IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v22y2013i17-18p2387-2403.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing patient capacity to consent to treatment: an integrative review of instruments and tools

Author

Listed:
  • Scott Lamont
  • Yun‐Hee Jeon
  • Mary Chiarella

Abstract

Aims and objectives To provide a narrative synthesis of research findings on instruments or tools designed to aid assessment of patient capacity to consent to treatment. Background Capacity assessment is of significant priority within health care as a finding of incapacity is a vehicle for the removal of many of an individual's fundamental rights. Despite there being many instruments and tools available to aid health professionals in the assessment of patient capacity, there are no standardised guidelines from professional bodies that inform the assessment of mental capacity. Design Integrative review. Method Primary studies of instruments or tools concerning assessment of patient capacity to consent to treatment, published in English in peer‐reviewed journals between January 2005–December 2010, were included in the review. Review papers of capacity assessment instruments were included for years including and prior to 2006. Results Nineteen instruments were found which assess patient capacity to consent. Key themes were identified in terms of capacity domains assessed, psychometric properties, instrument implementation, patient populations studied and instrument versus clinician judgement. Conclusion Despite a plethora of capacity assessment instruments and tools available, only a small number of instruments were found to have demonstrated both reliability and validity. Further research is required to improve the validity of existing capacity assessment instruments. Relevance to clinical practice Increased attention to patient rights and autonomy arguably places a considerable burden on healthcare professionals to facilitate capacity assessments across a continuum of health care. Despite a plethora of capacity assessment instruments and tools being available to healthcare professionals, a comprehensive assessment requires time and is often difficult in the acute care setting. A strictly formulaic approach to the assessment of capacity is unlikely to capture specific individual nuances; therefore, capacity assessment instruments should support, but not replace, experienced clinical judgement.

Suggested Citation

  • Scott Lamont & Yun‐Hee Jeon & Mary Chiarella, 2013. "Assessing patient capacity to consent to treatment: an integrative review of instruments and tools," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(17-18), pages 2387-2403, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:22:y:2013:i:17-18:p:2387-2403
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12215
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12215
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12215?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sian Jones & Paul Gill & Joyce Kenkre, 2020. "Nurse managed patient focused assessment and care: A grounded theory of qualified nurses in acute and critical care settings assessing the mental capacity of adult patients," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7-8), pages 1254-1266, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:22:y:2013:i:17-18:p:2387-2403. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.