Search results

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was fully implemented in October 2007 within England and Wales as a framework for making decisions about incapacitated persons' care and treatment generally not amounting to a deprivation of their liberty (although such could be authorised under its powers by the new Court of Protection). From a planned date of April 2009, the MCA is to be enlarged by the provisions of the Mental Health Act 2007 (MHA 2007) to encompass deprivation of liberty, with the addition of a new framework of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). The MHA 2007 also revised significant aspects of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA), which were implemented in November 2008. The interface between the MCA, as amended to include DOLS, and the revised MHA is complex and potentially ambiguous. This paper describes in detail some issues that may arise at the interface of the two acts, and seeks to inform professionals involved in the use of these legal frameworks of the resulting complexity.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the consequences for older people’s mental wellbeing of understandings relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA seeks to maximise people’s abilities to make decisions and provides a framework for decisions to be made in a person’s best interests should they lack the mental capacity to do so themselves (Graham and Cowley, 2015). Practice varies widely amongst health and social care practitioners and little is known about the nature of interventions under the MCA or the outcomes for service users’ lives and health, especially their mental health and emotional wellbeing.

By reflecting upon existing evidence this position paper offers a narrative of how practice in applying the principles of the MCA may impact upon the mental wellbeing of older people. Drawing upon court of protection judgements and existing research the author analyses the way the MCA is understood and applied and how institutional mechanisms might hinder good practice.

There are tensions between policy imperatives and examples of practice linked to the MCA, the spirit of the MCA and tenets of good practice. Despite efforts on promoting choice, control and rights there is growing paradoxical evidence that the MCA is used as a safeguarding tool with the consequences that it constrains older people’s rights and that it may encourage risk averse practice. The consequences of this for older people are considerable and include lack of choice, autonomy and self-determination. This discussion suggests that anxiety in relation to the application of the MCA stills exists in practice and that maximising older people’s capacity and supporting decision making is central in promoting mental health and wellbeing.

This position paper will identify how the MCA might be interpreted in action through consideration of existing evidence. This paper may lead to future research on how understandings of the MCA are constructed and what values underpin its application from conception to outcomes in relation to understandings of risk, risk aversion, decision making and the potential and need for emancipatory practice. Essentially, the paper will discuss how the MCA actually seeks to enhance the mental health and emotional wellbeing of older adults by offering a rather radical approach to understanding people’s wishes and feelings, but how attitudes may lead to misunderstandings and negative outcomes for the individual.

In a climate of serious case reviews identifying concerns and abuses in care it is imperative that understanding of the MCA inform good practice. However, what constitutes good practice requires unravelling and the agendas, requirements and attitudes of interventions need considering from an epistemological perspective as well as to project how the outcomes of decision-making impact upon the mental health of older adults. This paper will discursively add value to the narrative around how the MCA is applied in practice and how chosen practice often constructs the mental wellbeing of older adults.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate health professionals' fidelity to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) principles on determining mental capacity and arriving at best interests decisions in the care of individuals found to lack the relevant decision‐making capacity.

A retrospective review of the case records of 68 patients previously determined by clinicians as lacking mental capacity in at least one of three identified areas: treatment consenting capacity, capacity to decide on place of abode and capacity to manage financial affairs, was conducted. Notes were examined to determine how mental capacity was assessed and the process of arriving at best interests decisions in the care of the non‐capacitous individuals.

It was difficult to locate relevant entries as there were no designated folders for MCA related issues. There were (mostly) minimal entries made about the assessment process, only patchy documentation of the legal criteria used in capacity assessment, and which of the criteria the patient did not fulfil. Clinicians only partially followed the procedure prescribed by the MCA in determining best interests of non‐capacitous patients.

This paper highlights the need for health care professionals to better adhere to the principles of the MCA in assessing mental capacity and in determining the best interests of non‐capacitous individuals. Health care professionals and the public need to be better informed of the provisions of the MCA.

The purpose of this paper is to present an exploration of the experiences of clinical psychologists involved in implementing the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).

Seven clinical psychologists were interviewed and transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

Six themes were identified: competence and confidence; understanding and uncertainty; colleagues, collaboration, conflicts, and challenges; working within the law: processes and penalties; the psychological way: specialist skills and difficult decision-making; and power, principles, and protecting the person. The themes highlighted how the specialist skills and professional values of clinical psychologists enhanced their ability to maintain person-centred approaches and uphold the empowering principles underlying the MCA. Data analysis indicated a shared narrative among clinical psychologists involved in implementing the MCA, despite differences in client groups and contexts.

This research highlighted the importance of finding solutions to current problems with the implementation of the MCA, such as training gaps and misunderstanding of the Act in relation to some of its complexities (e.g. deprivation of liberty safeguards and best interests decisions). These areas have the potential to significantly impact on a person's wellbeing. There is an ongoing need for training, multidisciplinary working, and strong effective supervision with ongoing reflexivity, if the Act is to be implemented in the holistic person-centred manner that are the foundations on which it was developed.

This research identifies the important role clinical psychologists have to play in this process. Their specialist skills can encourage a person-centred approach to the implementation of the MCA.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (HM Government, 2005) introduced safeguards to protect people who lack capacity from intrusive research. While these safeguards stemmed from predominantly medical ethical review concerns and developments aimed to protect people from physical and psychological damage and harm, the Act relates to all forms of research. The implications of the requirements of the Act for the conduct of social care research and the identification of helpful approaches or development of new knowledge concerning people who may lack capacity are, as yet, unknown. There are some concerns that the Act does not fully account for social research, does not recognise its importance to and differences from health‐related research, and may even hamper such research from taking place. This paper describes the findings and implications from a research project funded by the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) and the Department of Health that considered the impact of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 on the ethical scrutiny and development of social care research. The particular focus of the study was processes relating to university research ethics committees (URECs). The study was undertaken in two stages, beginning with an online survey of UREC policies and procedures and was followed by interviews with social care researchers working in areas in which people may lack capacity according to the terms of the Act. Recommendations for research ethics review are made that will be of importance to practitioners, policy‐makers and researchers.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate staff knowledge of Mental Capacity Act (MCA) capacity assessments within the Learning Disabilities division of a Mental Health and Learning Disabilities Trust. The limited research available suggests staff knowledge tends to be poor, particularly concerning who is the decision maker.

A 12-item multiple choice questionnaire, which reflects the five core principles of MCA (2005), was developed. Questionnaires were completed by 262 health and social staff members who support people with LD.

Results show high variability of MCA capacity assessment knowledge within the LD division. However, qualified staff and those from health services scored significantly higher across all categories on the questionnaire compared to non-qualified and social care staff, respectively. On average, all staff scored poorly when asked to identify “who is the decision maker?” in a case scenario question.

The main limitation is that we did not collect data on how many previous capacity assessments and discussions each person had been involved with. The findings clearly suggest current methods of training lack efficacy in helping staff apply MCA knowledge to their clinical work.

Compared to past literature, this study utilised a novel and more comprehensive questionnaire. This focused on case scenario questions to assess staff situational judgement. In addition, the findings add to a sparse evidence base that provides a foundation for future research.

The Mental Capacity Act (MCA, 2005) provided a new legal framework for decision-making practice in England and Wales. This study aims to explore qualitative research on practitioners’ knowledge and experiences of the MCA in health and social care settings to inform practice and policy.

Four electronic databases and Google Scholar were searched in November 2019 for peer-reviewed, qualitative, English language studies exploring practitioners’ experiences and knowledge of the MCA in health and social care settings. Nine studies were included and appraised for methodological quality. Data were analysed using thematic synthesis.

Data revealed both positive aspects and challenges of applying the MCA in practice within five main themes, namely, travelling the “grey line”, the empowering nature of the MCA, doing the assessment justice, behaviours and emotional impact and knowledge gaps and confidence.

The fundamental principles of the MCA appear to be adhered to and embedded in practice. However, practitioners find mental capacity work remains challenging in its uncertainties. While calling for more training, they may also benefit from further MCA skills development and support to increase confidence and reduce apprehension.

This is the first systematic review to synthesise qualitative literature on practitioners’ experiences and knowledge of the MCA. Findings offer insight into practice experiences of the MCA and provide a basis for the development of training and supervisory support.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the impact of mental capacity legislation when applied to parents with learning difficulties who lack capacity within childcare and family law proceedings in England and Wales.

The paper relies on a range of material including reports published by independent mental health foundations, official inquiries and other public bodies. It also refers to academic and practitioner material in journals and government guidance.

The paper critically reviews the application of the guidance when assessing mental capacity legislation as applied in England and Wales and offers by way of illustration several case examples where psychological assessments, and the enhancement of capacity, have assisted parents who were involved in childcare and family law proceedings.

There has been little published research or governmental reports on the number of cases when parents involved in childcare and family law proceedings have been found to lack capacity. No published prevalence data are available on the times when enhancing capacity has resulted in a change of outcome in childcare and family law proceedings.

The duty is on the mental health practitioners assessing mental capacity that they do so in a structured and supportive role adhering to good practice guidance and follow the guiding principles of mental capacity legislation assuming that the individual has capacity unless it is established that they lack capacity. Guidance and training is needed to ensure that the interpretation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and its application is applied consistently.

For those who are considered to lack mental capacity to make specific decisions, particularly within childcare and family law proceedings, safeguards are in place to better support such individuals and enhance their capacity in order that they can participate more fully in proceedings.

While the MCA legislation has now been enacted for over ten years, there is very little analysis of the implications of capacity assessments on parents involved in childcare and family law proceedings. This paper presents an overview and, in places, a critical analysis of the new safeguarding duties of mental health practitioners when assessing for, and enhancing capacity in parents.

Brain Injury Case Managers (BICMs) work closely with individuals with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI), assessing needs, structuring rehabilitation interventions and providing support, and have significant experience of clients with impairments to decision making. The purpose of this paper is to explore the application of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and its guidance when applied to ABI survivors. This research aimed to: first, highlight potential conflicts or tensions that application of the MCA might pose, and second, identify approaches to mitigate the problems of the MCA and capacity assessments with ABI survivors. It is hoped that this will support improvements in the services offered.

Using a mixed method approach, 93 BICMs responded to an online questionnaire about decision making following ABI. Of these, 12 BICMs agreed to take part in a follow-up semi-structured telephone interview.

The data revealed four main themes: disagreements with other professionals, hidden disabilities, vulnerability in the community and implementation of the MCA and capacity assessments.

The findings highlight the need for changes to the way mental capacity assessments are conducted and the need for training for professionals in the hidden effects of ABI.

Limited research exists on potential limitations of the application of the MCA for individuals with an ABI. This paper provides much needed research on the difficulties surrounding mental capacity and ABI.

The terms capacity and competence are often used interchangeably, but are actually distinct. This aim of this paper is to clarify the application of these terms, and to illustrate some of the practical benefits of distinguishing them.

The concepts of capacity and competence are discussed in relation to restrictions that are placed on choice and action, respectively, when these qualities are judged to be absent. The paper explores the distinction between these two concepts in relation to their legal status, assessment, and scope.

Mental capacity refers to the ability to make decisions, while competence refers to the ability to perform the actions needed to put decisions into effect. Questions of capacity are governed by legislation (in the UK: the Mental Capacity Act (MCA); the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act and the Sexual Offences Act); they apply only to people who can be demonstrated to have a “mental disorder”, and trigger best‐interests decision making and other legal provisions if capacity is assessed as absent. Questions of competence involve a range of formal and informal assessment procedures, and can apply to anyone; they arise where others possess legal powers to control a person's actions.

In addition to clarifying the conceptual confusion that exists in this area, the paper also considers some areas of practice where the MCA can be invoked to promote competence, in addition to capacity.