Old Blog Post on Decisional Capacity Assessment

I just found a blog post I wrote about assessing decisional capacity. It’s over 13 years old and you can tell I was a little frustrated when I wrote it. It was back in the days when consulting psychiatrists were called psychosomatic medicine specialists. Here’s to another blast from the past.

Blog from 2011: Thoughts on Assessment of Medical Decision-Making Capacity

Listen very carefully to what I’m about to say. A patient’s ability to make decisions about her medical or surgical treatment does not depend on knowing her surgeon’s name.

Let me put it differently. Simply because you can recall your surgeon’s name doesn’t mean you have the decisional capacity to give or not give informed consent to have surgery.

If that’s too obvious to most of you, then maybe I can stop worrying that it isn’t to so many doctors, who sometimes misunderstand or are simply unaware of the basic principles of assessing decisional capacity regarding medical treatment. Believe it or not, some physicians actually believe the above is part of an adequate decisional capacity assessment.

Psychosomaticists are frequently called to assess decisional capacity to participate in the informed consent discussions that are such an important part of the doctor-patient relationship today.  Many non-psychiatric doctors simply don’t feel confident that they can do it themselves. And when they try, their description of the process often indicates an alarming deficit in their medical school education about this basic skill.

In order to give informed consent, you need to have enough information from your doctor, be able to voluntarily make a decision without undue pressure from others (including your doctors), and be competent to decide. Exceptions to obtaining informed consent include but are not limited to “incompetence” (the inability to decide) and medical emergencies.

In a nutshell, the basic elements of assessing decisional capacity are:

  1. Any physician can do it; a psychiatric consultation is not obligatory though it may be helpful in difficult cases in which delirium or other mental illness may be substantially interfering with decision-making.
  2. The patient’s ability to understand her medical condition and the risks and benefits of the main and alternative medical interventions proposed as treatment.
  3. The patient’s appreciation of the nature of her medical condition and the potential consequences of the treatment options or no treatment in the context of her values and wishes.
  4. The patient’s ability to reason through her choices regarding treatment.
  5. The patient’s ability to express a choice.

Notice that nowhere in the above list is recall of the surgeon’s name even mentioned. Remembering your surgeon’s name may be flattering but it’s not essential to the assessment of decisional capacity.

There are several reasons to assess decisional capacity including but not limited to an abrupt change in the patient’s mental status. This is commonly caused by delirium, which by definition is an abrupt change in affect, cognition, and behavior that fluctuates and is by definition related to medical causes.

Any physician can conduct a decisional capacity evaluation, yet a psychiatric evaluation is frequently requested.  The reason for that may arise from the assumption that the Psychosomaticist is a sort of “informed consent technician”[1]:

  1. “Efficiency model” scenario
    1. Incompetence is presumed.
    1. Psychiatric consultant is expected to remove legal barriers expeditiously to obtain a surrogate decision maker.
  2. “Pseudoconsultation” scenario
    1. Consultation requestor lacks the patience, interest, or time to do an assessment.
  3. “Persuasion” scenario
    1. Psychiatric consultant is expected to persuade the patient to reverse his refusal of needed treatment.
  4. “Protection” scenario
    1. Psychiatric consultant is expected to provide documentation to protect against potential litigation.
  5. “Punishment” scenario
    1. Stigma associated with psychiatric evaluation is used unconsciously to punish treatment refusal behavior.

In all fairness, psychiatrists are sometimes just as guilty of this buck-passing; for example, when we request a cardiology consultation to “medically clear” a patient for electroconvulsive therapy to treat life-threatening depression.

In an ideal world, a decisional capacity evaluation would be requested in and accepted in “the true spirit of dialogue as the result of a genuine evaluation of the patient’s mental state as a whole”[1].

We don’t live in an ideal world. So when a doctor is truly stuck and needs help with decisional capacity evaluations, she can confidently call a practical Psychosomaticist in the true spirit of collaboration as a result of the genuine appreciation of the importance of the patient’s medical and psychiatric care as a whole.

1.            Zaubler, T.S., M. Viederman, and J.J. Fins, Ethical, legal, and psychiatric issues in capacity, competency, and informed consent: an annotated bibliography. Gen Hosp Psychiatry, 1996. 18(3): p. 155-72.

My Two Cents on the Involuntary Treatment of Tuberculosis and Psychiatric Illness

By now many of us have seen the news headline about the person in Washington state who was arrested and sent to jail for noncompliance with a court order for treatment of tuberculosis. This led to my searching the literature about the connection between court-ordered treatment for psychiatric illness and court-ordered treatment for tuberculosis in Iowa. I’m not assuming that the person who is the subject of the news story has psychiatric illness.

I’m a retired consultation-liaison psychiatrist and the issue of how to respond to patients who refuse treatment for tuberculosis arose maybe once in my career. When the Covid-19 pandemic began a few years ago, I thought of the Iowa code regarding involuntary quarantine of patients infected with Covid-19 infection. I thought it was a situation similar to that of persons infected with tuberculosis. That was an issue for the hospital critical incident management team to deal with.

I found an article relevant to both internal medicine and psychiatry. It is entitled “Can Psychiatry Learn from Tuberculosis Treatment?” It was written by E. Fuller Torrey, MD and Judy Miller, BA and published in Psychiatric Services in 1999. The authors point to the directly observed therapy (DOT) programs in place in several states, including Iowa. Such programs can include positive reinforcement incentives such as fast-food vouchers and food supplements, movie passes and more. They credit the New York experience using DOT with reducing the tuberculosis rate by 55%.

Torrey and Miller point out that many psychiatric treatment programs didn’t offer as many incentives as DOT programs for treatment of tuberculosis. They also say that a “credible threat of involuntary treatment, essential for the success of DOT” often is absent from psychiatric programs.

I was puzzled by their view because of what I saw from our own integrated multidisciplinary program of assertive community treatment (IMPACT) at The University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics, which started well before they wrote the article. My impression is that it has been very successful. The Iowa Code covers the role of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization in the event of noncompliance as a result of uncontrolled psychiatric symptoms leading to danger to self or others or inability to provide for basic self-care needs.

On the other hand, because of my background in consultation-liaison psychiatry, I wondered about how we might treat someone with both tuberculosis and severe psychiatric illness, the latter of which could make treatment of the former difficult or even impossible.

We can use long-acting injectable antipsychotics to treat those with chronic schizophrenia. They’re not uniformly effective, but they play an important role in acute and maintenance therapy.

But I also forgot about how tuberculosis treatment could be administered to those unwilling to take it voluntarily. I rediscovered that tuberculosis treatment can be given by injection, if necessary, although it’s usually intended for treatment-resistant disease. On the other hand, scientists created a long-acting injectable drug for tuberculosis which was effective in animal studies and which could be a delivery system for non-adherent patients.

And I thought about who would be the responsible authority for administering tuberculosis medications on an involuntary basis. It’s not psychiatrists. It turns out that in most states, including Iowa, the local public health officer is in charge. The CDC has a web page outlining suggested provisions for state tuberculosis prevention and treatment.

Patients with tuberculosis who refuse treatment can be confined to a facility, although it’s not always clear what that facility ought to be. Certainly, I would be concerned about whether a jail would be the best choice.

I don’t have a clear answer for an alternative to incarceration. Would a hospital be better? General hospitals are not secure and there would not be an ideal way to prevent the patient from simply walking away from a general hospital ward. If the patient has a comorbid severe psychiatric illness that interferes with the ability to cooperate with tuberculosis treatment, then maybe a locked combined medical-psychiatric unit (MPU) would be the better choice. Arguably, while an MPU might not be the best use of this scare resource, it’s probably more likely to have a negative pressure isolation room for a patient with both tuberculosis and psychiatric illness. I co-attended with internal medicine staff on The University of Iowa Hospital’s MPU for many years. There are rigorous criteria for establishing such units. The best expert in integrated health care systems I know of would be a former teacher and colleague of mine, Roger Kathol, MD. He is currently the head of Cartesian Solutions.

I’m aware that just because someone refuses treatment for tuberculosis doesn’t necessarily mean a psychiatric illness is present. The critical issue then could become whether or not the patient has the decisional capacity to refuse medical treatment. The usual procedure for checking that would include assessing understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and the ability to make a choice. You don’t necessarily need a psychiatrist to do that. Further, there are nuances and recent changes in the decisional capacity assessment that can make the process more complicated. The New York Times article published in early May of this year, entitled, “A Story of Dementia: The Mother Who Changed,” makes that point based on a real-life case in Iowa, involving psychiatrists at The University of Iowa.

It occurs to me, though, that just because a person is able to pass a decisional capacity assessment doesn’t necessarily make a decision to refuse tuberculosis treatment OK. Letting someone expose others to infection when effective treatment is available doesn’t sound reasonable or safe.

That’s my two cents.

Quenard F, Fournier PE, Drancourt M, Brouqui P. Role of second-line injectable antituberculosis drugs in the treatment of MDR/XDR tuberculosis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017 Aug;50(2):252-254. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.01.042. Epub 2017 Jun 5. PMID: 28595939.