be fuelled by their illness and the consequences of their refusal of treatment are severe. Some proposed solutions have focused on broadening the criteria for decision-making capacity, either in general or for specific patient groups, but these adjustments might discriminate against particular groups of patients and render the process less transparent. Other solutions focus on preferences expressed when patients are not ill, but this information is often not available. The reason for such difficulties with assessing decision-making capacity is that the underlying psychological processes of normal decision-making are not well known and one cannot differentiate between unwise decisions caused by an illness or other factors. The proposed alternative, set out in this paper, is to allow compulsory treatment of patients with decision-making capacity in cases of an emergency, if the refusal is potentially life threatening, but only for a time-limited period. The argument is also made for investigating hindsight agreement, in particular after compulsory measures.

Assessment of capacity in an aging society

Over the past 40 years, the assessment and scientific study of capacity in older adults has emerged as a distinct field of clinical and research activity for psychologists. This new field reflects the convergence of several trends: the aging of American society, the growing incidence and prevalence of dementia, and the patient rights, deinstitutionalization, and disability rights movements. Because of these forces, capacity issues now permeate the fabric of everyday life, whether in the form of guardianship petitions, questions of capacity to consent to treatment, the ability to make a new will, or participation in human research. In seeking to resolve these issues, families, clinicians, and legal professionals increasingly turn to psychologists to assess a capacity and to provide empirically supported judgments that properly balance autonomy and protection for the individual. Psychologists have taken a leading role in the development of functional assessment instruments that measure important aspects of the capacity construct. In addition, psychology has been a major contributor to the scientific study of capacity. In collaboration with colleagues from medicine and law, psychologists have articulated crucial theoretical frameworks that integrate legal, clinical, and ethical dimensions of the capacity problem. This article focuses on the evolution of theory, law, science, and practice in the evaluation of capacity in older adults and its recent culmination in a series of interdisciplinary handbooks sponsored by the American Psychological Association and the American Bar Association.