Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Assessments of mental capacity: upholding the rights of the vulnerable or the misleading comfort of pseudo objectivity?

Assessments of mental capacity: upholding the rights of the vulnerable or the misleading comfort... The purpose of this paper is to present findings from a research project which investigated the approaches of different groups of assessors to the mental capacity assessments which are required to be conducted as part of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS).Design/methodology/approachFour case study vignettes were given to participants. Three groups involved in the DOLS assessment process were interviewed by telephone about the factors that may influence their capacity assessments.FindingsMost assessors did not refer to the required two-stage test of capacity or the “causative nexus” which requires that assessors must make clear that it is the identified “diagnostic” element which is leading to the inability to meet the “functional” requirements of the capacity test. The normative element of capacity assessments is acknowledged by a number of assessors who suggest that judging a person’s ability to “weigh” information, in particular, is a subjective and value-based exercise, which is given pseudo objectivity by the language of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). A number of elements of good practice were also identified.Research limitations/implicationsIn this exploratory study, participant numbers were small (n=21), and the authors relied on self-report rather than actual observations of practice or audit of completed assessments.Practical implicationsThe findings are of relevance to all of those working in health and social care who undertake assessments of mental capacity, and will be helpful to all of those tasked with designing and delivering training in relation to the MCA 2005. They also have relevance to policy makers in the UK who are involved with reforms to DOLS regulations, and to those in other countries which have legislation similar to the MCA.Originality/valueMuch existing literature exhorts further training around the MCA. The authors suggest that an equally important task is for practitioners to understand and be explicit about the normative elements of the process, and the place of ethics and values alongside the more cognitive and procedural aspects of capacity assessments. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Journal of Adult Protection Emerald Publishing

Assessments of mental capacity: upholding the rights of the vulnerable or the misleading comfort of pseudo objectivity?

Rogers, Jim; Bright, Lucy
The Journal of Adult Protection , Volume 21 (2): 11 – Apr 17, 2019
Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/assessments-of-mental-capacity-upholding-the-rights-of-the-vulnerable-YFYgpJSLY0
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
1466-8203
DOI
10.1108/jap-10-2018-0026
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to present findings from a research project which investigated the approaches of different groups of assessors to the mental capacity assessments which are required to be conducted as part of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS).Design/methodology/approachFour case study vignettes were given to participants. Three groups involved in the DOLS assessment process were interviewed by telephone about the factors that may influence their capacity assessments.FindingsMost assessors did not refer to the required two-stage test of capacity or the “causative nexus” which requires that assessors must make clear that it is the identified “diagnostic” element which is leading to the inability to meet the “functional” requirements of the capacity test. The normative element of capacity assessments is acknowledged by a number of assessors who suggest that judging a person’s ability to “weigh” information, in particular, is a subjective and value-based exercise, which is given pseudo objectivity by the language of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). A number of elements of good practice were also identified.Research limitations/implicationsIn this exploratory study, participant numbers were small (n=21), and the authors relied on self-report rather than actual observations of practice or audit of completed assessments.Practical implicationsThe findings are of relevance to all of those working in health and social care who undertake assessments of mental capacity, and will be helpful to all of those tasked with designing and delivering training in relation to the MCA 2005. They also have relevance to policy makers in the UK who are involved with reforms to DOLS regulations, and to those in other countries which have legislation similar to the MCA.Originality/valueMuch existing literature exhorts further training around the MCA. The authors suggest that an equally important task is for practitioners to understand and be explicit about the normative elements of the process, and the place of ethics and values alongside the more cognitive and procedural aspects of capacity assessments.

Journal

The Journal of Adult Protection – Emerald Publishing

Published: Apr 17, 2019

Keywords: Safeguarding; Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards; Mental capacity; Best interests; Case study vignettes; Professional values

References

  • Decision making and legal capacity in dementia
  • Using thematic analysis in psychology
    Braun, V.; Clarke, V.
  • The role of emotion in decision‐ making
    Brown, H.
  • Journey’s end? From residual service to newer forms of pathology, risk aversion and abandonment in social work with older people
    Carey, M.
  • About the Mental Capacity Act
  • State of health care and adult social care in England 2016/17
  • Do BIA assessments under DOLS have a positive impact for people: results of a national survey
  • Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians’ decision-making: validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studies
    Evans, S.; Roberts, M.; Keeley, J.; Blossom, J.; Amaro, C.; Garcia, A.; Odar Stough, C.; Canter, K.; Robles, R.; Reed, G.
  • The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards – essential protection or bureaucratic monster?
    Hargreaves, R.
  • What do we know about the application of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) in healthcare practice regarding decision-making for frail and older people? A systematic literature review
    Hinsliff-Smith, K.; Feakes, R.; Whitworth, G.; Seymour, J.; Moghaddam, N.; Dening, T.; Cox, K.
  • Report of Session 2013-14 – Mental Capacity Act 2005: post-legislative scrutiny
  • Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]
  • Oral and written evidence
  • Emotions, social work practice and supervision: an uneasy alliance?
    Ingram, R.
  • Mental Capacity and the Mental Capacity Act 2005
    Jenkins, K.
  • Mental capacity and detention: impact assessment
  • Decision making and mental capacity, NICE guideline NG108
  • Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria
    Nowell, L.; Norris, J.; White, D.; Moules, N.
  • Deprivation of liberty after Cheshire West: key questions for social workers and medical practitioners
    Ruck Keene, A.; Butler Cole, V.; Allen, N.; Bicarregui, A.
  • What are best interests? A critical evaluation of best interests decision making in clinical practice
    Taylor, H.