Consent Issues in the Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke

This position statement briefly reviews the principle of informed consent, the elements of decisional capacity, and how acute stroke may affect this capacity. It further reviews the role of surrogate decision-making, including advance directives, next of kin, physician orders for life-sustaining treatment, and guardianship. In some cases of acute stroke in which the patient lacks decisional capacity and no advance directives or surrogates are available, consent to treatment may be presumed. The document describes the rationale for this position and various considerations regarding its application to IV thrombolysis, neuroendovascular intervention, decompressive craniectomy, and pediatric stroke. The document also reviews consent issues in acute stroke research.

The Urine Drug Screen in the Emergency Department

Urine drug screens (UDSs) are often performed in the emergency department (ED) as part of a standard ED order set in patients with significant altered mental status, trauma, or seizures usually without the patient’s knowledge or specified informed consent. In the ED the UDS has been included in the standard consent to treatment for routine testing along with blood studies, EKG, urinalysis and radiology. Many technical factors are known to effect UDS results.There is a lack of education among physicians regarding the clinical pitfalls of UDS interpretation. This article discusses the current state and issues associated with the UDS, and presents three clinical vignettes that illustrate the impact of false-positive UDS results on patient care and the potential for a patient becoming unknowingly and unfairly stigmatized. The article also offers suggestions including a requirement for either formal informed consent or an “opt out” screening process, as recommended by the CDC in HIV testing, designed to protect patient autonomy and confidentiality.

The Urine Drug Screen in the Emergency Department

Urine drug screens (UDSs) are often performed in the emergency department (ED) as part of a standard ED order set in patients with significant altered mental status, trauma, or seizures usually without the patient’s knowledge or specified informed consent. In the ED the UDS has been included in the standard consent to treatment for routine testing along with blood studies, EKG, urinalysis and radiology. Many technical factors are known to effect UDS results.There is a lack of education among physicians regarding the clinical pitfalls of UDS interpretation. This article discusses the current state and issues associated with the UDS, and presents three clinical vignettes that illustrate the impact of false-positive UDS results on patient care and the potential for a patient becoming unknowingly and unfairly stigmatized. The article also offers suggestions including a requirement for either formal informed consent or an “opt out” screening process, as recommended by the CDC in HIV testing, designed to protect patient autonomy and confidentiality.

Giving and taking: ethical treatment assignment in controlled trials

The current version of the Declaration of Helsinki states that ‘the benefits, risks, burdens and effectiveness of a new intervention must be tested against those of the best current proven intervention(s) … ’. This wording implies that it is acceptable for patients to be assigned to receive an unproven new intervention and to be denied a best current proven intervention. We assert that patients being invited to participate in controlled trials cannot, ethically, be expected to forego proven beneficial forms of care. Patients being treated in controlled trials should not knowingly be disadvantaged compared with similar patients being treated in usual clinical care, where they have access to beneficial care. In this article, we have tried to separate for discussion ‘the withholding of effective care from trial participants’, ‘informed consent to treatment’, ‘blinding’ and ‘use of placebos’.

214 - End-of-life decision-making capacity in older people with serious mental illness

ABSTRACTObjectives:The study’s main aim was to assess the end-of-life decision-making capacity and health-related values of older people with serious mental illness.Design, Setting, and Participants:This was a cross-sectional, observational study, done at Weskoppies Psychiatric Hospital, Gauteng Province, South Africa that included 100 adults older than 60 years of age and diagnosed with serious mental illness.Measurements:Socio-demographic, diagnostic, and treatment data were collected before administration of the Mini- Cog and a semi-structured clinical assessment of end-of-life decision-making capacity. Finally, the standardized interview, Assessment of Capacity to Consent to Treatment, was administered. This standardised instrument uses a hypothetical vignette to assess decision-making capacity and explores healthcare-related values.Results:According to the semi-structured decision-making capacity assessment, 65% of participants had decision-making capacity for end-of-life decisions. The Assessment of Capacity to Consent to Treatment scores were significant (p<0.001) when compared to decision-making capacity. Significant correlations with impaired decision-making capacity included: lower scores on the Mini-Cog (p<0.001); a duration of serious mental illness of 30-39 years (p=0025); having a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorders (p=0.0007); and being admitted involuntarily (p<0.0001).Conclusions:Two thirds of older people with serious mental illness had decision-making capacity and were able to engage in end-of-life care discussions. Healthcare providers have a duty to initiate advance care discussions, optimize decision-making capacity, and protect autonomous decision-making. Chronological age or diagnostic categories should never be used as reasons for discrimination, and older people with serious mental illness should receive end-of-life care in keeping with their preferences and values.

End-of-Life Decision-Making Capacity in Older People With Serious Mental Illness

Background: The study's main aim was to assess the end-of-life decision-making capacity and health-related values of older people with serious mental illness.Methods: A cross-sectional, observational study, was done at Weskoppies Psychiatric Hospital, Gauteng Province, South Africa that included 100 adults older than 60 years of age and diagnosed with serious mental illness. The Mini-Cog and a semi-structured clinical assessment of end-of-life decision-making capacity was done before a standardized interview, Assessment of Capacity to Consent to Treatment, was administered. This standardized instrument uses a hypothetical vignette to assess decision-making capacity and explores healthcare-related values.Results: The Assessment of Capacity to Consent to Treatment scores correlated (p &lt; 0.001) with the outcomes of the semi-structured decision-making capacity evaluation. Significant correlations with impaired decision-making capacity included: lower scores on the Mini-Cog (p &lt; 0.001); a duration of serious mental illness of 30–39 years (p = 0025); having a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorders (p = 0.0007); and being admitted involuntarily (p &lt; 0.0001). A main finding was that 65% of participants had decision-making capacity for end-of-life decisions, were able to express their values and engage in advance care discussions.Discussion and Conclusion: Healthcare providers have a duty to initiate advance care discussions, optimize decision-making capacity, and protect autonomous decision-making. Many older patients with serious mental illness can engage in end-of-life discussions and can make autonomous decisions about preferred end-of-life care. Chronological age or diagnostic categories should never be used as reasons for discrimination, and older people with serious mental illness should receive end-of-life care in keeping with their preferences and values.

Relationship between Competency to Consent to Treatment and Psychological Well-Being: Mediating Effect of Empowerment and Emotion

This study was conducted to evaluate the competency to consent to the treatment of psychiatric outpatients and to confirm the role of empowerment and emotional variables in the relationship between competency to consent to treatment and psychological well-being. The study participants consisted of 191 psychiatric outpatients who voluntarily consented to the study among psychiatric outpatients. As a result of competency to consent to treatment evaluation, the score of the psychiatric outpatient’s consent to treatment was higher than the cut-off point for both the overall and sub-factors, confirming that they were overall good. In addition, the effect of the ability of application on psychological well-being among competency to consent to treatment was verified using PROCESS Macro, and the double mediation effect using empowerment and emotional variables was verified to provide an expanded understanding of this. As a result of the analysis, empowerment completely mediated the relation between the ability of application and psychological well-being, and the relation between the ability of application and psychological well-being was sequentially mediated by empowerment and emotion-related variables. Based on these findings, the implications and limitations of this study were discussed.