Decision making capacity for treatment in psychiatric inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Decision-making capacity (DMC) among psychiatric inpatients is a pivotal clinical concern. A review by Okai et al. (2007) suggested that most psychiatric inpatients have DMC for treatment, and its assessment is reliable. Nevertheless, the high heterogeneity and mixed results from other studies mean there is considerable uncertainty around this topic. This study aimed to update Okai's research by conducting a systematic review with meta-analysis to address heterogeneity. We performed a systematic search across four databases, yielding 5351 results. We extracted data from 20 eligible studies on adult psychiatric inpatients, covering DMC assessments from 2006 to May 2022. A meta-analysis was conducted on 11 papers, and a quality assessment was performed. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022330074). The proportion of patients with DMC for treatment varied widely based on treatment setting, the specific decision and assessment methods. Reliable capacity assessment was feasible. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Global Assessment of Function (GAF), and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) predicted clinical judgments of capacity. Schizophrenia and bipolar mania were linked to the highest incapacity rates, while depression and anxiety symptoms were associated with better capacity and insight. Unemployment was the only sociodemographic factor correlated with incapacity. Assessing mental capacity is replicable, with most psychiatric inpatients able to make treatment decisions. However, this capacity varies with admission stage, formal status (involuntary or voluntary), and information provided. The severity of psychopathology is linked to mental capacity, though detailed psychopathological data are limited.

Interpersonal influences on decision-making capacity: a content analysis of court judgments.

For many purposes in England and Wales, the Court of Protection determines whether a person has or lacks capacity to make a decision, by applying the test within the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This test is regularly described as a cognitive test with cognitive processes discussed as internal characteristics. However, it is unclear how the courts have framed interpersonal influence as negatively impacting upon a person's decision-making processes in a capacity assessment context. We reviewed published court judgments in England and Wales in which interpersonal problems were discussed as relevant to capacity. Through content analysis, we developed a typology that highlights five ways the courts considered influence to be problematic to capacity across these cases. Interpersonal influence problems were constructed as (i) P's inability to preserve their free will or independence, (ii) restricting P's perspective, (iii) valuing or dependence on a relationship, (iv) acting on a general suggestibility to influence, or (v) P denying facts about the relationship. These supposed mechanisms of interpersonal influence problems are poorly understood and clearly merit further consideration. Our typology and case discussion are a start towards more detailed practice guidelines, and raise questions as to whether mental capacity and influence should remain legally distinct.

Insight is a useful construct in clinical assessments if used wisely.

Medical ethicist, Guidry-Grimes has critically reviewed the concept of insight, voicing concerns that it lacks consensus as to its components and that it undermines patient perspectives. We respond by briefly summarising research over the last 30 years that she overlooks which has helped establish the clinical validity of the construct. This includes the adoption of standardised assessment tools-at least in research-and longitudinal and cross-sectional studies quantifying associations with psychopathological, clinical and cognitive measures. We also make the distinction between the current standards for assessing decision-making capacity leading to, where appropriate, involuntary treatment in clinical and medico-legal settings which in most legislations do not include insight assessments, and anecdotal reports of the use and misuse of 'lack of insight' as a proxy for more comprehensive evaluation. We conclude by encouraging a broader view of insight akin to self-knowledge.

Mental capacity assessment in the multi-professional real world: a qualitative study of six areas of uncertainty.

Background: The Mental Capacity Act 2005 of England and Wales is a ground-breaking piece of legislation with reach into healthcare, social care and legal settings. Professionals have needed to develop skills to assess mental capacity and handle malign influence, but it is unclear how assessments are implemented in real world settings. Our previously reported survey found professionals juggling competing resources in complex systems, often struggling to stay up to date with law.The current follow-up study uses one-to-one interviews of professionals to characterise in detail six areas of uncertainty faced when assessing mental capacity, whilst suggesting ways to make improvements. Methods: Forty-four healthcare, social care and legal professionals were interviewed, using a semi-structured topic guide. Transcripts were analysed using framework analysis: a qualitative technique built to investigate healthcare policy. Results: Our topic guide generated 21 themes. In relation to the six areas of uncertainty: 1) Many participants stressed the importance of capturing a holistic view, adding that their own profession was best-placed for this - although a medical diagnosis was often needed. 2) The presumption of capacity was a laudable aim, though not always easy to operationalise and occasionally being open to abuse. 3) There was cautious interest in psychometric testing, providing a cognitive context for decisions. 4) Undue influence was infrequent, but remained under-emphasised in training. 5) Multi-professional assessments were common, despite doubts about fitting these within local resources and the law. 6) Remote assessment was generally acceptable, if inadequate for identifying coercion. Conclusions: Practical constraints and competing demands were reported by professionals working within real world systems. Assessment processes must be versatile, equally applicable in routine and emergency settings, across diverse decisional types, for both generalist and specialist assessors, and able to handle coercion. Recognising these challenges will guide development of best practices in assessment and associated policy.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 of England and Wales is an important piece of law for professionals working in health and social care or as lawyers. It explains how to assess whether a person is able to take a particular decision for themselves ­ and therefore has "mental capacity" in the eyes of society. Professionals have needed to develop skills to assess mental capacity, and to recognise situations where family or friends are trying to influence decisions for their own interests. We previously reported a large scale survey of professionals who assess mental capacity. The current study uses one-to-one interviews, exploring in detail six areas of uncertainty around capacity assessment which were described in that survey. We interviewed 44 health and social care professionals and lawyers, then analysed their responses. We found 21 themes relating to the six areas of uncertainty: 1) The importance of capturing a holistic view of the person's life; 2) Challenges for assessors when trying to presume initially that a person does have mental capacity, as the law asks assessors to do; 3) Detailed testing by psychologists could be useful; 4) Other people were rarely thought to try to influence decisions, but awareness of this possibility should be emphasised in training; 5) Multi-professional assessments were common, despite doubts about whether these were possible in all settings or fit with the law; 6) Remote assessment was generally acceptable, but was poor at identifying if people were being influenced. Practical constraints and competing demands were reported by professionals working within real world systems. Our analysis suggests that mental capacity assessment processes need to be versatile, so they can work well in routine and emergency settings and for a range of types of decisions. Recognising these challenges will guide development of best practices in assessment and associated policy.

Use of 'acute behavioural disturbance' in mental health records: differences over time and by ethnicity in a London NHS mental health Trust.

BACKGROUND: Acute behavioural disturbance (ABD) is a controversial descriptor for presentations of severe agitation, aggression and physiological compromise. AIMS: To characterise the use of ABD-related terms in the electronic record of a large UK provider of mental health services during 2006-2021. METHOD: The free text of all records relating to patient contacts with acute assessment mental health teams during 2006-2021 were searched for references to ABD. Identified text was coded for context of use and presence of clinical features of ABD described in the literature. Poisson regression was used to analyse differences in rates of use over time and between demographic groups. RESULTS: Mentions of ABD increased by an average of 1.12 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08-1.17) per year, with the greatest increase from 2019 to 2021. Black people were more than twice as likely as White people to have reference to ABD included in their assessments (rate: 2.4/1000 (95% CI 1.8-3.1) in Black people compared with 1.0/1000 (95% CI 0.8-1.3) in White people). The clinical characteristics in notes describing a current presentation of ABD rarely corresponded to those included in UK medical guidelines on ABD. CONCLUSIONS: The term ABD in mental health notes appears to often, but not exclusively, be a synonym for severe agitation and conveys little meaning beyond this. However, the term's connection to a literature emphasising the high risk of physical health collapse and need for urgent treatment means that its disproportionate use in Black people may contribute to existing racial inequalities in the use of coercive measures during crisis presentations.

The Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework: a model to reduce mental health inequity in England and Wales.

The Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework (PCREF) is an Organisational Competence Framework (OCF), recommended by the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act as a means to improve mental health access, experience and outcomes for people from ethnic minority backgrounds, particularly Black people. This is a practical framework that should be co-produced with and tailored to the needs of service users, based on quality improvement and place-based approaches. We aim to use the PCREF to address the longstanding epistemic justices experienced by people with mental health problems, particularly those from minoritised ethnic groups. We will outline the work that led to the proposal, the research on racial inequalities in mental health in the UK, and how the PCREF will build on previous interventions to address these. By taking these into account, the PCREF should support a high minimum standard of mental health care for all.

Insight and equality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of socio-demographic associations.

BACKGROUND: Insight into illness is often used in clinical and legal contexts, for example, as evidence of decision-making capacity. However, it is unclear whether this disadvantages certain groups protected under equality legislation. To our knowledge, this question has yet to be addressed systematically. Therefore, the present study reviews empirical studies that look at the relationship between insight and sociodemographic variables. METHODS: A systematic search of six bibliographic databases (CENTRAL, CINAHL, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO) was conducted, which yielded 6,192 results. Study characteristics and outcomes (associations between insight and socio-demographic variables) were then extracted from 207 eligible studies. This included protected characteristics under the Equality Act (2010): age, sex, ethnicity, marital status and religion. Weighted confidence estimates were calculated and relevant moderators included in a random effects meta-analysis. A study protocol was registered prospectively on PROSPERO, ID: CRD42019120117. RESULTS: Insight was not strongly associated with any sociodemographic variable. Better insight was weakly but significantly associated with white ethnicity, being employed, younger age and more years of education. The age associations were mostly explained by relevant moderating variables. For people with schizophrenia, the associations between sociodemographic variables and insight were comparable to associations with decision making capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that insight is not strongly associated with any sociodemographic variables. Further research is needed to clarify potential associations, particularly with non-white ethnicity and proxies for social support.

Experiences of assessing mental capacity in England and Wales: A large-scale survey of professionals.

Background: The Mental Capacity Act (2005) of England and Wales described in statute a test to determine whether a person lacked the "mental capacity" to make a particular decision. No large-scale survey has explored experiences of capacity assessment across professional groups. Methods: We administered an opportunistic self-report questionnaire survey of professionals who undertake capacity assessments in England and Wales (n= 611). Topics of interest included; how often and where capacity assessment took place, self-ratings of competency and challenges experienced in assessment, use of psychological testing and concerns about undue influence. We analysed the quantitative responses using a mixed-methods approach using regression methods for the quantitative ratings and a thematic analysis for qualitative data. Results: Our sample included 307/611 (50.2%), social workers, 89/611 (14.6%) psychiatrists, 62/611 (10.1%) nurses, 46/611 (7.5%) clinical psychologists, 30/611 (4.9%) doctors from other medical specialties, 12/611 (2.0%) speech and language therapists and 8/611 (1.3%) solicitors. 53% of these professionals undertook more than 25 capacity assessments per year, with psychiatrists, social workers and nurses undertaking them the most frequently. Most professionals reported high self-ratings of confidence in their assessment skills, although non-psychiatrist doctors rated themselves significantly lower than other groups (p< .005). Most professionals (77.1%) were at least moderately concerned about undue influence, with people with dementia and learning disabilities and older adults considered to be the most at risk. Qualitative themes for challenges in capacity assessment included inter-disciplinary working, complicated presentations and relational issues such as interpersonal influence. Requests for support mainly focused on practical issues. Conclusions: Most professionals feel confident in their ability to assess capacity but note substantial challenges around practical and relational issues. Undue influence is a particularly common concern amongst professionals when working with service users with dementia and learning disabilities which public services and policy makers need to be mindful of.

Quality of life in elderly ICU survivors before the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

OBJECTIVES: The influence of age on intensive care unit (ICU) decision-making is complex, and it is unclear if it is based on expected subjective or objective patient outcomes. To address recent concerns over age-based ICU decision-making, we explored patient-assessed quality of life (QoL) in ICU survivors before the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies published between January 2000 and April 2020, of elderly patients admitted to ICUs. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We extracted data on self-reported QoL (EQ-5D composite score), demographic and clinical variables. Using a random-effect meta-analysis, we then compared QoL scores at follow-up to scores either before admission, age-matched population controls or younger ICU survivors. We conducted sensitivity analyses to study heterogeneity and bias and a qualitative synthesis of subscores. RESULTS: We identified 2536 studies and included 22 for qualitative synthesis and 18 for meta-analysis (n=2326 elderly survivors). Elderly survivors' QoL was significantly worse than younger ICU survivors, with a small-to-medium effect size (d=0.35 (-0.53 and -0.16)). Elderly survivors' QoL was also significantly greater when measured slightly before ICU, compared with follow-up, with a small effect size (d=0.26 (-0.44 and -0.08)). Finally, their QoL was also marginally significantly worse than age-matched community controls, also with a small effect size (d=0.21 (-0.43 and 0.00)). Mortality rates and length of follow-up partly explained heterogeneity. Reductions in QoL seemed primarily due to physical health, rather than mental health items. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the proportionality of age as a determinant of ICU resource allocation should be kept under close review and that subjective QoL outcomes should inform person-centred decision -aking in elderly ICU patients. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020181181.

Reasons behind the rising rate of involuntary admissions under the Mental Health Act (1983): Service use and cost impact.

There has been a significant rise in the use of the Mental Health Act (1983) in England over the last 10 years. This includes both health-based Place of Safety detentions and involuntary admissions to NHS mental health facilities. Although these trends should clearly inform the implementation of mental health care and legislation, there is currently little understanding of what caused these increased rates. We therefore sought to explore potential underlying reasons for the increase in involuntary admissions and Place of Safety detentions and to ascertain the associated service costs. We extracted publicly available data to ascertain the observed number of involuntary admissions (Section 2 or 3) and health-based Place of Safety detentions in England between 1999/2000 and 2015/2016. A simple regression analysis then enabled us to compare observed admission rates with predicted rates, between 2008/2009 and 2015/2016. This prediction model was based on observed figures before 2008. We then generated a costing model for these rates and compared admission costs to alternative interventions. Finally, we added relevant covariates to the prediction model, to explore potential relationships with observed rates. Since 2008/2009, there has been a marked increase in the number of involuntary admissions (38%) and Place of Safety detentions (617%). The analysis revealed that for involuntary admissions, the period of greatest increase occurred after 2012, two years after austerity measures were implemented. For Place of Safety detentions, substantial rises were seen from 2008/2009 to 2015/2016, coinciding with the economic recession. The rise in Place of Safety detentions may have been worsened by a reduction in mental health bed availability. During the study period, involuntary admissions are estimated to have cost the English NHS £6.8 billion; with a further £120 million spent on Place of Safety detentions. This is approximately £597 million greater than predicted, had involuntary admissions continued to change at pre-2008 rates. We conclude that the rise in involuntary admissions, and to a lesser extent Place of Safety detentions, were associated with three specific impactful events: the economic recession, legislative changes and the impact of austerity measures on health and social care services. In addition to the extensive arguments presented elsewhere, there is also an urgent economic case for addressing this trend.

Ethnic variations in compulsory detention under the Mental Health Act: a systematic review and meta-analysis of international data.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups have an increased risk of involuntary psychiatric care. However, to our knowledge, there is no published meta-analysis that brings together both international and UK literature and allows for comparison of the two. This study examined compulsory detention in BAME and migrant groups in the UK and internationally, and aimed to expand upon existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the rates of detention for BAME populations. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched five databases (PsychINFO, MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Embase, and CINAHL) for quantitative studies comparing involuntary admission, readmission, and inpatient bed days between BAME or migrant groups and majority or native groups, published between inception and Dec 3, 2018. We extracted data on study characteristics, patient-level data on diagnosis, age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, and occupational status, and our outcomes of interest (involuntary admission to hospital, readmission to hospital, and inpatient bed days) for meta-analysis. We used a random-effects model to compare disparate outcome measures. We assessed explanations offered for the differences between minority and majority groups for the strength of the evidence supporting them. This study is prospectively registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017078137. FINDINGS: Our search identified 9511 studies for title and abstract screening, from which we identified 296 potentially relevant full-text articles. Of these, 67 met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in depth. We added four studies after reference and citation searches, meaning 71 studies in total were included. 1 953 135 participants were included in the studies. Black Caribbean patients were significantly more likely to be compulsorily admitted to hospital compared with those in white ethnic groups (odds ratio 2·53, 95% CI 2·03-3·16, p<0·0001). Black African patients also had significantly increased odds of being compulsorily admitted to hospital compared with white ethnic groups (2·27, 1·62-3·19, p<0·0001), as did, to a lesser extent, south Asian patients (1·33, 1·07-1·65, p=0·0091). Black Caribbean patients were also significantly more likely to be readmitted to hospital compared with white ethnic groups (2·30, 1·22-4·34, p=0·0102). Migrant groups were significantly more likely to be compulsorily admitted to hospital compared with native groups (1·50, 1·21-1·87, p=0·0003). The most common explanations for the increased risk of detainment in BAME populations included increased prevalence of psychosis, increased perceived risk of violence, increased police contact, absence of or mistrust of general practitioners, and ethnic disadvantages. INTERPRETATION: BAME and migrant groups are at a greater risk of psychiatric detention than are majority groups, although there is variation across ethnic groups. Attempts to explain increased detention in ethnic groups should avoid amalgamation and instead carry out culturally-specific, hypothesis-driven studies to examine the numerous contributors to varying rates of detention. FUNDING: University College London Hospitals National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London, and NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North Thames at Bart's Health NHS Trust.