ReviewPsychiatric bulletin (2014)2014
Embedding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in clinical practice: an audit review.
Review in Psychiatric bulletin (2014), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stakeholder perspective on barrier to the implementation of Advance Care Planning in a traditionally paternalistic healthcare system.PloS one · 2020Article
- Advance decisions to refuse treatment and suicidal behaviour in emergency care: 'it's very much a step into the unknown'.BJPsych open · 2019Article
- National survey of training of psychiatrists on advance directives to refuse treatment in bipolar disorder.BJPsych bulletin · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims and method An audit cycle assessed compliance of healthcare professionals within Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust with the statutory requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in patient care. Each stage involved a retrospective review of relevant patient electronic records. The additional purpose of the audit was to make recommendations to improve compliance with the requirement of the Act by healthcare professionals and improve patient understanding of its provisions. Results The audit cycle demonstrated some improvement in clinical practice as well as the need for further efforts at raising the understanding and compliance of clinicians and the public with provisions of the Act. Clinical Implications Healthcare professionals need further understanding of the provisions of the Act and their responsibilities. There is also the need to enhance public awareness to provisions of the Act in relation to their decision-making autonomy. Stakeholders need to put strategies in place for these to be achieved.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.