Cited by 14Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes

A Relative Safeguard? The Informal Roles that Families and Carers Play when Patients with Dementia are Discharged from Hospital into Care in England and Wales

Open access
Emmett, C., Poole, M., Bond, J., Hughes, J. C.·2014·International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family

Abstract

In general hospitals, decisions are routinely made by health and social care professionals to discharge older people with dementia, who lack capacity, into long-term institutional care. There are few independent procedural safeguards that monitor how those professional ‘best interests’ decisions are made. Instead there is an assumption, implied by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), which governs decision-making on behalf of incapacitated adults in England and Wales, that relatives will act as informal caretakers of patients’ interests and will challenge professional decisions where necessary. This article examines whether this is the case in practice and the factors that may prevent relatives from carrying out this safeguarding role effectively. Our findings stem from a qualitative (ethnographic) study which captured observational data on acute and rehabilitation hospital wards in two hospitals within two NHS healthcare trusts in the North East of England. Our results show that relatives struggled to safeguard the rights of incapacitated patients with dementia when professional residence capacity and best-interests decisions were made about living arrangements and relatives were often ill-equipped or unsuitable to carry out this safeguarding role. Without better information-sharing and more robust independent procedural safeguards in the MCA, the rights of older patients with dementia are not being adequately protected during the hospital discharge process.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/lawfam/ebu012

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Emmett, C., Poole, M., Bond, J., & Hughes, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Northumbria University (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • North Tyneside General Hospital (GB)
Venue
International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family
Published
2014-10-30
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
302-320
ISSN
  • 0950-4109 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-9939
  • 1464-3707
OpenAlex
W2156495373
Cited by
14
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 3
FWCI
1.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Law Policy and the Family (publishedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Keywords
dementia, hospital discharge, family caregivers, Mental Capacity Act 2005, capacity shortage, long-term institutional care, procedural guarantees, information sharing, older adults, patient rights

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review