From research into mental capacity to clinical practice via Parliamentary statute: informing and implementing the Mental Capacity Act 2005 - Holland
Submitting Institution
University of CambridgeUnit of Assessment
Psychology, Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSummary Impact Type
LegalResearch Subject Area(s)
Medical and Health Sciences: Public Health and Health Services
Law and Legal Studies: Other Law and Legal Studies
Summary of the impact
In the context of Law Commission reports on legislation in mental
capacity, in 1999, Tony Holland
published a ground-breaking review on capacity and an empirical study of
the capacity of people
with mental disorders. Through Holland's role as one of two expert
advisers to a Parliamentary
Pre-legislative Scrutiny Committee in 2003, this work directly informed
the Mental Capacity Act
2005 and the Code, both of which remain current. With full implementation
of the Mental Capacity
Act in 2007, Holland's studies from 2008 refined concepts of capacity and
best interests for clinical
practice; and have examined other aspects of the Mental Capacity Act
including advocacy, the
Mental Capacity Act in different clinical settings, and the Deprivation of
Liberty Safeguards.
Underpinning research
Previous studies by the clinico-legal research group led by Holland
(Department of Psychiatry from
1992; and Professor of Learning Disability Psychiatry from 2002) applied
the legal definitions of
mental capacity, as defined in case law and the Mental Capacity Act, to
clinical practice. From
2002 to 2008 his group investigated different decisions in various
settings made by people with
learning disabilities; and those with dementia, schizophrenia or by those
who self-harmed. The
aims were to refine capacity assessment processes, investigate individual
factors associated with
incapacity, and demonstrate how specific strategies could improve
decision-specific capacity.
These projects demonstrated that capacity can reliably be assessed and
strategies developed that
improve a person's capacity to make the decision in question, thereby
directly informing a key
principle enshrined in the Mental Capacity Act — the responsibility to
optimise capacity. Studies
from 2008 extended this work focussing on the concept of `best interest'
in social care settings for
people with learning disability; the development of the Independent Mental
Capacity Advocacy
service; and the Mental Capacity Act in the context of safeguarding
proceedings.
Other studies by Holland's group informed changes in the Mental Health
Act and, as initially
suggested in a conceptual paper by Zigmond and Holland in 2000, proposed
that any future Mental
Health Act should be based on similar principles as the Mental Capacity
Act. In support of this,
they published a comparative study of mental health legislation across
Commonwealth countries
contrasting those findings with the present gold standards of the WHO and
Council of Europe
(Fistein et al, 2009).1 Whilst legislative changes in Northern Ireland
have taken this approach, it
has not been accepted by other UK jurisdictions.
These studies were in collaboration with an academic lawyer (Professor
Michael Gunn,
Nottingham Trent University at that time) ensuring the integration of
legal and clinical concepts and
publication in academic legal and clinical journals.1,2,3,4 This joint
approach was extended to the
most recent study of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) funded
by the Department of
Health, work that forms part of the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in
Applied Health Research
and Care. Since the Mental Capacity Act has been in force it has become
apparent how important
and far reaching this is in both health (such as hospital wards and ITUs5)
and social care
settings.6 In a published ethnographic study by Dunn et al6 the subtle
effects that influence
support workers judgements about `best interests' were demonstrated. Work
led by Holland
recently undertaken by Fistein has also shown similar complex and perhaps
unexpected influences
on Responsible Clinicians and Approved Mental Health Practitioners when
using the Mental Health
Act. Both the Mental Capacity and Mental Health Acts are concerned with
complex ethical and
clinical issues that are central to good clinical practice.
References to the research
1. Fistein, E.C.; Holland, A.J.; and Gunn, M.J. (2009). A comparison of
mental health legislation
from diverse Commonwealth jurisdictions. International Journal of Law
and Psychiatry 32, 147-155
2. Jacob, R., Clare, I.C.H., Holland, A.J., Watson, P.C., Maimaris, C.
and Gunn, M. (2005). Self-harm,
capacity, and refusal of treatment: implications for emergency medical
practice. A
prospective observational study. Emerg. Med. Journal 22:799-802
3. Wong, J.G., Clare, I.C.H., Holland, A.J., Watson, P.C. and Gunn, M.J.
(2000). The capacity of
people with a `mental disability' to make a particular health care
decision. Psychological Medicine
30: 295-306.
4. Wong, J.G., Clare, I.C.H., Gunn, M.J. and Holland, A.J. (1999).
Capacity to make health care
decisions: Its importance in clinical practice. Psychological Medicine,
29 (2): 437-446.
5. Redley, M., Keeley, H., Clare, I.C.H., Hinds. D., Luke, L. and
Holland, A.J (2011). Respecting
patient autonomy: understanding the impact on NHS hospital in-patients of
legislation and
guidance relating to patient capacity and consent. Journal of Health
Services Research and Policy,
16 (1), pp. 13-20.
6. Dunn, M.C., Clare, I.C.H. and Holland, A.J. (2010). `Living a life
like ours': support workers'
accounts of substitute decision-making in residential care homes for
adults with intellectual
disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54, 2,
pp. 144-160.
Details of the impact
In the 1990s, high profile case law and the reports of the Law Commission
highlighted the gap that
existed in English law with respect to substitute decision-making; and
specifically the principles that
should guide when other adults can and should make decisions on behalf of
another and how such
substitute decisions should be made. These issues were illustrated in
cases such as those of Re C
(1993) and Re MB (1997) and also in contentious situations such as
requests to sterilise adults
with learning disabilities (e.g. Re F 1990; and Re A 2000). Holland was
involved in the case of Re
A and also as a psychiatric expert in a particularly high profile case
that highlighted the need for
the additional safeguards in addition to those provided by the Mental
Capacity Act (HL vs. the
United Kingdom 2004 — generally known as the Bournewood case). This case
led to the UK being
found at fault in 2005 by the European Court of Human Rights resulting in
the later introduction of
the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in 2009. Holland's report is quoted
in the 2004 European
Court of Human Rights judgment setting legal precedent in case law that
remains relevant today — see
para A19 of corresponding document in the British and Irish Legal
Information Institute's
database.1 Early in this legal debate his group became
concerned as to how legal principles that
were emerging in case law, and later in draft legislation, would work in
clinical and social care
settings where the issues of competence and capacity are often ambiguous
and not easily defined
with the precision that operates in law. In terms of respect for an
individual's autonomy, Holland
expressed strong support for the Law Commission's ideas on the functional
and decision-specific
concepts of mental capacity, and on the need to optimise capacity where
possible.
Findings from early projects within the research group directly informed
the then Mental Incapacity
Bill through a Joint Houses of Parliament Pre-legislative Scrutiny
Committee from 2003 (chaired by
the late Lord Carter) with Holland appointed as one of two advisors.2
Recommendations that
directly arose from this committee and remain very relevant included
provision for the involvement
of people lacking capacity in research, the need for advocacy in specific
situations, and
refinements about end-of-life decisions. When the Mental Capacity Act was
eventually passed in
2005, Holland submitted evidence to the Department of Constitutional
Affairs with respect to the
Code of Practice, meeting directly and advising the Minister, at that
time, Baroness Ashton.
The way that this research informs policy and practice is perhaps less
direct than in other areas of
clinical research. It is the clarification of key concepts and the
integration of legal, psychiatric and
psychological expertise that Holland's group was able to achieve with
different members (Michael
Gunn, Isabel Clare and Tony Holland; and later Marcus Redley) contributing
to different audiences
informed by the interdisciplinary discussions that had taken place.3,4,5
During the implementation
phase from 2007 Holland was the advisor for the Royal College of
Psychiatrists on the Mental
Capacity Act working, closely with the British Psychological Society to
produce early guidance.6 He
was also on a working group set up by the Intensive Care Society — that
guidance being adopted;
and he was also part of a workshop held by the Office of Fair Trading
(OFT) on the Mental
Capacity Act and banking — guidance later published by the Office of Fair
Trading. As clinical and
forensic psychologist and sociologist in the group, respectively, Isabel
Clare and Marcus Redley
later led a commissioned study on the early Independent Mental Capacity
advocacy service,
reporting directly to Lucy Bonnerjea7 at the Department of
Health. This evidence helped reshape
the Government's ideas on the Independent Mental Capacity advocacy
services and their statutory
role arguing, for example, that these should be available in safeguarding
proceedings (see papers
2008 to 2011). After 2007 when the Mental Capacity Act came into force,
Holland served on an
advisory group for the Social Care Institute for Excellence and, since
2010, has been a member of
a strategy group advising the Office of the Public Guardian.8
Whilst initial publications were primarily in the academic press,
versions were later published in
professional and practice-based journals (see below) and led to guidance
(published by the British
Institute of Learning Disabilities in 2007) on the assessment of financial
decision-making capacity
by people with learning disabilities.9 Once the Mental Capacity
Act came into force in 2007,
Holland was involved, often together with Paul Gantley from the Department
of Health, in
presentations on the Mental Capacity Act to professionals, support
workers, families and user
groups.10 This included Learning Disability Today events (users
with learning disabilities), social
care provider meetings (e.g. Hft,11 a provider for people with
learning disabilities), Royal College of
Psychiatrists conferences, and local clinical groups. Holland prepared two
continuing professional
development on-line training modules for the Royal College of
Psychiatrists in 2007 on the Mental
Capacity Act; these have received very positive feedback, and are still
available. In 2008, Holland
worked with the social care provider Hft to produce a carer/family
friendly DVD on the Mental
Capacity Act sponsored by a grant from the Department of Health; helped
prepare web-based
material for the Prader Willi Syndrome Association (PWSA), also advising
in his capacity as
psychiatric advisor to the Association;12 and as advisor on
ageing and dementia to the Down's
Syndrome Association (DSA).13 Following the Deprivation of
Liberty Standards amendment a
consultation event organised by Holland with the Department of Health in
November 2011 explored
findings with key stakeholders from the Deprivation of Liberty Standards
study. In 2013 the report
from the study was accepted by the Department of Health and has recently
been quoted in
evidence at a House of Lords Committee hearing. Holland and colleagues
have submitted
evidence to this Committee.
Sources to corroborate the impact
- British and Irish Legal Information Institute's database.
http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2004/720.html
- Tony Holland's involvement in the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committee is
a matter of public
record. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt/jtdmi.htm
- Redley, M., Clare, I.C.H., Luke, L. and Holland, A.J. (2010). Mental
Capacity Act (England &
Wales) 2005: The emergent Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA)
service, British
Journal of Social Work, 40 (6), 1812-1828.
- Redley, M., Platten, M., Clare, I. C. H., & Holland, A. J. (2008).
The Involvement of Independent
Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCAs) in Adult Protection Procedures in
England. London: Social
Care Institute for Excellence.
- Clare, ICH, Redley, M., Keeling, A, Wagner, A., Wheeler, J., Holland,
A, and Gunn, M.
Understanding the interface between the Mental Capacity Act- Deprivation
of Liberty Standards
and the Mental Health Act. Department of Health, 2013
- Letter from then Chair Parliamentary Ctte, Royal College of
Psychiatrists
- Letter from National Lead on the MCA, Department of Health.
- Contact; Chief Executive and Public Guardian, Office of the Public
Guardian, Ministry of Justice
- Institute of Learning Disabilities (BILD) Financial decision-making:
guidance for supporting
financial decision-making by people with learning disabilities. http://www.bild.org.uk/our-services/books/practical-support-for-better-lives/financial-decision-making/
- Letter from then Implementation Manager Mental Capacity Act (at
Department of Health 2005-
2011)
-
Letter from Strategic Director of
Innovation, Hft.
- Prader Willi Syndrome Association: http://www.pwsa.co.uk/index.php/what-is-pws/186-publications
- Down's Syndrome Association : http://www.downs-syndrome.org.uk/information/for-familiescarers/adults-18/ageing.html