Author:
Clerk George,Schaub Jason,Hancock David,Martin Colin
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of a study considering the application of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Practitioners from a range of professions were recruited to provide their views of how to respond to a variety of scenarios. GPs, nurses, social workers, physio/occupational therapists and care assistants were recruited to participate.
Design/methodology/approach
This study used the Delphi method to elicit participant views and generate consensus of opinion. The Delphi method recommends a large sample for heterogeneous groups, and round one had 98 participants from six different professional groups.
Findings
Participants did not respond consistently to the scenarios, but disagreed most significantly when patient decisions conflicted with clinical advice, and when to conduct a capacity assessment. These responses suggest that clinical responses vary significantly between individuals (even within settings or professions), and that the application of Mental Capacity Act (MCA) is complicated and nuanced, requiring time for reflection to avoid paternalistic clinical interventions.
Originality/value
Previous studies have not used a Delphi method to consider the application of MCA/DoLS. Because of this methods focus on developing consensus, it is uniquely suited to considering this practice issue. As a result, these findings present more developed understanding of the complexity and challenges for practitioner responses to some relatively common clinical scenarios, suggesting the need for greater clarity for practitioners.
Subject
Law,Sociology and Political Science
Reference46 articles.
1. Age UK (2017), “Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards”, available at: www.ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/age-uk/documents/factsheets/fs62_deprivation_of_liberty_safeguards_fcs.pdf (accessed 11 October 2017).
2. Editorial: the mental capacity act 2005 – ten years on;Medical Law Review,2016
3. Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment;New England Journal of Medicine,2007
4. Empirical assessment of competency to consent to psychiatric hospitalization;American Journal of Psychiatry,1981
5. Reforming the deprivation of liberty safeguards (DOLS): what is it exactly that we want?;Web JCLI,2014
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献