Cited by 28Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcarePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

Assessing patients decision-making capacity in the hospital setting: A literature review

John, Shibu, Rowley, Joanne, Bartlett, Kerry·2020·Australian Journal of Rural Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Decision-making capacity assessments for hospital settings are challenging as it is dominated by the ethical and legal principles of maintaining autonomy and protection. Health clinicians, especially in rural areas, are challenged with a lack of a standardised processes and pathways for decision-making capacity assessment. A literature review was conducted to determine what measurement tools clinicians are utilising in the hospital setting for decision-making capacity assessment and how decisions relating to consent to treatment, independent living and finances are made. DESIGN: Literature review. METHOD: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases from January 2006 to April 2019 was conducted for peer-reviewed articles to determine how decision-making capacity assessments are conducted and the tools clinicians are utilising in the hospital setting. RESULTS: Five main themes were identified from this review: (a) domains of capacity; (b) capacity assessment; (c) capacity assessment instruments; (d) who performs capacity assessment; and (e) challenges and limitations to capacity assessment in the hospital setting. Currently, there is no gold standard for capacity assessment. CONCLUSION: This review shows that there is currently a lack of a uniform approach or a singular test to determine capacity. It is proposed that a multidisciplinary approach to decision-making capacity assessment could be an effective model in the hospital setting, especially in rural health due to limited access to aged care specialists. It is important that clinicians receive ongoing training in decision-making capacity assessment and further research is recommended in this specialised area of practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ajr.12592

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The diversity of capacity measurement instruments hampers the ability to draw clear conclusions from prior work.

    “The different cognitive and clinical variables influencing this construct (Cáceda et al., 2014;Larkin & Hutton, 2017), and the diversity of capacity measurement instruments (John et al., 2020), hamper our ability to draw clear conclusions from this work.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
John, S., Rowley, J., & Bartlett, K.
Affiliations
  • Government of New South Wales (AU)
  • Coffs Harbour Health Campus Coffs Harbour NSW Australia
Corresponding author
John, Shibu
Venue
Australian Journal of Rural Health
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-01-20
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
141-148
ISSN
  • 1038-5282 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-1584
OpenAlex
W3003097692
Cited by
28
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Australian Journal of Rural Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Health Education and Training Institute
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
decision-making capacity, capacity assessment, hospital settings, informed consent, financial decision-making, multidisciplinary assessment, rural health, clinician training, elderly care
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Decision Making, Hospitals, Humans, Geriatric Assessment, Mental Competency, Needs Assessment

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