↓ Skip to main content

The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015: what it is and why it matters

Overview of attention for article published in Irish Journal of Medical Science, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015: what it is and why it matters
Published in
Irish Journal of Medical Science, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11845-016-1443-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. D. Kelly

Abstract

Ireland's Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 was signed by President Higgins in December 2015 and scheduled for commencement in 2016. To explore the content and implications of the 2015 Act. Review of the 2015 Act and related literature. The 2015 Act places the "will and preferences" of persons with impaired mental capacity at the heart of decision-making relating to "personal welfare" (including healthcare) and "property and affairs". Capacity is to be "construed functionally" and interventions must be "for the benefit of the relevant person". The Act outlines three levels of decision-making assistance: "decision-making assistant", "co-decision-maker" (joint decision-maker) and "decision-making representative" (substitute decision-maker). There are procedures relating to "enduring power of attorney" and "advance healthcare directives"; in the case of the latter, a "refusal of treatment" can be legally binding, while a "request for a specific treatment" must "be taken into consideration". The 2015 Act is considerably more workable than the 2013 Bill that preceded it. Key challenges include the subtle decision-making required by patients, healthcare staff, Circuit Court judges and the director of the Decision Support Service; implementation of "advance healthcare directives", especially if they do not form part of a broader model of advance care planning (incorporating the flexibility required for unpredictable future circumstances); and the over-arching issue of logistics, as very many healthcare decisions are currently made in situations where the patient's capacity is impaired. A key challenge will lie in balancing the emphasis on autonomy with principles of beneficence, mutuality and care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 20%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 16 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 12%
Psychology 5 10%
Engineering 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 19 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,525,776
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Irish Journal of Medical Science
#988
of 1,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,809
of 299,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Irish Journal of Medical Science
#22
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,412 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,734 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.