216
edits
Difference between revisions of "Introduction to Consent and Capacity in Residential Care"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Introduction to Consent and Capacity in Residential Care (view source)
Revision as of 19:16, 19 January 2016
, 19:16, 19 January 2016→Understanding Tests of Incapability
m (→References) |
|||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
The Mini Mental Status Examination [“MMSE”] is one of the most commonly used tools used to assess capacity. Families members may be told a resident scored 22 out of 30 or 14 out of 30 on the “Mini Mental”, and consequently the person is mentally capable or is not mentally capable. This screening tool was never intended to be used as a diagnostic tool on its own, nor was it developed as an assessment of capacity.([[{{PAGENAME}}#References|19]]) | The Mini Mental Status Examination [“MMSE”] is one of the most commonly used tools used to assess capacity. Families members may be told a resident scored 22 out of 30 or 14 out of 30 on the “Mini Mental”, and consequently the person is mentally capable or is not mentally capable. This screening tool was never intended to be used as a diagnostic tool on its own, nor was it developed as an assessment of capacity.([[{{PAGENAME}}#References|19]]) | ||
There are four standards generally accepted in research and practice as required for evidence that someone is capable of decision-making: being able to understand information; being able to “appreciate”, i.e., applying information to their own circumstances and realizing the consequences for them; being able to reason how they came to a decision; and making a choice. Expressing a choice is seen as a lower threshold than reasoning, and being able to understand information is a less stringent test than appreciation. ([[{{PAGENAME}}#References|20]]) Yet these markers do not translate very well for the real life decisions in residential care, nor are they legal standards. | There are four standards generally accepted in research and practice as required for evidence that someone is capable of decision-making. These are: a) being able to understand information; b) being able to “appreciate”, i.e., applying information to their own circumstances and realizing the consequences for them; c) being able to reason how they came to a decision; and d) making a choice. Expressing a choice is seen as a lower threshold than reasoning, and being able to understand information is a less stringent test than appreciation. ([[{{PAGENAME}}#References|20]]) Yet these markers do not translate very well for the real life decisions in residential care, nor are they legal standards. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
#ACE (2004). Advocacy Centre for the Elderly. Long-Term Care Facilities in Ontario: The Advocate's Manual. Chapter 7 Decision Making , page 7.7 [“ACE: Decisionmaking”] | #ACE (2004). Advocacy Centre for the Elderly. Long-Term Care Facilities in Ontario: The Advocate's Manual. Chapter 7 Decision Making , page 7.7 [“ACE: Decisionmaking”] | ||
