David Strang

Assessment of patient capacity to consent to treatment

OBJECTIVE: To compare results of a specific capacity assessment administered by the treating clinician, and a Standardized Mini-Mental Status Examination (SMMSE), with the results of expert assessments of patient capacity to consent to treatment.DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with independent comparison to expert capacity assessments.SETTING: Inpatient medical wards at an academic secondary and tertiary referral hospital.PARTICIPANTS: One hundred consecutive inpatients facing a decision about a major medical treatment or an invasive medical procedure. Participants either were refusing treatment, or were accepting treatment but were not clearly capable according to the treating clinician.MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The treating clinician (medical resident or student) conducted a specific capacity assessment on each participant, using a decisional aid called the Aid to Capacity Evaluation. A specific capacity assessment is a semistructured evaluation of the participant’s ability to understand relevant information and appreciate reasonably foreseeable consequences with regard to the specific treatment decision. Participants also received a SMMSE administered by a research nurse. Participants then had two independent expert assessments of capacity. If the two expert assessments disagreed, then an independent adjudication panel resolved the disagreement after reviewing videotapes of both expert assessments. Using the two expert assessments and the adjudication panel as the reference standard, we calculated areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves and likelihood ratios. The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves were 0.90 for specific capacity assessment by treating clinician and 0.93 for SMMSE score (2p=.48). For the treating clinician’s specific capacity assessment, likelihood ratios for detecting incapacity were as follows: definitely incapable, 20 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6, 120); probably incapable, 6.1 (95% CI 2.6, 15); probably capable, 0.39 (95% CI 0.18, 0.81); and definitely capable, 0.05 (95% CI 0.01, 0.29). For the SMMSE, a score of 0 to 16 had a likelihood ratio of 15 (95% CI 5.3, 44), a score of 17 to 23 had a likelihood ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.35, 1.2), and a score of 24 to 30 had a likelihood ratio of 0.05 (95% CI 0.01, 0.26).CONCLUSIONS: Specific capacity assessments by the treating clinician and SMMSE scores agree closely with results of expert assessments of capacity. Clinicians can use these practical, flexible, and evaluated measures as the initial step in the assessment of patient capacity to consent to treatment.

Measuring capacity to complete an advance directive.

OBJECTIVE: To validate reference standards for the assessment of capacity to complete an advance directive and to develop and test three simple screening instruments.

Improved Reliability of the Standardized Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (SADAS) Compared with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS)

OBJECTIVES: To compare the interrater and intrarater reliability of the Alzheimers Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS) with the Standardized Alzheimers Disease Assessment Scale (SADAS).

Dignity and Distress towards the End of Life across Four Non-Cancer Populations

Objective The purpose of this study was to identify four non-cancer populations that might benefit from a palliative approach; and describe and compare the prevalence and patterns of dignity related distress across these diverse clinical populations. Design A prospective, multi-site approach was used. Setting Outpatient clinics, inpatient facilities or personal care homes, located in Winnipeg, Manitoba and Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Participants Patients with advanced Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD); and the institutionalized alert frail elderly. Main Outcome Measure In addition to standardized measures of physical, psychological and spiritual aspects of patient experience, the Patient Dignity Inventory (PDI). Results Between February 2009 and December 2012, 404 participants were recruited (ALS, 101; COPD, 100; ESRD, 101; and frail elderly, 102). Depending on group designation, 35% to 58% died within one year of taking part in the study. While moderate to severe loss of sense of dignity did not differ significantly across the four study populations (4–11%), the number of PDI items reported as problematic was significantly different i.e. ALS 6.2 (5.2), COPD 5.6 (5.9), frail elderly 3.0 (4.4) and ESRD 2.3 (3.9) [p < .0001]. Each of the study populations also revealed unique and distinct patterns of physical, psychological and existential distress. Conclusion People with ALS, COPD, ESRD and the frail elderly face unique challenges as they move towards the end of life. Knowing the intricacies of distress and how they differ across these groups broadens our understanding of end-of-life experience within non-cancer populations and how best to meet their palliative care needs.

Health Status Assessment of the Elderly

SummaryThe elderly are a heterogeneous population group who range from well and completely independent individuals to a smaller proportion who are frail, require help and are high users of the healthcare system. Since health is a state of well-being which includes the domains of social, spiritual, psychological and physical function, each of these domains must be evaluated when we are measuring the health of older adults. In this article, we discuss some of the more important aspects of these domains.If we focus exclusively on the diseases which occur in older adults we will miss important aspects of their health status. We may miss the interactions of several different disease processes occurring in 1 individual, and the impact of those diseases on the individual’s ability to live independently and his or her quality of life.In this article, we not only justify the measurement of function, cognition, affect and quality of life in the elderly but we also describe the necessary measurement qualities of instruments used to measure health-related quality of life in the elderly. We provide some examples of measurement approaches with which we as researchers and health workers are familiar.