Safe Practice for Better Healthcare: Consent, Capacity and Professional Boundaries

Consent and Legal Framework

• Consent is fundamental to all healthcare interactions and is increasingly a collaborative process focused on patient autonomy.
• Types include implied, explicit (verbal), and informed consent.
• Written consent is generally required for high-risk or invasive procedures, such as surgery.
• Key legal cases, such as Montgomery v. Lanarkshire (2015), established that clinicians must inform patients of “material risks” that a reasonable person or the individual patient would consider significant.
• Consent must be voluntary, informed, and is a continuous process rather than a single event.
• Failure to obtain proper consent can lead to legal accusations of battery or clinical negligence.

Capacity and Vulnerable Populations

• Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (England and Wales), individuals are presumed to have capacity unless proven otherwise.
• The capacity test is two-fold: a diagnostic test (impairment of mind/brain) and a functional test (ability to understand, retain, weigh, and communicate information).
• Capacity is decision-specific and time-specific.
• For patients lacking capacity, clinicians must act in their “best interests,” considering past wishes, values, and consulting with family or legal proxies like Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA).
• In children, individuals aged 16-17 are generally presumed to have capacity, while those under 16 may be “Gillick competent” if they show sufficient maturity and understanding.

Professional Boundaries and Digital Risks

• Boundaries are essential for maintaining professional trust and preventing conflicts of interest.
• Risks include romantic relationships with patients, “corridor consultations,” gift-giving, and inappropriate self-disclosure.
• Clinicians should separate personal and professional social media accounts and avoid sharing identifiable patient information on public platforms.
• Digital consent (e.g., electronic forms or video consultations) offers efficiency but presents risks like the “digital divide” and potential for information overload.
• A case study highlighted the risk of receiving inappropriate patient images (e.g., an image of a child’s rash that includes genitalia) via electronic consultation systems, emphasizing the need for clear instructions to patients on what not to send.

Emergency Situations and Restraint

• In genuine emergencies where a patient lacks capacity, clinicians should act immediately in their best interests to preserve life or prevent serious harm, documenting the rationale afterward.
• Restraint (physical, mechanical, chemical, or seclusion) should be a last resort, used only when necessary and proportionate to the risk of harm.
• All episodes of restraint must be documented and reported for transparency.

If you are a MDS member and would like to view a recording, get in touch at [email protected].