Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T21:03:10.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing capacity to consent to treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors in dementia using a specific and standardized version of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool (MacCAT-T)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2016

Tanja Mueller ,
Julia Haberstroh ,
Maren Knebel ,
Frank Oswald ,
Roman Kaspar ,
Christoph J. Kemper ,
Petra Halder-Sinn ,
Johannes Schroeder  and
Johannes Pantel
Tanja Mueller*
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Ageing Research, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Goethe University, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, 60629 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Clinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Kurfuerstenstr. 17, 36381 Schluechtern, Germany
Julia Haberstroh
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Ageing Research, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Goethe University, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, 60629 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Institute of General Practice, Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany
Maren Knebel
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Ageing Research, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Goethe University, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, 60629 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Section of Geriatric Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, University of Heidelberg, Voßstr.4, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany
Frank Oswald
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Ageing Research, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Goethe University, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, 60629 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Roman Kaspar
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Ageing Research, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Goethe University, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, 60629 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Christoph J. Kemper
Affiliation:
Institute of Cognitive Science and Assessment (COSA), University of Luxembourg, 11, Porte de Sciences, 4366 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
Petra Halder-Sinn
Affiliation:
Justus-Liebig University Gießen, Otto-Behagel-Straße 10/F, 35394 Gießen, Germany
Johannes Schroeder
Affiliation:
Section of Geriatric Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, University of Heidelberg, Voßstr.4, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany
Johannes Pantel
Affiliation:
Institute of General Practice, Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Tanja Mueller, Interdisciplinary Ageing Research, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Goethe University, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, 60629 Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Phone: +49 (0)69 798 36393. Email: Tanja.Mueller@em.uni-frankfurt.de.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

The use of assessment tools has been shown to improve the inter-rater reliability of capacity assessments. However, instrument-based capacity assessments of people with dementia face challenges. In dementia research, measuring capacity with instruments like the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T) mostly employ hypothetical treatment vignettes that can overwhelm the abstraction capabilities of people with dementia and are thus not always suitable for this target group. The primary aim of this study was to provide a standardized real informed consent paradigm that enables the dementia-specific properties of capacity to consent to treatment in people with dementia to be identified in a real informed consent process that is both externally valid and ethically justifiable.

Methods:

The sample consisted of 53 people with mild to moderate dementia and a group of 133 people without cognitive impairment. Rather than using a hypothetical treatment vignette, we used a standardized version of the MacCAT-T to assess capacity to consent to treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors in people with dementia. Inter-rater reliability, item statistics, and psychometric properties were also investigated.

Results:

Intraclass correlations (ICCs) (0.951–0.990) indicated high inter-rater reliability of the standardized real informed consent paradigm. In the dementia group, performance on different items of the MacCAT-T varied. Most people with dementia were able to express a treatment choice, and were aware of the need to take a tablet. Further information on the course of the disorder and the benefits and risks of the treatment were less understood, as was comparative reasoning regarding treatment alternatives.

Conclusion:

The standardized real informed consent paradigm enabled us to detect dementia-specific characteristics of patients’ capacity to consent to treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors. In order to determine suitable enhanced consent procedures for this treatment, we recommend the consideration of MacCAT-T results on an item level. People with dementia seem to understand only basic information. Our data indicate that one useful strategy to enhance capacity to consent is to reduce attention and memory demands as far as possible.

Keywords

decision-making capacitycapacity to consent to treatmentMacCAT-Tcholinesterase inhibitorsdementia
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , February 2017 , pp. 333 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Appelbaum, P. S. (2007). Assessment of patients' competence to consent to treatment. The New England Journal of Medicine, 357, 1834–1840. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp074045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appelbaum, P. S. (2010). Consent in impaired populations. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 10, 367–373. doi: 10.1007/s11910-010-0123-5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barth, S., Schönknecht, P., Pantel, J. and Schroeder, J. (2005). Neuropsychologische profile in der demenzdiagnostik: eine untersuchung mit der CERAD-NP-testbatterie [Mild cognitive impairment and alzheimer's disease: an investigation of the CERAD-NP test battery]. Fortschritte der Neurologie – Psychiatrie, 73, 1–9. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-830249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dos Santos, V., Thomann, P. A., Wüstenberg, T., Seidl, U., Essig, M. and Schroeder, J. (2011). Morphological cerebral correlates of CERAD test performance in mild cognitive impairment and alzheimer's disease. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 23, 411–420. doi: 10.3233/JAD-2010-100156.Google Scholar
Felnhofer, A., Kothgassner, O. D. and Kryspin-Exner, I. (2013). Einwilligungsfähigkeit bei Demenz: Sensitivität des MMST in einer hypothetischen Einwilligungssituation und spezifische kognitive Korrelate [Consent capacity in dementia: sensitivity of MMSE in a hypothetical consent situation and specific cognitive correlates]. Zeitschrift für Neuropsychologie, 24, 267–275. doi: 10.1024/1016-264X/a000106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folstein, M., Folstein, S. and McHugh, P. (1975). Mini-mental state: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.Google Scholar
Grisso, T. and Appelbaum, P. S. (1998a). Assessing Competence to Consent to Treatment. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grisso, T. and Appelbaum, P. S. (1998b). MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T). Sarasota: Professional Resource Press.Google Scholar
Grisso, T., Appelbaum, P. S. and Hill-Fotouhi, C. (1997). The MacCAT-T: a clinical tool to assess patients’ capacities to make treatment decisions. Psychiatric Services, 48, 1415–1419.Google Scholar
Gurrera, R. J., Moye, J., Karel, M. J., Azar, A. R. and Armesto, J. C. (2006). Cognitive performance predicts treatment decisional abilities in mild to moderate dementia. Neurology, 66, 1367–1372. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000210527.13661.d1.Google Scholar
Haberstroh, J. (2015). Autonomy and capacity to consent in dementia. Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, 28, 5–6. doi: 10.1024/1662-9647/a000116.Google Scholar
Haberstroh, J., Mueller, T., Knebel, M., Kaspar, R., Oswald, F. and Pantel, J. (2014). Can the mini-mental state examination predict capacity to consent to treatment?. The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, 27, 151–159. doi: 10.1024/1662-9647/a000113.Google Scholar
Hermann, H., Trachsel, M., Mitchell, C. and Biller-Andorno, N. (2014). Medical decision-making capacity: knowledge, attitudes, and assessment practices of physicians in Switzerland. Swiss Medical Weekly online. doi: 10.4414/smw2014.14039.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karlawish, J. H. T., Casarett, D. J., James, B. D., Xie, S. X. and Kim, S. Y. H. (2005). The ability of persons with Alzheimer disease (AD) to make a decision about taking an AD treatment. Neurology, 64, 1514–1519. doi: 10.1212/01.WNL.0000160000.01742.9D.Google Scholar
Kim, S. Y. H. (2010). Evaluation of Capacity to Consent to Treatment and Research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lamont, S., Jeon, Y.-H. and Chiarella, M. (2013). Assessing patient capacity to consent to treatment: an integrative review of instruments and tools. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 22, 2387–2403. doi: 10.1111/jocn.12215.Google Scholar
Lui, V. W. C. et al. (2009). Capacity to make treatment decisions in Chinese older persons with very mild dementia and Alzheimer disease. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17, 428–436.Google Scholar
Lui, V. W. et al. (2012). Capacity to make decisions on medication management in Chinese older persons with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer's disease. International Psychogeriatrics, 24, 1103–1111. doi: 10.1017/S1041610212000129.Google Scholar
Marson, D. C., Chatterjee, A., Ingram, K. K. and Harell, L. E. (1996). Toward a neurologic model of competency: cognitive predictors of capacity to consent in Alzheimer's disease using three different legal standards. Neurology, 46, 666–672.Google Scholar
Marson, D. C., Hawkins, L., McInturff, B. and Harrell, L. E. (1997a). Cognitive models that predict physician judgments of capacity to consent in mild alzheimer's disease. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 45, 458–464.Google Scholar
Marson, D. C., McInturff, B., Hawkins, L., Bartolucci, A. and Harrell, L. E. (1997b). Consistency of physician judgments of capacity to consent in mild Alzheimer's disease. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 45, 453–457.Google Scholar
Marson, D. C., Schmitt, F. A., Frederick, A., Ingram, K. K. and Harrel, L. E. (1994). Determining the competency of Alzheimer patients to consent to treatment and research. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 8, 5–18.Google Scholar
Mental Capacity Act (2005). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/497253/Mental-capacity-act-code-of-practice.pdf; last accessed 1 June 2016.Google Scholar
Montgomery vs Lanarkshire (2015). UKSC 11. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0136-judgment.pdf; last accessed 1 June 2016.Google Scholar
Moye, J., Gurrera, R. J., Karel, M. J., Edelstein, B. and O'Connell, C. (2006). Empirical advances in the assessment of the capacity to consent to medical treatment: clinical implications and research needs. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 1054–77.Google Scholar
Moye, J., Karel, M. J., Edelstein, B., Hicken, B., Armesto, J. C. and Gurrera, R. J. (2007). Assessment of capacity to consent to treatment: challenges, the “ACCT” approach, future directions. Clinical Gerontologist, 31, 37–66. doi: 10.1080/07317110802072140.Google Scholar
Moye, J., Karel, M. J., Gurrera, R. J. and Azar, R. A. (2006). Neuropsychological predictors of decision-making capacity over 9 months in mild-to-moderate dementia. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21, 78–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00288.x.Google Scholar
Moye, J., Marson, D. C. and Edelstein, B. (2013). Assessment of capacity in an aging society. American Psychologist, 68, 158–171. doi: 10.1037/a0032159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, T. et al. (2015). Comparision of three different assessments of capacity to consent in dementia patients. The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, 28, 21–29. doi: 10.1024/1662-9647/a000119.Google Scholar
Mullaly, E. et al. (2007). Assessment of decision-making capacity: exploration of common practices among neuropsychologists. Australian Psychologist, 42, 178–186. doi: 10.1080/00050060601187142.Google Scholar
Owen, G. S. et al. (2009). Mental capacity and psychiatric in-patients: implications for the new mental health law in England and Wales. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 195, 257–263. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.059782.Google Scholar
Palmer, B. W. (2007). Assessment of Decisional Capacity. Psychiatric Times. Available at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/assessment-decisional-capacity; last accessed 15 May 2016.Google Scholar
Palmer, B. W. and Savla, G. N. (2007). The association of specific neuropsychological deficits with capacity to consent to research and treatment. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 13, 1047–1059. doi: 10.1017/S1355617707071299.Google Scholar
Reisberg, B., Ferris, S. H., de Leon, M. J. and Crook, T. (1988). The global deterioration scale (GDS). Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 24, 661–663.Google Scholar
Tombaugh, T. N. (2004). Trail making test a and b: normative data stratified by age and education. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 203–214. doi: 10.1016/S0887-6177(03)00039-8.Google Scholar
Vollmann, J. (2008). Patientenselbstbestimmung und Selbstbestimmungsfähigkeit: Beiträge zur klinischen Ethik [Patient autonomy and capacity to consent: contributions to medical ethics]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. doi: 10.1007/s00481-009-0042-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vollmann, J., Bauer, A., Danker-Hopfe, H. and Helmchen, H. (2003). Competence of mentally ill patients: a comparative empirical study. Psychological Medicine, 33, 1463–1471. doi: 10.1017/S0033291703008389.Google Scholar
Welsh, K. A. et al. (1994). The consortium to establish a registry for Alzheimer's disease (CERAD). Part V. A normative study of the neuropsychological battery. Neurology, 44, 609–614. doi: 10.1212/WNL.44.4.609.Google Scholar