Cargando…

Decision-making capacity for treatment in psychiatric and medical in-patients: cross-sectional, comparative study†

Background Is the nature of decision-making capacity (DMC) for treatment significantly different in medical and psychiatric patients? Aims To compare the abilities relevant to DMC for treatment in medical and psychiatric patients who are able to communicate a treatment choice. Method A secondary ana...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Owen, Gareth S., Szmukler, George, Richardson, Genevra, David, Anthony S., Raymont, Vanessa, Freyenhagen, Fabian, Martin, Wayne, Hotopf, Matthew
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Royal College of Psychiatrists 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3844898/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23969482
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.112.123976
_version_ 1782293258922098688
author Owen, Gareth S.
Szmukler, George
Richardson, Genevra
David, Anthony S.
Raymont, Vanessa
Freyenhagen, Fabian
Martin, Wayne
Hotopf, Matthew
author_facet Owen, Gareth S.
Szmukler, George
Richardson, Genevra
David, Anthony S.
Raymont, Vanessa
Freyenhagen, Fabian
Martin, Wayne
Hotopf, Matthew
author_sort Owen, Gareth S.
collection PubMed
description Background Is the nature of decision-making capacity (DMC) for treatment significantly different in medical and psychiatric patients? Aims To compare the abilities relevant to DMC for treatment in medical and psychiatric patients who are able to communicate a treatment choice. Method A secondary analysis of two cross-sectional studies of consecutive admissions: 125 to a psychiatric hospital and 164 to a medical hospital. The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool - Treatment and a clinical interview were used to assess decision-making abilities (understanding, appreciating and reasoning) and judgements of DMC. We limited analysis to patients able to express a choice about treatment and stratified the analysis by low and high understanding ability. Results Most people scoring low on understanding were judged to lack DMC and there was no difference by hospital (P = 0.14). In both hospitals there were patients who were able to understand yet lacked DMC (39% psychiatric v. 13% medical in-patients, P<0.001). Appreciation was a better ‘test’ of DMC in the psychiatric hospital (where psychotic and severe affective disorders predominated) (P<0.001), whereas reasoning was a better test of DMC in the medical hospital (where cognitive impairment was common) (P = 0.02). Conclusions Among those with good understanding, the appreciation ability had more salience to DMC for treatment in a psychiatric setting and the reasoning ability had more salience in a medical setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3844898
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Royal College of Psychiatrists
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38448982014-06-01 Decision-making capacity for treatment in psychiatric and medical in-patients: cross-sectional, comparative study† Owen, Gareth S. Szmukler, George Richardson, Genevra David, Anthony S. Raymont, Vanessa Freyenhagen, Fabian Martin, Wayne Hotopf, Matthew Br J Psychiatry Papers Background Is the nature of decision-making capacity (DMC) for treatment significantly different in medical and psychiatric patients? Aims To compare the abilities relevant to DMC for treatment in medical and psychiatric patients who are able to communicate a treatment choice. Method A secondary analysis of two cross-sectional studies of consecutive admissions: 125 to a psychiatric hospital and 164 to a medical hospital. The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool - Treatment and a clinical interview were used to assess decision-making abilities (understanding, appreciating and reasoning) and judgements of DMC. We limited analysis to patients able to express a choice about treatment and stratified the analysis by low and high understanding ability. Results Most people scoring low on understanding were judged to lack DMC and there was no difference by hospital (P = 0.14). In both hospitals there were patients who were able to understand yet lacked DMC (39% psychiatric v. 13% medical in-patients, P<0.001). Appreciation was a better ‘test’ of DMC in the psychiatric hospital (where psychotic and severe affective disorders predominated) (P<0.001), whereas reasoning was a better test of DMC in the medical hospital (where cognitive impairment was common) (P = 0.02). Conclusions Among those with good understanding, the appreciation ability had more salience to DMC for treatment in a psychiatric setting and the reasoning ability had more salience in a medical setting. Royal College of Psychiatrists 2013-12 /pmc/articles/PMC3844898/ /pubmed/23969482 http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.112.123976 Text en Royal College of Psychiatrists Royal College of Psychiatrists, This paper accords with the Wellcome Trust Open Access policy and is governed by the licence available athttp://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Wellcome%20Trust%20licence.pdf
spellingShingle Papers
Owen, Gareth S.
Szmukler, George
Richardson, Genevra
David, Anthony S.
Raymont, Vanessa
Freyenhagen, Fabian
Martin, Wayne
Hotopf, Matthew
Decision-making capacity for treatment in psychiatric and medical in-patients: cross-sectional, comparative study†
title Decision-making capacity for treatment in psychiatric and medical in-patients: cross-sectional, comparative study†
title_full Decision-making capacity for treatment in psychiatric and medical in-patients: cross-sectional, comparative study†
title_fullStr Decision-making capacity for treatment in psychiatric and medical in-patients: cross-sectional, comparative study†
title_full_unstemmed Decision-making capacity for treatment in psychiatric and medical in-patients: cross-sectional, comparative study†
title_short Decision-making capacity for treatment in psychiatric and medical in-patients: cross-sectional, comparative study†
title_sort decision-making capacity for treatment in psychiatric and medical in-patients: cross-sectional, comparative study†
topic Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3844898/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23969482
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.112.123976
work_keys_str_mv AT owengareths decisionmakingcapacityfortreatmentinpsychiatricandmedicalinpatientscrosssectionalcomparativestudy
AT szmuklergeorge decisionmakingcapacityfortreatmentinpsychiatricandmedicalinpatientscrosssectionalcomparativestudy
AT richardsongenevra decisionmakingcapacityfortreatmentinpsychiatricandmedicalinpatientscrosssectionalcomparativestudy
AT davidanthonys decisionmakingcapacityfortreatmentinpsychiatricandmedicalinpatientscrosssectionalcomparativestudy
AT raymontvanessa decisionmakingcapacityfortreatmentinpsychiatricandmedicalinpatientscrosssectionalcomparativestudy
AT freyenhagenfabian decisionmakingcapacityfortreatmentinpsychiatricandmedicalinpatientscrosssectionalcomparativestudy
AT martinwayne decisionmakingcapacityfortreatmentinpsychiatricandmedicalinpatientscrosssectionalcomparativestudy
AT hotopfmatthew decisionmakingcapacityfortreatmentinpsychiatricandmedicalinpatientscrosssectionalcomparativestudy