Luke Lydia, Redley Marcus, Clare Isabel, Holland Anthony
Learning Disabilities Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008 Apr;13(2):73-8. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007084.
To examine attitudes to the Mental Capacity Act's new statutory Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) service in England and Wales and consider the implications for its delivery.
Quantitative data describing all referrals to the seven pilot IMCA services (January 2006-March 2007) and qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 18 doctors, 21 senior nurses and one discharge planning manager in four general hospitals in England.
Of 127 hospital-based referrals to the seven pilot IMCA services, 29 (23%) were for patients facing serious medical treatments, 52% of whom were judged to lack decision-making capacity due to a learning disability; ninety-eight (77%) were for patients facing a change of accommodation upon hospital discharge, 62% of whom were elderly and lacked capacity due to dementia. While aware of the potential benefits of the IMCA service, clinicians were generally negative about the contribution advocates could make to patients' medical care and thought they could only contribute usefully in a minority of ethically complicated decisions. In contrast, they were more positive about the involvement of advocates in hospital discharge decisions and hoped that they would improve current discharge practice.
Clinicians held ambivalent attitudes towards the involvement of a statutory IMCA service in medical decisions, reflecting beliefs that the service was largely impractical and unnecessary given current procedures for making medical decisions in patients' 'best interests'. Conversely, clinicians were more likely to support advocacy in discharge decisions because they believed that non-medically qualified advocates could make a valuable contribution to decisions that were seen as predominantly social and where practice was frequently considered deficient. By holding these beliefs, clinicians are failing to have due regard for the IMCA service as a statutory measure for safeguarding patients' interests.
考察英格兰和威尔士对《精神能力法案》新的法定独立精神能力倡导者(IMCA)服务的态度,并思考其实施的影响。
定量数据描述了所有转介至七个IMCA试点服务机构的情况(2006年1月至2007年3月),定性数据来自对英格兰四家综合医院的18名医生、21名高级护士和一名出院计划经理进行的半结构化访谈。
在向七个IMCA试点服务机构进行的127次基于医院的转介中,29次(23%)是针对面临重大医疗治疗的患者,其中52%因学习障碍而被判定缺乏决策能力;98次(77%)是针对出院后住所将发生变化的患者,其中62%为老年人,因痴呆症而缺乏能力。虽然临床医生意识到IMCA服务的潜在益处,但他们总体上对倡导者对患者医疗护理的贡献持负面态度,认为他们只能在少数道德复杂的决策中发挥有益作用。相比之下,他们对倡导者参与出院决策更为积极,并希望他们能改善当前的出院做法。
临床医生对法定IMCA服务参与医疗决策持矛盾态度,这反映出他们认为鉴于目前为患者做出“最佳利益”医疗决策的程序,该服务在很大程度上不切实际且不必要。相反,临床医生更有可能支持在出院决策中进行倡导,因为他们认为非医学专业的倡导者可以对那些主要被视为社会性的、且实践中经常被认为存在缺陷的决策做出有价值的贡献。由于持有这些观念,临床医生没有充分重视IMCA服务作为保障患者利益的法定措施。