Assessment of the capacity to consent to treatment in patients admitted to acute medical wards

BACKGROUND: Assessment of capacity to consent to treatment is an important legal and ethical issue in daily medical practice. In this study we carefully evaluated the capacity to consent to treatment in patients admitted to an acute medical ward using an assessment by members of the medical team, the specific Silberfeld's score, the MMSE and an assessment by a senior psychiatrist. METHODS: Over a 3 month period, 195 consecutive patients of an internal medicine ward in a university hospital were included and their capacity to consent was evaluated within 72 hours of admission. RESULTS: Among the 195 patients, 38 were incapable of consenting to treatment (unconscious patients or severe cognitive impairment) and 14 were considered as incapable of consenting by the psychiatrist (prevalence of incapacity to consent of 26.7%). Agreement between the psychiatrist's evaluation and the Silberfeld questionnaire was poor (sensitivity 35.7%, specificity 91.6%). Experienced clinicians showed a higher agreement (sensitivity 57.1%, specificity 96.5%). A decision shared by residents, chief residents and nurses was the best predictor for agreement with the psychiatric assessment (sensitivity 78.6%, specificity 94.3%). CONCLUSION: Prevalence of incapacity to consent to treatment in patients admitted to an acute internal medicine ward is high. While the standardized Silberfeld questionnaire and the MMSE are not appropriate for the evaluation of the capacity to consent in this setting, an assessment by the multidisciplinary medical team concurs with the evaluation by a senior psychiatrist

Assessment of Patient Capacity to Consent to Treatment

OBJECTIVE: To compare results of a specific capacity assessment administered by the treating clinician, and a Standardized Mini-Mental Status Examination (SMMSE), with the results of expert assessments of patient capacity to consent to treatment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with independent comparison to expert capacity assessments. SETTING: Inpatient medical wards at an academic secondary and tertiary referral hospital. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred consecutive inpatients facing a decision about a major medical treatment or an invasive medical procedure. Participants either were refusing treatment, or were accepting treatment but were not clearly capable according to the treating clinician. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The treating clinician (medical resident or student) conducted a specific capacity assessment on each participant, using a decisional aid called the Aid to Capacity Evaluation. A specific capacity assessment is a semistructured evaluation of the participant’s ability to understand relevant information and appreciate reasonably foreseeable consequences with regard to the specific treatment decision. Participants also received a SMMSE administered by a research nurse. Participants then had two independent expert assessments of capacity. If the two expert assessments disagreed, then an independent adjudication panel resolved the disagreement after reviewing videotapes of both expert assessments. Using the two expert assessments and the adjudication panel as the reference standard, we calculated areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves and likelihood ratios. The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves were 0.90 for specific capacity assessment by treating clinician and 0.93 for SMMSE score (2p = .48). For the treating clinician’s specific capacity assessment, likelihood ratios for detecting incapacity were as follows: definitely incapable, 20 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6, 120); probably incapable, 6.1 (95% CI 2.6, 15); probably capable, 0.39 (95% CI 0.18, 0.81); and definitely capable, 0.05 (95% CI 0.01, 0.29). For the SMMSE, a score of 0 to 16 had a likelihood ratio of 15 (95% CI 5.3, 44), a score of 17 to 23 had a likelihood ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.35, 1.2), and a score of 24 to 30 had a likelihood ratio of 0.05 (95% CI 0.01, 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Specific capacity assessments by the treating clinician and SMMSE scores agree closely with results of expert assessments of capacity. Clinicians can use these practical, flexible, and evaluated measures as the initial step in the assessment of patient capacity to consent to treatment

The Kai-protein clock-keeping track of Cyanobacteria's daily life

Life has adapted to Earth's day-night cycle with the evolution of endogenous biological clocks. Whereas these circadian rhythms typically involve extensive transcription-translation feedback in higher organisms, cyanobacteria have a circadian clock, which functions primarily as a protein-based post-translational oscillator. Known as the Kai system, it consists of three proteins KaiA, KaiB, and KaiC. In this chapter, we provide a detailed structural overview of the Kai components and how they interact to produce circadian rhythms of global gene expression in cyanobacterial cells. We discuss how the circadian oscillation is coupled to gene expression, intertwined with transcription-translation feedback mechanisms, and entrained by input from the environment. We discuss the use of mathematical models and summarize insights into the cyanobacterial circadian clock from theoretical studies. The molecular details of the Kai system are well documented for the model cyanobacterium Synechococcus elongatus, but many less understood varieties of the Kai system exist across the highly diverse phylum of Cyanobacteria. Several species contain multiple kai-gene copies, while others like marine Prochlorococcus strains have a reduced kaiBC-only system, lacking kaiA. We highlight recent findings on the genomic distribution of kai genes in Bacteria and Archaea and finally discuss hypotheses on the evolution of the Kai system