Assessing capacity in psychiatric patients with acute medical illness who refuse care

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.

Physician education on decision-making capacity assessment: Current state and future directions

OBJECTIVE

To examine FPs' training needs for conducting decision-making capacity assessments (DMCAs) and to determine how training materials, based on a DMCA model, can be adapted for use by FPs.

DESIGN

A scoping review of the literature and qualitative research methodology (focus groups and structured interviews).

SETTING

Edmonton, Alta.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine FPs, who practised in various settings, who chose to attend a focus group on DMCAs.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature to examine the current status of physician education regarding assessment of decision-making capacity, and a focus group and interviews with FPs to ascertain the educational needs of FPs in this area.

MAIN FINDINGS

Based on the scoping review of the literature, 4 main themes emerged: increasing saliency of DMCAs owing to an aging population, suboptimal DMCA training for physicians, inconsistent approaches to DMCA, and tension between autonomy and protection. The findings of the focus groups and interviews indicate that, while FPs working as independent practitioners or with interprofessional teams are motivated to engage in DMCAs and use the DMCA model for those assessments, several factors impede their conducting DMCAs. The most notable barriers were a lack of education, isolation from interprofessional teams, uneasiness around managing conflict with families, fear of liability, and concerns regarding remuneration.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study has helped to inform ways to better train and support FPs in conducting DMCAs. Family physicians are well positioned, with proper training, to effectively conduct DMCAs. To engage FPs in the process, however, the barriers should be addressed.