Flexibility and Innovation in Decisional Capacity Assessment.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q1 LAW
Jacob M Appel
{"title":"Flexibility and Innovation in Decisional Capacity Assessment.","authors":"Jacob M Appel","doi":"10.29158/JAAPL.240087-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since the 1980s, the four skills criteria have become the most widely accepted mechanism for the assessment of decisional capacity in the United States. These criteria emerged in response to the paternalistic approach to clinical decision-making that had been widely accepted in an earlier era and offered a means of ensuring that physicians honored the rights of capacitated patients to make their own medical decisions. Unfortunately, the criteria are now applied to situations for which they are not suited and in a manner that is often highly inflexible. In an article in this issue of The Journal, Matthew Dernbach and colleagues describe one potential scenario that requires a flexible approach to using the four skills model: situations in which a patient stands at high risk of losing decisional capacity in the near future. Using Dernbach <i>et al.</i> as a starting point, this article offers specific ways in which the four skills model can be improved upon or augmented without abandoning its key principles. These advances include adjusting to empirical evidence, re-emphasizing the importance of autonomy maximization and restorability, and embracing novel conceptual and technological innovations.</p>","PeriodicalId":47554,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.240087-24","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the 1980s, the four skills criteria have become the most widely accepted mechanism for the assessment of decisional capacity in the United States. These criteria emerged in response to the paternalistic approach to clinical decision-making that had been widely accepted in an earlier era and offered a means of ensuring that physicians honored the rights of capacitated patients to make their own medical decisions. Unfortunately, the criteria are now applied to situations for which they are not suited and in a manner that is often highly inflexible. In an article in this issue of The Journal, Matthew Dernbach and colleagues describe one potential scenario that requires a flexible approach to using the four skills model: situations in which a patient stands at high risk of losing decisional capacity in the near future. Using Dernbach et al. as a starting point, this article offers specific ways in which the four skills model can be improved upon or augmented without abandoning its key principles. These advances include adjusting to empirical evidence, re-emphasizing the importance of autonomy maximization and restorability, and embracing novel conceptual and technological innovations.

决策能力评估的灵活性和创新性。
自 20 世纪 80 年代以来,四项技能标准已成为美国最广为接受的决策能力评估机制。这些标准的出现是为了回应早先被广泛接受的家长式临床决策方法,并提供了一种确保医生尊重有行为能力的病人自己做出医疗决定的权利的方法。遗憾的是,现在这些标准被应用于不适合的情况,而且应用方式往往非常不灵活。在本期期刊的一篇文章中,马修-德恩巴赫(Matthew Dernbach)及其同事描述了一种需要灵活使用四种技能模型的潜在情况:患者在不久的将来很有可能丧失决策能力。本文以 Dernbach 等人的研究为起点,提出了在不放弃四项技能模型主要原则的前提下改进或增强该模型的具体方法。这些进步包括根据经验证据进行调整,再次强调自主权最大化和可恢复性的重要性,以及接受新的概念和技术创新。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
29.60%
发文量
92
期刊介绍: The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL, pronounced "apple") is an organization of psychiatrists dedicated to excellence in practice, teaching, and research in forensic psychiatry. Founded in 1969, AAPL currently has more than 1,500 members in North America and around the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信