TY - JOUR
T1 - It's a spiral staircase, not just two steps
T2 - An iterative approach to assessing patient capacity for medical decision-making
AU - Tunzi, Marc
AU - Day, Philip G.
AU - Satin, David J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2024/10
Y1 - 2024/10
N2 - The assessment of medical decision-making capacity as part of the process of clinical informed consent has been considered a bioethical housekeeping matter for decades. Yet in practice, the reality bears little resemblance to what is described in the medical literature and professed in medical education. Most literature on informed consent refers to medical decision-making capacity as a precondition to the consent process. That is, a clinician must first determine if a patient has capacity, and only then may the clinician engage with the patient for the rest of informed consent. The problem with this two-step approach is that it makes no sense in actual practice. We see the assessment of medical decision-making capacity within the process of informed consent as a spiral staircase, not just two steps, requiring clinicians to keep circling up and around, making progress, until they get to where they need to be: 1. Clinicians start with a general presumption of capacity for most adults, sometimes having a provisional appraisal of capacity based on prior patient contact. 2. Then, they begin performing informed consent for the current situation and intervention options. 3. Next, they must reassess capacity during this process. 4. After that, they continue with informed consent. 5. If capacity is not yet clear, they repeat 1–4.
AB - The assessment of medical decision-making capacity as part of the process of clinical informed consent has been considered a bioethical housekeeping matter for decades. Yet in practice, the reality bears little resemblance to what is described in the medical literature and professed in medical education. Most literature on informed consent refers to medical decision-making capacity as a precondition to the consent process. That is, a clinician must first determine if a patient has capacity, and only then may the clinician engage with the patient for the rest of informed consent. The problem with this two-step approach is that it makes no sense in actual practice. We see the assessment of medical decision-making capacity within the process of informed consent as a spiral staircase, not just two steps, requiring clinicians to keep circling up and around, making progress, until they get to where they need to be: 1. Clinicians start with a general presumption of capacity for most adults, sometimes having a provisional appraisal of capacity based on prior patient contact. 2. Then, they begin performing informed consent for the current situation and intervention options. 3. Next, they must reassess capacity during this process. 4. After that, they continue with informed consent. 5. If capacity is not yet clear, they repeat 1–4.
KW - Clinician-patient communication
KW - Informed consent
KW - Medical decision-making capacity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85198006962&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85198006962&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108362
DO - 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108362
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 38981404
AN - SCOPUS:85198006962
SN - 0738-3991
VL - 127
JO - Patient Education and Counseling
JF - Patient Education and Counseling
M1 - 108362
ER -