In previous blogs, we have explored some of the many different elements required to assess mental capacity for a specific decision. This brings us then to the two stage test, which is composed of the functional and diagnostic steps that are then bound together as part of the causative nexus (the justifiable link).
The way professionals document mental capacity tests can vary greatly across the health and care sectors. In some cases, professionals are not yet using the updated assessment format of Functional and then Diagnostic. More worrying still is that in some cases it’s not just the documentation format that varies, but the quality of the content that is recorded.
In this blog, we examine two example assessments, using the case of Dylan to show the impact documentation can have on the outcomes of an assessment.
Mental capacity to litigate refers to an individual’s ability to follow, understand and engage with litigation proceedings. This includes the process of conducting affairs through a solicitor.
The causative nexus is an essential part of any mental capacity assessment as it provides a clear rationale for whether the person being assessed has capacity to make a specific decision.
Mental Capacity can be impacted by an impairment or disturbance of the brain that directly affects cognitive functioning. In today’s blog we look at a selection of short-term and long-term conditions that can be a direct factor.
There are several terms that are used to describe the process of determining a person’s mental capacity. Is it a Mental Capacity Test, or a Mental Capacity Assessment? In this blog, we explore some of the language around the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and how it applies in practice.
There is surprisingly little information available on precisely how to complete a Mental Capacity Assessment. Having attended many courses on Mental Capacity in my time, it still surprises me just how many courses fail to set out what to ask, how much to record, what information is relevant and what to do next.