Developing and piloting the Consumer Experience of Capacity Assessment Tool (CECAT)

Abstract

Autonomy in personal decision-making (DM) is a fundamental human right. Yet, DM can be impaired for many reasons, including poor health. If impairments are suspected, they may be formally investigated via a capacity assessment. The ‘consumer’ experience of such assessments is largely unexplored. The Consumer Experience of Capacity Assessment Tool (CECAT) was developed to address this gap. Fifteen individuals pilot tested the CECAT. The CECAT was found to be quick to complete, and easily understood. The results showed a wide range of perceptions about capacity assessment and suggestions for improvement (e.g., better communication to consumers about what to expect). With further development, the CECAT could be adopted as a standardised method for understanding the consumer experience of capacity assessment. This perspective could then be integrated into future capacity assessment guidelines so that appropriate human rights-based approaches are incorporated into capacity assessments.

Keywords:

• Ageing
• competence
• consumers
• decision-making
• human rights
• legal capacity
• mental capacity
• older persons

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Karen Sullivan has declared no conflicts of interest.

Kelly Purser has declared no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee QUT Human Research [ethics committee] and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Health and safety

All mandatory health and safety procedures have been complied with in the course of conducting this study.

Acknowlegements

This project received financial support from the Australian Centre for Health Law Research (QUT) and the Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation (QUT). The contribution of Ms Rebecca Cox (Research Assistant) and the participants is gratefully acknowledged.

Notes

1 For example, costs to an individual might be incurred if they anticipate a future challenge to a will on the grounds of incapacity. In such circumstances, the testator may seek an independent opinion about their capacity just before they make or change their will (e.g. assessment of current health and/or cognitive status).

2 This respondent set a work colleague’s duties (e.g. as their supervisor/manager).