Assessments of mental capacity
Upholding the rights of the vulnerable or the misleading comfort of pseudo objectivity
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12678366 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jim Rogers (0000-0001-9327-1245, University of Lincoln, corresponding author), Lucy Bright (University of Lincoln) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 74-84 |
| Publication date | 2019-03-11 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Journal of Adult Protection (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1466-8203 • E-ISSN: 2042-8669 |
| Publisher | Emerald Publishing Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1108/jap-10-2018-0026 |
| OpenAlex | W2921732612 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 10 |
Purpose 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/approach Four 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. Findings Most 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/implications In 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 implications The 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/value Much 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
Audit · Business · Mental capacity · Normative · Objectivity (philosophy · Political science · Psychiatry · Relevance (law · Applied Psychology · Child Abuse and Trauma · Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints · Homelessness and Social Issues · Psychology · Social Psychology · Accounting
Slide the scale back
Investigating discourses related to the safeguarding of adults at risk
How Do, and How Should, Risk Considerations Influence Approved Mental Health Professionals’ Assessments of Mental Capacity? A Literature Review
They don’t want them to have capacity’
The capacity test; a lament for the ‘old order’
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
The role of emotion in decision‐making
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Thematic Analysis
Facilitating Empowerment and Self-Determination Through Participatory Action Research
| Citations per year | 1.25 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2022 - 2026 (5) |
| Highly cited | No |