Journal of Health Services Research & Policy > Volume 13, Number 2 > Pp. 73-78

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Luke, L. Articles by Holland, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Original research

Hospital clinicians' attitudes towards a statutory advocacy service for patients lacking mental capacity: implications for implementation

Lydia Luke, Marcus Redley , Isabel Clare, Anthony Holland

Learning Disabilities Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Correspondence to: mr382{at}medschl.cam.ac.uk

Objectives: To examine attitudes to the Mental Capacity Act's new statutory Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) service in England and Wales and consider the implications for its delivery.

Methods: Quantitative data describing all referrals to the seven pilot IMCA services (January 2006–March 2007) and qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 18 doctors, 21 senior nurses and one discharge planning manager in four general hospitals in England.

Results: Of 127 hospital-based referrals to the seven pilot IMCA services, 29 (23%) were for patients facing serious medical treatments, 52% of whom were judged to lack decision-making capacity due to a learning disability; ninety-eight (77%) were for patients facing a change of accommodation upon hospital discharge, 62% of whom were elderly and lacked capacity due to dementia. While aware of the potential benefits of the IMCA service, clinicians were generally negative about the contribution advocates could make to patients' medical care and thought they could only contribute usefully in a minority of ethically complicated decisions. In contrast, they were more positive about the involvement of advocates in hospital discharge decisions and hoped that they would improve current discharge practice.

Conclusions: Clinicians held ambivalent attitudes towards the involvement of a statutory IMCA service in medical decisions, reflecting beliefs that the service was largely impractical and unnecessary given current procedures for making medical decisions in patients' ‘best interests’. Conversely, clinicians were more likely to support advocacy in discharge decisions because they believed that non-medically qualified advocates could make a valuable contribution to decisions that were seen as predominantly social and where practice was frequently considered deficient. By holding these beliefs, clinicians are failing to have due regard for the IMCA service as a statutory measure for safeguarding patients' interests.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?