TY - JOUR T1 - Mental capacity assessment: a descriptive, cross-sectional study of what doctors think, know and do JF - Journal of Medical Ethics JO - J Med Ethics SP - e6 LP - e6 DO - 10.1136/medethics-2019-105819 VL - 47 IS - 12 AU - Dexter Penn AU - Anne Lanceley AU - Aviva Petrie AU - Jacqueline Nicholls Y1 - 2021/12/01 UR - http://jme.bmj.com/content/47/12/e6.abstract N2 - Background The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) (2005) was enacted in 2007 in England and Wales, but the assessment of mental capacity still remains an area of professional concern. Doctors’ compliance with legal and professional standards is inconsistent, but the reasons for poor compliance are not well understood. This preliminary study investigates doctors’ experiences of and attitudes toward mental capacity assessment (MCAx).Methods This is a descriptive, cross-sectional study where a two-domain, study-specific structured questionnaire was developed, piloted and digitally disseminated to doctors at differing career stages employed in a large, multi-site National Health Service Trust in London over 4 months in 2018. Descriptive statistics and frequency tables adjusted for missing data were generated and secondary analysis was conducted.Results Participants (n=92) were predominantly UK trained (82%), female (58%) and between the ages of 30 and 44 years (45%). Less than half (45%) of the participants reported receiving formal MCAx training. Only one-third (32%) of the participants self-rated themselves as very competent (29%) or extremely competent (4%). Self-reported MCA confidence was significantly affected by career stage with Consultants with over 10 years of experience reporting lowest confidence (p=0.001).Conclusions This study describes significant variation in practice by doctors and low self-confidence in the practice of MCAx. These results raise concerns that MCAx continues to be inconsistently performed by doctors despite appropriate awareness of the law and professional guidance on best practice.All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. ER -