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

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.

Public awareness of legal decision-making capacity and planning instruments in dementia: implications for health care practitioners

The protection of a person facing difficulties with legal decision-making can be challenging; however, estate planning documents (EPDs) can offer safeguards. Little is known about the community awareness of EPDs and their perceived importance, including for people with dementia. Two-hundred and thirty adults read a mild dementia vignette, proposed a diagnosis for the vignette character (VC), and rated the VC's legal decision-making capacity (DMC). The effect on ratings about DMC under different conditions was explored (e.g., variation of VC characteristics and the decision). Awareness, and the personal importance, of EPDs were assessed. DMC was affected by the variations in the VC's age, diagnosis, and the decision, as high- or low-stakes, but not VC sex. Awareness of EPDs was low; however, planning importance was increased for dementia. Although the public understand that dementia affects DMC, they require further information about EPDs to validly enact them, thereby reducing potential vulnerability.

[The Basics of Decision-Making Capacity: The Top-10 Principles for the Clinical Practice]

The Basics of Decision-Making Capacity: The Top-10 Principles for the Clinical Practice Abstract. Decision-making capacity (decisional competence) as the ability to act rationally is a prerequisite for self-determination and is presumed in adults. In case of justified doubts, a cursory exam and, if necessary, an in-depth evaluation should be carried out. In this article, the concept of decision-making capacity is presented for the clinical practice based on the ten most important legal, ethical, and clinical principles. The criteria for assessing decision-making capacity, the relativity of decision-making capacity in terms of time and subject matter, and a possibly fluctuating decision-making capacity are highlighted. It becomes clear that decision-making incapacity is an attribution based on ethical-normative considerations. It should be noted that the decision of a person with decision-making capacity doesn't necessarily have to be reasonable. Finally, the assessment tool U-Doc is presented to support evaluation.

Decisional capacity determination and serious mental illness in oncology: Implications for equitable and beneficent care

BACKGROUND

Patients with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) have worse survival compared to cancer patients without SMI after controlling for delayed diagnosis. Decision-making capacity (DMC) may be impaired in both populations (cancer or SMI). DMC may be further impaired based on coupled vulnerability factors that challenge Shared Decision Making (SDM) for patients with cancer and SMI.

METHODS

Psychiatric consultations for DMC in hospitalized patients with cancer (n = 97) were consecutively evaluated across a single institution cancer center. SMI data, demographic, and cancer-related variables were obtained from the medical record. Descriptive data were contrasted in patients with and without DMC and used for logistic regression modeling.

RESULTS

Overall, 42% had DMC with no significant differences based on SMI (χ²  = 2.60, p = 0.11). Patients with SMI were younger, receiving anticancer treatment, and were less likely facing end of life issues. Age (OR 1.03, p = 0.05) and no recent anticancer treatments (OR 0.34, p = 0.02) were associated with decisional incapacity. At 3 months post discharge, almost two-thirds were dead with no difference based on SMI (χ²  = 0.01, p = 0.91). But End of Life (EOL) concerns were documented in 63% of non-SMI patients and only 36% of SMI patients (χ²  = 5.63, p = 0.02). Healthcare proxy (16%), four determinates of DMC (22%), and repeated psychiatric DCM assessments (35%) were documented with no differences based on SMI.

CONCLUSION

SDM is not equitable for cancer patients with SMI. Advanced directives and a robust effort to provide value-congruent care for patient with SMI who develop cancer may lessen this health inequity for cancer patients with SMI.