Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35898632›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022

Difficult Capacity Cases-The Experience of Liaison Psychiatrists. An Interview Study Across Three Jurisdictions.

Nuala B Kane, Alex Ruck Keene, Gareth S Owen, Scott Y H Kim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Age-bias in assessments of medical decision-making capacity: a cross-sectional experimental vignette study.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Decision-making capacity assessments in New Zealand and Australia: a systematised review.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Nuala B KaneDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Mental Health, Ethics and Law Research Group, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Alex Ruck KeeneDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Mental Health, Ethics and Law Research Group, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Gareth S OwenDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Mental Health, Ethics and Law Research Group, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Scott Y H KimDepartment of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
King's College London · GBNational Institutes of Health Clinical Center · US

Funding

Decision-making capacity in clinical and research settingsZIACL010542 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI KIM, SCOTT · 2017 to 2025
$0k
Wellcome Trust 203376/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Assessment of capacity for treatment and discharge decisions is common in the general hospital. Liaison psychiatrists are often asked to support the treating medical or surgical team in difficult capacity assessments. However, empirical research on identification and resolution of difficult capacity cases is limited. Some studies have identified certain patient, decisional, and interpersonal factors which cause difficulty, but no study has explored how these issues are resolved in practice. Our study therefore aimed to describe how experienced liaison psychiatrists identify and resolve difficult capacity cases in a general hospital setting. Methods: We carried out semi-structured interviews with 26 liaison psychiatrists from England, Scotland, and New Zealand, on their most difficult capacity cases. Thematic analysis was used to examine types of difficulty and how these were resolved in practice. Summaries were prepared and example quotes extracted to illustrate phenomena described. Results: We identified four types of difficulty in capacity assessment, spanning both clinical and ethical domains: 1) Difficulty determining whether the decision is the patient's own or driven by illness, 2) Difficulty in applying ethical principles, 3) Difficulty in avoiding personal bias, and 4) Procedural difficulties. The liaison psychiatrists presented as self-reflective and aware of challenges and pitfalls in hard cases. We summarized their creative strategies to resolve difficulty in assessment. Conclusion: Practitioners approaching difficult capacity cases require both clinical skills, e.g., to uncover subtle illness impairing decision-making and to consider interpersonal dynamics, and ethical skills, e.g., to negotiate the role of values and risks in capacity assessment. Education and training programmes should incorporate both aspects and could include the resolution strategies identified in our study. Practitioners, supported by health and social care systems, should work to develop self-aware and reflective capacity assessment practice.

Indexed as

capacity assessmentcapacity evaluationclinical ethicsdecision-making capacityinformed consentliaison psychiatrymental capacity

Identifiers

PMID35898632
PMCPMC9309683
OpenAlexW4285007714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.