Cited by 2Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsHealth, Medicine and SocietyEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare

Psychiatric Illness and Medical Decision-Making Capacity: A Retrospective Study in Medical Settings

Open access
Sangroula, Dinesh, Mainali, Pranita, Hagi, Katsuhiko, Peteru, Sachidanand·2020·Psychiatry International

Abstract

Determination of medical decision-making capacity (DMC) is one of the common encounters in Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry (CLP) services. It is a common misbelief that patients with “psych history” lack capacity more often than patients without mental illness. The study aims to examine the relationship between mental illness and DMC in patients presented to acute medical settings. The study is a retrospective chart review, where data were collected from the patients admitted to the medical units and assessed for capacity by a psychiatrist. Clinical and demographic characteristics were compared between two groups (patients having capacity and lacking capacity) using t-tests or chi-square tests, as appropriate. The commonest reason for DMC evaluation requests was for the patients who wanted to leave the hospital against medical advice. Overall, 53% (52/98) of the patients evaluated for DMC were found to lack capacity. Group of patients lacking DMC had a significantly higher percentage of males (58% vs. 35%) but were significantly less employed (8% vs. 10%). No significant difference was observed in other demographic characteristics and primary psychiatric diagnoses (past and current) among the two groups. However, patients lacking capacity were found to have a significantly more occurrence of current (48% vs. 11%) and past (23% vs. 4%) history of neurocognitive disorder, and larger trend significance (31% vs. 15%) of active psychiatric symptoms. We conclude that patients with neurocognitive disorders and active psychiatric symptoms might have poor DMC but not all patients who have psychiatric diagnoses lack medical DMC. Larger studies especially in outpatient psychiatric settings are suggested to derive more conclusive results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/psychiatryint1020012

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • Individuals exhibiting more severe symptoms are more likely to be perceived as incapable of understanding and therefore of making decisions.

    “Considering that individuals exhibiting more severe symptoms are more likely to be perceived as incapable of understanding and therefore of making decisions [175,176]”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sangroula, D., Mainali, P., Hagi, K., & Peteru, S.
Affiliations
  • Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center (US)
  • Nassau University Medical Center (US)
  • Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma (Japan) (JP)
Corresponding author
Sangroula, Dinesh
Venue
Psychiatry International
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-12-02
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
115-124
ISSN
2673-5318 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3110454846
Cited by
2
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 2
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Psychiatry International (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Keywords
medical decision-making capacity, mental illness, psychosomatic medicine, neurocognitive disorders, psychiatric symptoms, acute medical inpatients, capacity assessment, psychiatric comorbidity

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