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.

Establishing a nurse practitioner collaborative: evolution, development, and outcomes

The first Australian palliative care nurse practitioner (NP) was endorsed in 2003. In 2009 the Victoria Department of Health funded the development of the Victorian Palliative Care Nurse Practitioner Collaborative (VPCNPC). Its aim was to promote the NP role, develop resources, and provide education and mentorship to NPs, nurse practitioner candidates (NPCs), and health service managers. Four key objectives were developed: identify the demographic profile of palliative care NPCs in Victoria; develop an education curriculum and practical resources to support the training and education of palliative care NPCs and NPs; provide mentorship to NPs, NPCs, and service managers; and ensure effective communication with all key stakeholders. An NPC survey was also conducted to explore NPC demographics, models of care, the hours of study required for the role, the mentoring process, and education needs. This paper reports on the establishment of the VPCNPC, the steps taken to achieve its objectives, and the results of the survey. The NP role in palliative care in Australia continues to evolve, and the VPCNPC provides a structure and resources to clearly articulate the benefits of the role to nursing and clinical services. The advanced clinical practice role of the nurse practitioner (NP) has been well established in North America for several decades and across a range of specialties (Ryan-Woolley et al, 2007; Poghosyan et al, 2012). The NP role in Australia and the UK is a relatively new initiative that commenced in the early 2000s (Gardner et al, 2009). There are over 1000 NPs across all states and territories of Australia, of whom approximately 130 work in the state of Victoria (Victorian Government Health Information, 2012). Australian NPs work across a range of specialties, including palliative, emergency, older person, renal, cardiac, respiratory, and mental health care. There has been increasing focus nationally and internationally on developing academic programmes specifically for nurses working toward NP status (Gardner et al, 2006). There has been less emphasis on identifying the comprehensive clinical support requirements for NPs and NP candidates (NPCs) to ensure they meet all registration requirements to achieve and/or maintain endorsement, or on articulating the ongoing requirements for NPs once endorsed. Historically in Australia there has been a lack of clarity and limited published evidence on the benefits of the NP role for patients, carers, and health services (Quaglietti et al, 2004; Gardner and Gardner, 2005; Bookbinder et al, 2011; Dyar et al, 2012). An NP is considered to be at the apex of clinical nursing practice. The NP role typically entails comprehensively assessing and managing patients, prescribing medicines, making direct referrals to other specialists and services, and ordering diagnostic investigations (Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2009). All NPs in Australia are required to meet the following generic criteria: be a registered nurse, have completed a Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia approved postgraduate university Master's (nurse practitioner) degree programme, and be able to demonstrate a minimum of 3 years' experience in an advanced practice role (Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, 2011). An NPC in Victoria is a registered nurse employed by a service or organisation to work toward meeting the academic and clinical requirements for national endorsement as an NP. During the period of candidacy, which is of variable duration, NPCs consolidate their competence to work at the advanced practice level of an NP. The candidacy period is a process of learning the new role while engaging with mentors (medical and nursing) and accessing other learning opportunities both within and outside one's organisation to meet the educational requirements. Integral to the NP role is the development of a model of care that is responsive to identified service delivery gaps that can be addressed by the skills, knowledge, and expertise of an NP. These are unique to each individual service. The practice of an Australian NP is guided by national standards (Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia 2014). It is defined by four overarching standards: clinical, education, research, and leadership. Following the initial endorsement of four Victorian palliative care NPs in 2005, there was a lull in recruitment. The Victoria Department of Health (DH) recognised the potential benefits of NPs for health services, and in 2008 it provided funding for Victorian public health services to scope palliative care NP models of care that could enhance service delivery and patient outcomes. The scoping strategy was effective and led to the appointment of 16 palliative care nurses to NPC positions over the ensuing 3 years. The NPCs work across a broad range of care settings, including inpatient, community, and outpatient in metropolitan, regional, and rural areas of Victoria. At the same time, the DH also funded the Centre for Palliative Care to establish the Victorian Palliative Care Nurse Practitioner Collaborative (VPCNPC) to support the NPs and NPCs. The Centre is a state-wide service that is part of St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne and a collaborative Centre of the University of Melbourne. Its primary function is to provide training and conduct research in palliative care. The purpose of the VPCNPC was to provide support and mentorship and develop resources targeted at palliative care NPs, NPCs, and health service managers. Membership of the VPCNPC is open to all NPs, NPCs, health service managers, and nurses interested in the NP role. The aim of this paper is to describe the development of the VPCNPC, its actions, and the outcomes of these actions.

Rapid detection of health-care-associated bloodstream infection in critical care using multipathogen real-time polymerase chain reaction technology: a diagnostic accuracy study and systematic review

Background: There is growing interest in the potential utility of real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in diagnosing bloodstream infection by detecting pathogen deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in blood samples within a few hours. SeptiFast (Roche Diagnostics GmBH, Mannheim, Germany) is a multipathogen probe-based system targeting ribosomal DNA sequences of bacteria and fungi. It detects and identifies the commonest pathogens causing bloodstream infection. As background to this study, we report a systematic review of Phase III diagnostic accuracy studies of SeptiFast, which reveals uncertainty about its likely clinical utility based on widespread evidence of deficiencies in study design and reporting with a high risk of bias. 

Objective: Determine the accuracy of SeptiFast real-time PCR for the detection of health-care-associated bloodstream infection, against standard microbiological culture. 

Design: Prospective multicentre Phase III clinical diagnostic accuracy study using the standards for the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies criteria. 

Setting: Critical care departments within NHS hospitals in the north-west of England. 

Participants: Adult patients requiring blood culture (BC) when developing new signs of systemic inflammation. 

Main outcome measures: SeptiFast real-time PCR results at species/genus level compared with microbiological culture in association with independent adjudication of infection. Metrics of diagnostic accuracy were derived including sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and predictive values, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Latent class analysis was used to explore the diagnostic performance of culture as a reference standard. 

Results: Of 1006 new patient episodes of systemic inflammation in 853 patients, 922 (92%) met the inclusion criteria and provided sufficient information for analysis. Index test assay failure occurred on 69 (7%) occasions. Adult patients had been exposed to a median of 8 days (interquartile range 4–16 days) of hospital care, had high levels of organ support activities and recent antibiotic exposure. SeptiFast real-time PCR, when compared with culture-proven bloodstream infection at species/genus level, had better specificity (85.8%, 95% CI 83.3% to 88.1%) than sensitivity (50%, 95% CI 39.1% to 60.8%). When compared with pooled diagnostic metrics derived from our systematic review, our clinical study revealed lower test accuracy of SeptiFast real-time PCR, mainly as a result of low diagnostic sensitivity. There was a low prevalence of BC-proven pathogens in these patients (9.2%, 95% CI 7.4% to 11.2%) such that the post-test probabilities of both a positive (26.3%, 95% CI 19.8% to 33.7%) and a negative SeptiFast test (5.6%, 95% CI 4.1% to 7.4%) indicate the potential limitations of this technology in the diagnosis of bloodstream infection. However, latent class analysis indicates that BC has a low sensitivity, questioning its relevance as a reference test in this setting. Using this analysis approach, the sensitivity of the SeptiFast test was low but also appeared significantly better than BC. Blood samples identified as positive by either culture or SeptiFast real-time PCR were associated with a high probability (> 95%) of infection, indicating higher diagnostic rule-in utility than was apparent using conventional analyses of diagnostic accuracy. 

Conclusion: SeptiFast real-time PCR on blood samples may have rapid rule-in utility for the diagnosis of health-care-associated bloodstream infection but the lack of sensitivity is a significant limiting factor. Innovations aimed at improved diagnostic sensitivity of real-time PCR in this setting are urgently required. Future work recommendations include technology developments to improve the efficiency of pathogen DNA extraction and the capacity to detect a much broader range of pathogens and drug resistance genes and the application of new statistical approaches able to more reliably assess test performance in situation where the reference standard (e.g. blood culture in the setting of high antimicrobial use) is prone to error.

Does conurbation affect the risk of poor mental health? A population based record linkage study

To determine if urban residence is associated with an increased risk of anxiety/depression independent of psychosocial stressors, concentrated disadvantage or selective migration between urban and rural areas, this population wide record-linkage study utilised data on receipt of prescription medication linked to area level indicators of conurbation and disadvantage. An urban/rural gradient in anxiolytic and antidepressant use was evident that was independent of variation in population composition. This gradient was most pronounced amongst disadvantaged areas. Migration into increasingly urban areas increased the likelihood of medication. These results suggest increasing conurbation is deleterious to mental health, especially amongst residents of deprived areas

Access to a Car and the Self-Reported Health and Mental Health of People Aged 65 and Older in Northern Ireland

This article examines relationships between access to a car and the self- reported health and mental health of older people. The analysis is based on a sample of N 1⁄4 65,601 individuals aged 65 years and older from the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study linked to 2001 and 2011 census returns. The findings from hierarchical linear and binary logistic multilevel path models indicate that having no access to a car is related to a considerable health and mental health disadvantage particularly for older people who live alone. Rural–urban health and mental health differences are mediated by access to a car. The findings support approaches that emphasize the importance of autonomy and independence for the well-being of older people and indicate that not having access to a car can be a problem for older people not only in rural but also in intermediate and urban areas, if no sufficient alternative forms of mobility are provided.

Regress? React? Resolve?: An evaluation of mental health service provision in Northern Ireland

Report prepared for Action Mental Health by Queen’s University Belfast