Up to 75% of UK care home residents may lack the mental capacity to make certain decisions (Wade, Clinical Rehabilitation, 2019, 33, 1561-1570). Care home staff need evidence-based tools to help them assess residents’ mental capacity and provide decision-making support (NICE, Decision-making and mental capacity NICE guideline NG108, 2018). The Mental Capacity Assessment Support Toolkit (MCAST) was designed to support multidisciplinary healthcare staff to prepare, complete and document legally compliant mental capacity assessments. MCAST has not yet been trialled in care homes. This study used a descriptive qualitative design to: (a) understand the current challenges faced by care home staff when supporting residents to make decisions and participate in mental capacity assessments; (b) explore staff members’ support needs in this context and (c) to identify if and how the toolkit could be adapted for use in care homes. A purposive sample of 29 staff working as managers (n = 18), nurses (n = 7) and care assistants (n = 4) across five care homes in North West England participated in five semi-structured focus groups between May and July 2019. Data from the focus group transcripts were analysed thematically (Braun & Clarke, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2006, 3, 77-101). Five main themes were identified: (a) involvement of residents in decision-making; (b) approaches to mental capacity assessment; (c) working with residents with communication difficulties; (d) feelings about practice and (e) responses to MCAST. Participants appeared competent and confident about supporting decision-making and assessing capacity, but recognised the complexity of this area of practice, and identified a need for further support. They reported a range of challenges, including accessing support from speech and language therapists for residents with communication needs. They responded positively to the toolkit and were keen to use it in practice. This study suggests that care home staff would benefit from, and welcome, support to develop their practice. Furthermore, MCAST appears usable in this context and formal feasibility testing is justified.

This study explores the experiences of professionals who worked with care home residents with impaired mental capacity in England and Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic. It explores (i) how competing risks were balanced and (ii) how the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) functioned in care homes under pandemic conditions, with particular focus on its associated Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and Independent Mental Capacity Advocacy (IMCA) systems. Between March and May 2021, an online survey and five focus groups aimed at professionals who worked in or with care homes during the pandemic, were held. The study explored issues pertaining to residents with impaired mental capacity, alongside several other topics on which the authors report elsewhere. For this paper, the researchers filtered data to only include responses from ‘capacity professionals’. The resulting sample comprised 120 (out of 266) survey participants and 18 (out of 22) focus group participants. The researchers performed manifest content analysis on the filtered data and found that (1) participants reported a ‘massive discrepancy’ between the ways different care homes balanced the risk of COVID-19 infection with the risks associated with severe restrictions. (2) Some suggested this was due to vague guidance, as well as care home type and size. Participants told us the pandemic (3) obstructed smooth operation of statutory safeguards designed to protect residents’ human rights and (4) resulted in confusion about the remit of the MCA during a public health crisis. The findings raise concerns about the impact of pandemic-related measures upon care home residents with impaired mental capacity. The researchers urge further exploration and analysis of (a) the variability and inconsistency of restrictions applied at care homes, (b) the strain placed on key safeguards associated with the MCA, (c) uncertainty about the remit of the MCA during a public health crisis and (d) the human rights implications hereof.

Findings of a research project to better understand the knowledge and experience GPs have of advance decisions. Five themes emerged from this study and include: GPs had significant gaps in knowledge about advance decisions and how they can benefit people; GPs imposed a financial barrier by charging for appointments to discuss advance decisions; GPs felt that conversations about death, dying and planning for the end of life would be too upsetting or difficult; GPs had negative preconceptions about refusing treatment; and GPs had practical concerns about the ease and process of supporting a person to make an advance decision.