An international comparison of legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making in mental health services

There have been important recent developments in law, research, policy and practice relating to supporting people with decision-making impairments, in particular when a person’s wishes and preferences are unclear or inaccessible. A driver in this respect is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); the implications of the CRPD for policy and professional practices are currently debated. This article reviews and compares four legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making for people whose decision-making ability is impaired. In particular, it explores how these frameworks may apply to people with mental health problems. The four jurisdictions are: Ontario, Canada; Victoria, Australia; England and Wales, United Kingdom (UK); and Northern Ireland, UK. Comparisons and contrasts are made in the key areas of: the legal framework for supported and substitute decision-making; the criteria for intervention; the assessment process; the safeguards; and issues in practice. Thus Ontario has developed a relatively comprehensive, progressive and influential legal framework over the past thirty years but there remain concerns about the standardisation of decision-making ability assessments and how the laws work together. In Australia, the Victorian Law Reform Commission (2012) has recommended that the six different types of substitute decision-making under the three laws in that jurisdiction, need to be simplified, and integrated into a spectrum that includes supported decision-making. In England and Wales the Mental Capacity Act 2005 has a complex interface with mental health law. In Northern Ireland it is proposed to introduce a new Mental Capacity (Health, Welfare and Finance) Bill that will provide a unified structure for all substitute decision-making. The discussion will consider the key strengths and limitations of the approaches in each jurisdiction and identify possible ways that further progress can be made in law, policy and practice.

Supported decision making: a review of the international literature

Supported decision making (SDM) refers to the process of supporting people, whose decision making ability may be impaired, to make decisions and so promote autonomy and prevent the need for substitute decision making. There have been developments in SDM but mainly in the areas of intellectual disabilities and end-of-life care rather than in mental health. The main aim of this review was to provide an overview of the available evidence relevant to SDM and so facilitate discussion of how this aspect of law, policy and practice may be further developed in mental health services. The method used for this review was a Rapid Evidence Assessment which involved: developing appropriate search strategies; searching relevant databases and grey literature; then assessing, including and reviewing relevant studies. Included studies were grouped into four main themes: studies reporting stakeholders’ views on SDM; studies identifying barriers to the implementation of SDM; studies highlighting ways to improve implementation; and studies on the impact of SDM. The available evidence on implementation and impact, identified by this review, is limited but there are important rights-based, effectiveness and pragmatic arguments for further developing and researching SDM for people with mental health problems.

Rapid tryptophan depletion improves decision-making cognition in healthy humans without affecting reversal learning or set shifting

Rapid tryptophan (Trp) depletion (RTD) has been reported to cause deterioration in the quality of decision making and impaired reversal learning, while leaving attentional set shifting relatively unimpaired. These findings have been attributed to a more powerful neuromodulatory effect of reduced 5-HT on ventral prefrontal cortex (PFC) than on dorsolateral PFC. In view of the limited number of reports, the aim of this study was to independently replicate these findings using the same test paradigms. Healthy human subjects without a personal or family history of affective disorder were assessed using a computerized decision making/gambling task and the CANTAB ID/ED attentional set-shifting task under Trp-depleted (n=17; nine males and eight females) or control (n=15; seven males and eight females) conditions, in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group design. There was no significant effect of RTD on set shifting, reversal learning, risk taking, impulsivity, or subjective mood. However, RTD significantly altered decision making such that depleted subjects chose the more likely of two possible outcomes significantly more often than controls. This is in direct contrast to the previous report that subjects chose the more likely outcome significantly less often following RTD. In the terminology of that report, our result may be interpreted as improvement in the quality of decision making following RTD. This contrast between studies highlights the variability in the cognitive effects of RTD between apparently similar groups of healthy subjects, and suggests the need for future RTD studies to control for a range of personality, family history, and genetic factors that may be associated with 5-HT function.

Decision making in childhood asthma exacerbation – a clinical judgement analysis

Background: Clinical decisions which impact directly on patient safety and quality of care are made during acute asthma attacks by individual doctors on the basis of their knowledge and experience. These include administration of systemic corticosteroids (CS), oral antibiotics, and admission to hospital. Clinical judgement analysis provides a methodology for comparing decisions between practitioners with different training and experience, and improving decision making. Methods: Stepwise linear regression was used to select clinical cues based on visual analogue scale assessments of the propensity of 62 clinicians to prescribe a short course of oral CS (decision 1), a course of antibiotics (decision 2), and/or admit to hospital (decision 3) for 60 â??paperâ?? patients. Results:When compared by specialty, paediatriciansâ?? models for decision 1 were more likely to include as a cue level of alertness (54% v. 16%); for decision 2 presence of crepitations (49% v. 16%), and less likely to include inhaled CS (8% v. 40%), respiratory rate (0% v. 24%), and air entry (70% v. 100%). When compared to other grades, the models derived for decision 3 by consultants/general practitioners were more likely to include wheeze severity as a cue (39% v. 6%). Conclusions: Clinicians differed in their use of individual cues and the number included in their models. Patient safety and quality of care will benefit from clarification of decision making strategies as general learning points during medical training, in the development of guidelines and care pathways, and by clinicians developing self-awareness of their own preferences.