Legal Issues in Life-Limiting Illness: Can Cross-Agency, Interprofessional Education Support Integration of Care?

Legal issues are prevalent in life-limiting illness, relating to social welfare needs as well as delivery of legally compliant care. Yet the broad range of agencies delivering care is fragmented, risking unmet needs. This mixed-methods research explored the potential of cross-agency, interprofessional education to raise awareness and understanding of legal needs in this context and promote closer service integration. Four identical workshops, run in north-east England, brought together 99 participants from health, social, legal, advice, charitable, public and private sectors. Participants were overwhelmingly positive about the value of learning together with 97% wanting more sessions. Learning priorities included greater awareness of services and referral routes as well as areas of law relating to advance care planning and mental capacity. Interprofessional education, spanning the breadth of relevant agencies and supported by national strategy, was identified as a route to integrating services.

Resuscitation decisions at the end of life: medical views and the juridification of practice.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about decision making related to resuscitation have led to two important challenges in the courts resulting in new legal precedents for decision-making practice. Systematic research investigating the experiences of doctors involved in decisions about resuscitation in light of the recent changes in law remains lacking. AIM: To analyse the practice of resuscitation decision making on hospital wards from the perspectives of doctors. DESIGN: The data presented in this paper were collected as part of a wider research study of end-of-life care in an acute hospital setting. Data collection comprised ethnographic non-participant observation on two acute hospital wards and individual interviews with patients, relatives and healthcare professionals caring for patients thought to be approaching the end of life. Data were analysed using a constructivist grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Discussions and decision making about resuscitation present many challenges for those involved on acute medical wards. The data highlight the potential for multiple interpretations of legal precedents, creating misunderstandings that may impact patient care in less positive ways. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides unique insights into how doctors respond to the changing medico-legal culture and the subsequent effects on patient care. It demonstrates how the juridification of medical practice can occur. It highlights the potential benefit of a structure to support clinicians, patients and relatives in discussing and navigating decisions around care at the end of life in line with the patient's wishes and preferences. Recommendations for future research are made and legal ramifications are discussed.

Legal implications of restrictive physical interventions in people with dementia.

Dementia care environments are now home to thousands of people who have complex mental and physical health needs. Many of these people have lost capacity or have fluctuating capacity to make decisions about their care. There can be times when restrictive physical interventions are necessary to protect a person's wellbeing and to administer required treatment and care. However, nurses working in care settings may not be aware of their rights and liabilities, and those of care staff, when such interventions are used for therapeutic purposes. This article seeks to address areas of uncertainty and clarify the legal responsibilities of care teams by exploring the issues raised through a fictitious case vignette.

Going home? An ethnographic study of assessment of capacity and best interests in people with dementia being discharged from hospital.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of patients in an acute hospital is made up of older people, many of whom have cognitive impairment or dementia. Rightly or wrongly, if a degree of confusion is apparent, it is often questioned whether the person is able to return to the previous place of residence. We wished to understand how, on medical wards, judgements about capacity and best interests with respect to going home are made for people with dementia and how decision-making around hospital discharge for people with dementia and their families might be improved. Our research reflects the jurisdiction in which we work, but the importance of residence capacity rests on its implications for basic human rights. METHODS: The research employed a ward-based ethnography. Observational data were captured through detailed fieldnotes, in-depth interviews, medical-record review and focus groups. Themes and key issues were identified using constant comparative analysis of 29 cases. Theoretical sampling of key stakeholders was undertaken, including patients with dementia (with and without residence capacity), their relatives and a range of practitioners. The research was carried out in three hospital wards (acute and rehabilitation) in two hospitals within two National Health Service (NHS) healthcare trusts in the North of England over a period of nine months between 2008 and 2009. RESULTS: Our analysis highlights the complexity of judgements about capacity and best interests in relation to decisions about place of residence for people with dementia facing discharge from hospital. Five key themes emerged from data: the complexity of borderline decisions; the requirement for better understanding of assessment approaches in relation to residence capacity; the need for better documentation; the importance of narrative; and the crucial relevance of time and timing in making these decisions. CONCLUSIONS: We need: more support and training for practitioners, as well as support for patients and families; clarity about the information to be imparted to the person with dementia; more advocacy for people with dementia; appropriate assessments embedded in routine clinical practice; the patient with dementia to be centre-stage; and properly resourced step-down or rehabilitation units to facilitate timely and good decision-making about place of residence.

Planning for tomorrow whilst living for today: the views of people with dementia and their families on advance care planning.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is increasingly prominent in many countries; however, the evidence base for its acceptability and effectiveness is limited especially in conditions where cognition is impaired, as in dementia. METHOD: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with people with mild to moderate dementia (n = 17) and family carers (n = 29) to investigate their views about planning for their future generally and ACP specifically. RESULTS: People with dementia and their families make a number of plans for the future. Most people undertook practical, personal, financial, and legal planning. However participants did not make formal advance care plans with the exception of appointing someone to manage their financial affairs. Five barriers to undertaking ACP were identified: lack of knowledge and awareness, difficulty in finding the right time, a preference for informal plans over written documentation, constraints on choice around future care, and lack of support to make choices about future healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: Health and social care professionals can build on people's preferences for informal planning by exploring the assumptions underlying them, providing information about the possible illness trajectory and discussing the options of care available. Health and social care professionals also have a role to play in highlighting the aspects of ACP which seem to be most relevant to the wishes and aspirations of people with dementia.

Homeward bound or bound for a home? Assessing the capacity of dementia patients to make decisions about hospital discharge: comparing practice with legal standards.

BACKGROUND: This article stems from a larger project which considers ways of improving assessments of capacity and judgements about best interests in connection with people with dementia admitted to acute hospitals with respect to decisions about place of residence. AIMS: Our aim is to comment on how assessments of residence capacity are actually performed on general hospital wards compared with legal standards for the assessment of capacity set out in the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA). METHOD: Our findings are grounded in ethnographic ward-based observations and in-depth interviews conducted in three hospital wards, in two hospitals (acute and rehabilitation), within two NHS healthcare trusts in the North of England over a period of nine months between 2008 and 2009. Twenty-nine patient cases were recruited to the study. We also draw from broader conceptions of capacity found in domestic and international legal, medical, ethical and social science literature. RESULTS: Our findings suggest that whilst professionals profess to be familiar with broad legal standards governing the assessment of capacity under the MCA, these standards are not routinely applied in practice in general hospital settings when assessing capacity to decide place of residence on discharge from hospital. We discuss whether the criteria set out in the MCA and the guidance in its Code of Practice are sufficient when assessing residence capacity, given the particular ambiguities and complexities of this capacity. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude by suggesting that more specific legal standards are required when assessing capacity in this particular context.