Spencer Benjamin W J, Wilson Gareth, Okon-Rocha Ewa, Owen Gareth S, Wilson Jones Charlotte
Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London; South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.
Darent Valley Hospital, Dartford, Kent.
BJPsych Bull. 2017 Feb;41(1):7-11. doi: 10.1192/pb.bp.115.052613.
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. 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 ( = 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. 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.
我们旨在对照2005年《精神能力法案》规定的法律标准,审核我们联络精神科服务部门对决策能力(DMC)评估的记录情况。我们审核了在对工作人员进行教育干预之前、期间和之后的2年时间里,分3个月进行的相关记录。第1个月有21次DMC评估(占所有转诊的6.9%),第16个月有27次(9.7%),第21个月有24次(6.6%)。只有在干预期间(第16个月)才有评估达到我们的黄金标准(=2)。决策后果的严重性(优势比(OR)为24.4)以及不同意干预(OR = 21.8)很可能导致缺乏DMC。我们的审核表明,DMC评估很少进行且记录不佳,并未显示我们以法律为重点的教育干预有任何效果。我们关于与DMC评估结果相关因素的研究结果证实了该领域的一些传闻观点。临床医生和服务负责人在努力改进DMC评估记录时,需要仔细考虑如何使DMC的法律模式对临床医生更有意义。