Department of Psychological Medicine, Cardiff University, University Hospital of Wales
Departments of Neurology and Medical Genetics, Cardiff University, University Hospital of Wales
Cardiff Law School, Cardiff University, Museum Avenue, Cardiff, UK
Correspondence: Jonathan I. Bisson, Department of Psychological Medicine, Cardiff University, Monmouth House, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK. Email: bissonji{at}cf.ac.uk
None. Funding detailed in Acknowledgements.
|
|
|---|
The Mental Capacity Act for England and Wales empowers individuals to plan ahead for when they may lack capacity.
Aims
To develop a care pathway for advance decisions and powers of attorney using Huntingtons disease as an exemplar.
Method
Qualitative study using in-depth individual interviews with service users and carers, and focus groups with professionals. Inductive qualitative analysis was used to develop themes to construct a care pathway that was then piloted and further evaluated to achieve a final pathway.
Results
A care pathway was developed that incorporated an early introduction through a formal education session and a minimum of two sessions separated by at least 2 weeks before advance decision completion. Optimal delivery of this intervention requires significant clinical and administrative commitment.
Conclusions
We have developed a simple, easy-to-follow care pathway that was acceptable to users and providers.
|
|
|---|
There is a lack of information regarding how best to approach advance decisions and powers of attorney with individuals who have or are likely to develop conditions that will result in loss of capacity. We therefore decided to use a qualitative method to develop a care pathway for advance decisions and powers of attorney using Huntingtons disease as an exemplar. Most individuals with this disease will, at some stage, lose capacity to determine their ongoing care. Timely consideration of advance decisions seems particularly possible as most individuals with Huntingtons disease are diagnosed before they lose capacity and, increasingly, individuals at risk elect to undergo predictive testing and are aware that they carry the gene before they develop the disease.
We aimed to address the following issues: when should advance decisions and lasting power of attorney be discussed; how should information regarding advance decisions and lasting power of attorney be delivered and by whom; how should capacity to execute an advance decision or lasting power of attorney be determined; and can a care pathway that is acceptable to service users and clinicians be developed.
|
|
|---|
Participants
Modelling phase
Purposive sampling was used to maximise the likelihood of obtaining a
complete range of views. Individuals were invited to join a stakeholder group
to contribute to the pathway development. The stakeholders included two
individuals with symptoms of Huntingtons disease, one carer, one
asymptomatic individual who had the altered Huntingtons disease gene,
five clinicians working with individuals with symptoms of the disease, a
lawyer with expertise in this area, a medical ethicist and two advisors
employed by the Huntingtons Disease Association (HDA). Theoretical
sampling was used to ensure involvement of females and males, individuals of
different ages and experience with different stages of Huntingtons
disease.
Pilot phases
During the pilot phases purposive sampling and the
snowballing technique, whereby those already approached were
asked to identify other individuals who might be approached, were used.
Participants were aged 18 or over, able to provide informed consent and in
active contact with the South Wales Huntingtons Disease Service. Six
individuals with symptoms of the disease, nine carers/relatives, and four
asymptomatic individuals with the altered Huntingtons disease gene were
included. Recruitment ceased when saturation of themes was achieved.
Data collection
In-depth interviews
In-depth interviews of up to 2 h conducted by J.I.B. were used to generate
data from stakeholders who were service users or carers. In-depth interviews
conducted by V.H. were used to generate data from individuals involved in the
pilot phases.
Focus groups
Four focus groups facilitated by J.I.B. of 1–2 h with group sizes of
between four and eight people were used to generate data from the other
stakeholders. Two were conducted in the modelling phase and one after each
pilot phase. Group interaction was encouraged and individuals were asked to
clarify why they thought as they did to maximise data generation.
Topic guide
A topic guide was used for the in-depth interviews and focus groups that
covered: information to be considered; presentation of information; methods of
delivery; timing issues; individuals to be involved in the process; methods of
communication; method of assessment of
capacity;5,6
and form of documentation. Individuals interviewed after pilot phase
participation were asked to consider their experience and views of the
process.
Analysis
The in-depth interviews and focus groups were audio-taped and transcribed.
Manuscripts were imported into QSR NVivo 7 (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2006)
after participant approval. Relevant themes were identified using grounded
theory in which data collection, analysis and systematic efforts to check and
refine developing themes occurred
concurrently.7 The
emerging themes were tested for validity using a variety of recognised
techniques8
including discussion of emerging themes; triangulation to compare the results
from different sources; participant review of emerging themes; exploration of
the respondents underlying reasoning; and elements within the data that
appeared to contradict the emerging themes (deviant case
analysis).
|
|
|---|
Information to be considered and method of delivery
Some confusion was apparent among service users regarding what advance
decisions and powers of attorney are, not least the difference between advance
decisions and euthanasia. Easy-to-follow, consistent verbal and written
information was desired. Information specific to Huntingtons disease
was considered vital, especially regarding percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
feeding and choices about location of care to guide future decisions.
Participants felt that advance decisions would be optimally introduced through
offering a leaflet at a clinic appointment with a brief verbal explanation. An
individual could then choose to undergo further verbal education backed up by
more detailed written information.
Location and individuals involved
The predominant opinion was that the location is an individual decision
with some preferring their home and others a clinical setting. Having an
established therapeutic relationship with an expert in Huntingtons
disease who facilitated the process emerged as a dominant theme. Personal
qualities such as being approachable, caring and sensitive with good
communication skills were felt to be important. Participants also recommended
the additional offer of home visits by an HDA advisor.
Timing and duration of process
Professionals were reluctant to approach service users too early,
particularly asymptomatic individuals with the altered Huntingtons
disease gene, for fear of causing distress. In contrast, service users had a
more positive attitude towards early introduction of advance decisions in
order to increase autonomy. A consensus was reached that the duration should
be flexible allowing for as many sessions required to reach a decision. It was
also considered important to have a minimum 2-week cool off
period between an initial meeting and advance decision completion.
Assessment of capacity
Service users and carers felt that capacity assessment was the
responsibility of professionals but it should adhere to legal requirements.
Professionals considered that the assessment should be decision-specific and
adhere to the four levels of capacity stated in the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Tests such as the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment
(MacCAT–T)9
may provide additional information to facilitate the assessment but should not
be relied on. It was not felt vital for the capacity assessor to be from a
specific discipline but it should be acknowledged that many professionals are
reluctant to assess capacity and would require training to feel confident to
do so.
Form of documentation
Participants recommended a single, short, easy-to-follow advance decision
form with space for personal statements and wishes. The main issues that
people believed should be on the form were: lifesaving treatments,
percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding, location of future care, capacity
assessment, witness details and a distribution list. A summary sheet for
patient files, and checklists for education, completion and review were
considered important.
As a result of the modelling phase, a prototype care pathway was developed along with a set of information leaflets and an advance decision document.
Pilot phases
During the first pilot phase, two individuals with Huntingtons
disease and two asymptomatic individuals with the altered Huntingtons
disease gene completed an advance decision. Two individuals with the disease
decided not to complete an advance decision after the initial discussion.
During the second pilot phase, one individual with Huntingtons disease
and one asymptomatic individual with the altered Huntingtons disease
gene completed an advance decision. One individual with the disease and one
asymptomatic individual with the altered disease gene decided not to after the
initial discussion.
Involvement in the care pathway was a positive experience for the majority in both pilot phases. One individual with Huntingtons disease and their carer described feeling upset for a few days as a result of discussing end-of-life decisions that resolved without the need to seek external help. They continued to consider the care pathway important.
Those who did not complete an advance decision acknowledged the need for end-of-life issues to be raised to enable choice. For those who did complete an advance decision they found the process empowering and described achieving peace of mind because they were able to make decisions about a future which would otherwise be completely out of their control. Other benefits expressed included taking pressure off children, the importance of choices and gaining more information.
The themes that emerged are described below and supported by Appendices 2 and 3.
Information to be considered and method of delivery
General written information on wills and the Mental Capacity Act was
requested along with more Huntingtons disease-focused information on
percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding. The power of attorney information
was felt to be too detailed and a single booklet containing all the
information provided recommended.
Location and individuals involved
Participants felt that given limited resources and clinician availability
the formal meetings should take place in a clinical setting but that all
individuals should be offered a home visit from an HDA advisor. One
participant lived some distance from the hospital and requested an initial
telephone interview. Both the participant and the facilitator were satisfied
with the information delivered and interaction that occurred.
Timing and duration of process
A strong theme emerged that the earlier discussions regarding advance
decisions are introduced the better, subject to checking personal
circumstances and support, to allow consideration of them before individuals
develop symptoms or their symptoms worsen. The increased difficulty in
determining capacity of more symptomatic individuals was an additional
argument for early introduction.
Form of documentation
The need to fully consider issues around impaired quality of life when
making decisions was the major theme. It was also felt that the advance
decision form should state whether it was Huntingtons disease-specific
or whether it applied whatever the cause of incapacity. Participants suggested
adding statements concerning organ donation and whether independent legal
advice had been received.
![]() View larger version (16K): [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide] |
Fig. 1 Stage 1 shows the initial introduction of advance decision and powers of
attorney to individuals in the clinic. HDA, Huntingtons Disease
Association. a. When appropriate refers to clinical judgement.
An appropriate time will be when symptoms are increasing and individual is at
risk of losing capacity in less than 2 years.
|
![]() View larger version (21K): [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide] |
Fig. 2 Stage 2 shows the education and capacity assessment process. HDA,
Huntingtons Disease Association. a. When appropriate
refers to clinical judgement. An appropriate time will be when symptoms are
increasing and individual is at significant risk of losing capacity in less
than 2 years.
|
![]() View larger version (13K): [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide] |
Fig. 3 Stage 3 shows the process after completion demonstrating the administrative
commitment. a. If applicable. b. When appropriate refers to
clinical judgement. An appropriate time will be when symptoms are increasing
and individual is at significant risk of losing capacity in less than 2
years.
|
Stage 2 outlines the education process and capacity assessment (Fig. 2). The duration of this stage is variable with a minimum of two sessions separated by a 2-week cool off period for further deliberation and discussion. During the education, all points on the checklist must be covered and all information provided before a decision is made. This may take several visits and a visit(s) from an HDA advisor. When education is complete and a decision to develop an advance decision formed the decision-specific capacity assessment can take place. Stage 3 details the completion process (Fig. 3). Copies are sent to individuals or places requested by the decision maker. Medical notes and update sheets are then completed and a review date set.
|
|
|---|
Strengths and weaknesses
Robust qualitative methodology involving service users, carers and experts
from different backgrounds was employed using Huntingtons disease as an
exemplar for many other conditions. The pathway was piloted and refined
demonstrating its potential to be implemented into a clinical service. The
study involved a relatively small but usual number of participants for a
qualitative study. Caution is required in generalising the results but we
consider them likely to be broadly representative because of the strong
methodologies including the continuity of recruitment until there was
saturation of themes at each stage of the process.
There is an absence of research concerning the development of care pathways regarding advance decisions and powers of attorney. The existing literature provides individual or committee recommendations that have not been developed through research.
Clinical implications
With the full implementation of the Mental Capacity Act
2005,1 advance
decisions will be of increasing importance and need to be part of the clinical
process. This study offers guidance for a wide range of chronic disease
management services. Incorporating the pathway into routine service provision
would be likely to raise awareness in both staff and service users and
increase confidence in making advance decisions.
There are resource and staff implications that result from such a process. The average time of education sessions was an hour and for capacity assessment and decision completion another hour. Continued review at two-yearly interviews would also lead to lengthening of appointments. A 2 h+ per person clinician commitment is likely to be very significant to many services without accounting for the additional administration required.
Introducing advance decisions may result in adverse emotional consequences in some individuals. Symptomatic individuals appeared to be more at risk in this study although an emotional reaction could occur in anyone. It is, therefore, strongly recommended that clinicians are aware of this. Early introduction is likely to be most beneficial but advance decisions should be raised with any individual with capacity who is affected by a dementia, other neurodegenerative condition or life-shortening condition, or who has the adverse result for the altered gene in the case of Huntingtons disease.
Unfortunately for many people, clinical management decisions are only considered when they no longer have capacity. One study found that only 20% of individuals with early dementia were competent to complete an advance decision.11 This often results in them never being considered. Other countries have brought in legislation to counter this. In the USA, providers of care are required to advise patients of their right to accept or refuse medical care and to execute an advance decision in the event of incapacity.12 Several commentators have expressed major ethical reservations particularly about the meaning, reliability, durability and portability of advance decisions.13
Some researchers have described a process of advance care planning in which patients and carers discuss decisions together before capacity is lost.14 Other key issues include whether an advance decision made with capacity to refuse treatment should always take precedence over an acceptance of treatment when capacity is diminished; what happens when personality alters as a result of disease resulting in different values; and the impact of response shift in which individuals adapt to circumstances that in the advance decision would trigger the denial of treatment. These can be at least partially ameliorated by appointing a person with lasting powers of attorney to interpret the advance decision, or to make decisions on situations the advance decision does not cover.
Future research
Work is now required to develop an implementation package of the findings
of this study and to monitor the usefulness of the care pathway when delivered
as part of routine clinical care. This would include production of a booklet
containing the educational materials and a training package for professionals
enabling them to feel confident and competent to deliver the advance decision
pathway and to assess decisional capacity.
|
|
|---|
Maybe give people a simplified leaflet thats just a couple of pages and then any more details could be discussed at a specific visit with them. F – professional
Location and individuals involved
I think that it depends on the individual abilities and physical
state and who they have supporting them so that they feel more comfortable. I
mean, if youre visiting someone in their home then thats fine,
if theyre used to coming and seeing someone in clinic then thats
probably okay. I think it would have to be an individual decision depending on
the person. K – professional
Well, it has to be somebody who is an expert in the disease and that could be of any discipline but someone who is very versed in the condition. K – professional
Timing and duration of process
In order for the individual to have the most control, the discussion
should take place earlier. The earlier the better really. H –
professional
I think if I had symptoms, then Id be panicking to rush this thing through. B – service user
Assessment of capacity
Clinical assessment of capacity according to the criteria is the key
thing and that can be done by anyone, but people with more psychiatric
consequences may need someone with more expertise. K –
professional
Form of documentation
I would say it should be a standardised document and additional
information could be filled in by speaking to the person. Id say that
was the easiest way to do it. I – professional
(Letters refer to identity of participant quoted)
|
|
|---|
Location and individuals involved
I think it would be comfortable if it was made less like a hospital
appointment. Its not a hospital appointment. It is something very
important to us. S – carer
It helped that we know him. I wouldnt have wanted someone I didnt know. It made it easier. We have a rapport with him. Q – carer
Timing and duration of process
Even though I went away from here thinking, "I dont
really need this" I did actually find it useful [2-week cool
off period]. It made me think. The two visits were needed. B
– service user
Form of documentation
We werent sure about the options on life-threatening
conditions. I spoke to my family about it and we were saying about quality of
life. Each of us had a different opinion on what a decent quality of life is.
What we had to do in the notes was write there what I class as a decent
quality of life. Thats what this is really about, quality of
life. V – service user
Opinions
Its been exhilarating for me because its put my life
in order. B – service user
I was okay when I was in the room but then when I went away to think about it thats when it hit me and I thought about what is to come. I know Ive been through it before but its the reality of it. Q – carer
It has been a really positive experience for both of us. There are so many things to worry about and now that this is done we have one less thing to worry about. S – carer
(Letters refer to identity of participant quoted)
|
|
|---|
The information in the [HDA] leaflet wasnt patronising. It was straight to the point and it was easy to understand. C2 – service user
It was very good. It was good that the doctor played devils advocate, you know, "are you sure you want this and do you realise that this will happen and that." D2 – carer
[re telephone call] I thought it was good. I think he has a natural style of going over things as well and saying I understand that we confirm this and I think that removes any of the problems like a misunderstanding or things that you cant pick up from peoples facial expressions... I would certainly see it as onerous to have to do lots of visits to do this, so being able to do things over the telephone is a huge advantage. Y – service user
Location and individuals involved
I did wonder why [he was a psychiatrist]. I suppose because you have
to show that you are thinking rationally... It wouldnt have made any
difference if the genetics nurse had done it as far as I was concerned. She
could have sat there and gone through it. D2 – carer
I think it helped me having someone that I know explain these things to me. It needs to be somebody whos caring when you talk to them. Its a major thing to think about really... I think somebody who is an expert in Huntingtons disease would probably be good. I dont think it has to be a psychiatrist. X – service user
Timing and duration of process
I think maybe people might need a bit longer because its a
big decision and theres lots of things to consider and think of. So
from my point of view 2 weeks wasnt enough... Maybe 4 weeks would be
good. X – service user
That was fine, didnt need anymore... I had all that made up about the stuff beforehand so for me the two sessions were enough. D2 – carer
Assessment of capacity
I think it would be fair to say that was the toughest part of it...
She was getting really worked up and we had to stop a bit. For her it was
difficult... I think the assessment part was the difficult bit because the
later on in the disease you are then the more difficult it is to know what
they are saying. B2 – carer
Form of documentation
Quality of life is very important to be on the form... Its
good because it gives you room for what you want to put down, which is more
important because its quite personal what people consider quality of
life and what they want to be treatedfor... Everybody with Huntingtons
disease will want different things for themselves. X – service
user
It was useful to have the sheet of paper with statements [about quality of life and possible options] because Im a bit rubbish at that sort of thing. D2 – carer
Opinions
Its unfortunate that things like this hadnt been
available for my mother and my grandmother, having seen them and all the
family arguments that it has caused. D2 – carer
For me it was probably better than for her. I know that nobody can interfere with what weve put down. Its all written down and everybody knows what the score is. B2 – carer
Good. Its what I wanted and its done. A2 – service user
(Letters refer to identity of participant quoted)
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Related articles in BJP:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||