Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Mental Capacity Act (mental + capacity_act)
Selected AbstractsOffering choices to people with intellectual disabilities: an interactional studyJOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY RESEARCH, Issue 12 2008C. Antaki Abstract Background At the level of policy recommendation, it is agreed that people with intellectual impairments ought to be given opportunities to make choices in their lives; indeed, in the UK, the Mental Capacity Act of 2005 enshrines such a right in law. However, at the level of practice, there is a dearth of evidence as to how choices are actually offered in everyday situations, which must hinder recommendations to change. Method This qualitative interactional study, based on video recordings in British residential homes, combines ethnography with the fine-grained methods of Conversation Analysis. Results We identify six conversational practices that staff use to offer choices to residents with intellectual disabilities. Conclusions We describe the unwanted consequences of some of these practices, and how the institutional imperative to solicit clear and decisive choice may sometimes succeed only in producing the opposite. [source] Mental Capacity Act 2005 Core Training SetJOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC & MENTAL HEALTH NURSING, Issue 6 2008MARJORIE LLOYD [source] ORIGINAL ARTICLE: A survey of the management of needlestick injuries from incapacitated patients in intensive care units,ANAESTHESIA, Issue 9 2010L. A. Burrows Summary The Human Tissue Act 2004 and Mental Capacity Act 2005 resulted in a change in the management of needlestick injuries sustained from incapacitated patients. It appears unlawful to test for blood-borne viruses without a patient's consent for the sole benefit of the healthcare worker. This survey of intensive care units within England, Wales and Northern Ireland investigated how needlestick injuries from incapacitated patients had been managed within the previous year. Of the 225 intensive care units surveyed, 99 (44%) responded. Sixty-two (62.6%) reported a needlestick injury to a healthcare worker from an incapacitated patient. Thirty-six (64.3%) patients were tested for blood-borne viruses without consent. Sixteen (25.8%) patients tested positive for blood-borne viruses. Only 19 (30.6%) healthcare workers took post-exposure prophylaxis following the injury. These results show that needlestick injuries from incapacitated patients are common and that the majority of patients were tested for blood-borne viruses without consent. [source] Legal dilemmas for clinicians involved in the care and treatment of children and young people with mental disorderCHILD: CARE, HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT, Issue 4 2010M. Bowers Abstract Background The 2008 revised Mental Health Act Code of Practice describes the legal framework governing the admission to hospital and treatment of children and young people for mental disorders as complex. Clinicians are required to be conversant with common law principles as well as the Mental Health Act (MHA), Children Act, Mental Capacity Act (MCA), Family Law Reform Act, Human Rights Act, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Professionals working with the MHA and the MCA have a legal duty to have regard to the respective Codes of Practice (MHA Code and MCA Code). In addition there is a need to keep up-to-date with developments in case law. The recent guidance from the National Institute for Mental Health in England, ,The Legal Aspects of the Care and Treatment of Children and Young People with Mental Disorder' draws all of the legal regimes together and suggests pointers on the most appropriate course of action when the regimes overlap. Discussion This paper will aim to highlight legal dilemmas relating to the care and treatment of under 18-year-olds for mental disorder and to discuss the impact of these on clinical practice. The new legal framework will be discussed with reference to hypothetical cases. Key issues include age and maturity, capacity, deprivation of liberty and the zone of parental control (ZPC). Conclusions It is essential that clinicians are aware of their responsibilities within the new legal framework in order to avoid becoming a target for litigation. This paper is aimed at meeting the recommendation for clinicians to be aware of their responsibilities and engage in appropriate training. [source] | ||||||||||