Assessment of mental capacity: a flow chart guide

The marriage of psychology and law: testamentary capacity

Banks v. Goodfellow [1870. LR 5 QB 549 (Eng.)] is almost 150 years old, yet still stands as authority for the principle that unsoundness of the mind will not rebut testamentary capacity where it does not affect the will itself. Readers of this journal would know that psychology has advanced greatly during this sesquicentenary, and yet the law relating to testamentary capacity has remained relatively stagnant. We review the present laws relating to decision-making for adults with impaired capacity, particularly in Queensland, and also review various models of gauging decision-making capacity in other jurisdictions. We argue that qualified experts should be enlisted to make determinations about testamentary capacity when questions of capacity arise. We also argue the case for the development of scientifically validated protocols to assess decision-making capacity in the testamentary context.

Advance care planning in dementia: recommendations for healthcare professionals

Background

Advance care planning (ACP) is a continuous, dynamic process of reflection and dialogue between an individual, those close to them and their healthcare professionals, concerning the individual’s preferences and values concerning future treatment and care, including end-of-life care. Despite universal recognition of the importance of ACP for people with dementia, who gradually lose their ability to make informed decisions themselves, ACP still only happens infrequently, and evidence-based recommendations on when and how to perform this complex process are lacking. We aimed to develop evidence-based clinical recommendations to guide professionals across settings in the practical application of ACP in dementia care.

Methods

Following the Belgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine’s procedures, we 1) performed an extensive literature search to identify international guidelines, articles reporting heterogeneous study designs and grey literature, 2) developed recommendations based on the available evidence and expert opinion of the author group, and 3) performed a validation process using written feedback from experts, a survey for end users (healthcare professionals across settings), and two peer-review groups (with geriatricians and general practitioners).

Results

Based on 67 publications and validation from ten experts, 51 end users and two peer-review groups (24 participants) we developed 32 recommendations covering eight domains: initiation of ACP, evaluation of mental capacity, holding ACP conversations, the role and importance of those close to the person with dementia, ACP with people who find it difficult or impossible to communicate verbally, documentation of wishes and preferences, including information transfer, end-of-life decision-making, and preconditions for optimal implementation of ACP. Almost all recommendations received a grading representing low to very low-quality evidence.

Conclusion

No high-quality guidelines are available for ACP in dementia care. By combining evidence with expert and user opinions, we have defined a unique set of recommendations for ACP in people living with dementia. These recommendations form a valuable tool for educating healthcare professionals on how to perform ACP across settings.

Recovery and person-centred care in dementia: common purpose, common practice?

With the launch of the Fair Deal for Mental Health campaign in 2008 the Royal College of Psychiatrists made a commitment to ensuring that ‘training for psychiatrists promotes the recovery approach’. National guidance emphasises the universal applicability of the recovery values for anyone of any age who has a significant mental health problem. Yet there has been little thinking as to whether the recovery approach is applicable to old age psychiatry and particularly to dementia care. This article explores the striking similarities between a recovery-oriented approach and person-centred care, the particular challenge posed in dementia care and the benefits of a collaborative approach in pursuit of common purposes.

Detained – what's my choice? Part 1: Discussion

Choice, responsibility, recovery and social inclusion are concepts guiding the ‘modernisation’ and redesign of psychiatric services. Each has its advocates and detractors, and at the deep end of mental health/psychiatric practice they all interact. In the context of severe mental health problems choice and social inclusion are often deeply compromised; they are additionally difficult to access when someone is detained and significant aspects of personal responsibility have been temporarily taken over by others. One view is that you cannot recover while others are in control. We disagree and believe that it is possible to work in a recovery-oriented way in all service settings. This series of articles represents a collaborative dialogue between providers and consumers of compulsory psychiatric services and expert commentators. We worked together, reflecting on the literature and our own professional and personal experience to better understand how choice can be worked with as a support for personal recovery even in circumstances of psychiatric detention. We were particularly interested to consider whether and how detention and compulsion could be routes to personal recovery. We offer both the process of our co-working and our specific findings as part of a continuing dialogue on these difficult issues.

Capacity in vacuo: an audit of decision-making capacity assessments in a liaison psychiatry service

Aims and method We aimed to audit the documentation of decision-making capacity (DMC) assessments by our liaison psychiatry service against the legal criteria set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We audited 3 months split over a 2-year period occurring before, during and after an educational intervention to staff. Results There were 21 assessments of DMC in month 1 (6.9% of all referrals), 27 (9.7%) in month 16, and 24 (6.6%) in month 21. Only during the intervention (month 16) did any meet our gold-standard (n = 2). Severity of consequences of the decision (odds ratio (OR) 24.4) and not agreeing to the intervention (OR = 21.8) were highly likely to result in lacking DMC. Clinical implications Our audit demonstrated that DMC assessments were infrequent and poorly documented, with no effect of our legally focused educational intervention demonstrated. Our findings of factors associated with the outcome of the assessment of DMC confirm the anecdotal beliefs in this area. Clinicians and service leads need to carefully consider how to make the legal model of DMC more meaningful to clinicians when striving to improve documentation of DMC assessments.

Managing patients without their consent: a guide to recent legislation

Patients who do not consent to treatment are frequently encountered in the general hospital setting. Issues of personal autonomy, best interests, mental health and capacity need to be carefully considered in these cases. This article summarizes recent changes in the law governing the management of patients who do not, or cannot, consent.