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

Learn More →

Fluctuating capacity and impulsiveness in Acquired Brain Injury: the dilemma of ‘unwise’ decisions under the Mental Capacity Act

Fluctuating capacity and impulsiveness in Acquired Brain Injury: the dilemma of ‘unwise’... PurposeThis article examines the dilemma at the heart of nursing care – the striving for empowerment of people in nurses’ care with the responsibility to protect vulnerable adults from harm. In doing so, it argues that in difficult and borderline cases, capacity assessment is complex and ultimately based on a judgment involving interpretation, and welcomes the views of clinicians who have challenged the procedural test of capacity in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).Design/methodology/approachIt presents an illustrative study of a person with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) resident in a nursing home, who had been assessed under the MCA and judged to have capacity regarding health and welfare decisions, who subsequently displayed a persistent and impulsive desire to leave the unit without thought of risk and vulnerability to herself, prompting safeguarding concerns, and a reassessment of her capacity.FindingsThe paper asserts that supporting people with ABI during capacity assessments, as the MCA decrees, in a very structured way can create a false sense of “capacity.” It maintains that executive impairments in ABI, being difficult to assess in formal settings, are best undertaken over time, in real-life settings, with evidence from third parties. It welcomes the MCA’s desire to protect individual autonomy and avoid undue paternalism, through ensuring people are not deemed to lack capacity simply because they make an unwise decision.Originality/valueBut it goes on to argue that in ABI it is often the fact of unwise decision-making that is the prominent factor and main concern, particularly in regard to impulsive decision-making. If nurses have to make a judgment as to how unwise decisions made with decision-making capacity are to be distinguished from unwise decisions made without it in people with ABI, then, the author concludes, a major area of difficulty for nurses is ascertaining when the presumption of capacity should be challenged, an area that an updated code of practice needs to clarify. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Journal of Adult Protection Emerald Publishing

Fluctuating capacity and impulsiveness in Acquired Brain Injury: the dilemma of ‘unwise’ decisions under the Mental Capacity Act

Lennard, Chris
The Journal of Adult Protection , Volume 18 (4) – Aug 8, 2016
Download PDF
15 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/fluctuating-capacity-and-impulsiveness-in-acquired-brain-injury-the-QNapK0WbBU
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
1466-8203
DOI
10.1108/JAP-11-2015-0035
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

PurposeThis article examines the dilemma at the heart of nursing care – the striving for empowerment of people in nurses’ care with the responsibility to protect vulnerable adults from harm. In doing so, it argues that in difficult and borderline cases, capacity assessment is complex and ultimately based on a judgment involving interpretation, and welcomes the views of clinicians who have challenged the procedural test of capacity in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).Design/methodology/approachIt presents an illustrative study of a person with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) resident in a nursing home, who had been assessed under the MCA and judged to have capacity regarding health and welfare decisions, who subsequently displayed a persistent and impulsive desire to leave the unit without thought of risk and vulnerability to herself, prompting safeguarding concerns, and a reassessment of her capacity.FindingsThe paper asserts that supporting people with ABI during capacity assessments, as the MCA decrees, in a very structured way can create a false sense of “capacity.” It maintains that executive impairments in ABI, being difficult to assess in formal settings, are best undertaken over time, in real-life settings, with evidence from third parties. It welcomes the MCA’s desire to protect individual autonomy and avoid undue paternalism, through ensuring people are not deemed to lack capacity simply because they make an unwise decision.Originality/valueBut it goes on to argue that in ABI it is often the fact of unwise decision-making that is the prominent factor and main concern, particularly in regard to impulsive decision-making. If nurses have to make a judgment as to how unwise decisions made with decision-making capacity are to be distinguished from unwise decisions made without it in people with ABI, then, the author concludes, a major area of difficulty for nurses is ascertaining when the presumption of capacity should be challenged, an area that an updated code of practice needs to clarify.

Journal

The Journal of Adult Protection – Emerald Publishing

Published: Aug 8, 2016

There are no references for this article.