E-learning package on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for junior doctors and medical students

Abstract

Aims and methodThe assessment of capacity is integral to all areas of medical practice; however, research has shown that doctors in many specialties have inadequate knowledge about both the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act. In this study, 39 trainee doctors and 49 fourth-year medical students completed an e-learning package, which included a pre- and post-evaluation of knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and confidence in the use of this act.ResultsIn comparison to pre-intervention scores, trainee doctors and students displayed a statistically significant improvement in knowledge and subjective confidence.Clinical implicationsThe e-learning package is an effective educational tool for improving knowledge about the Mental Capacity Act for trainee doctors and could be included as part of induction training for all foundation doctors as well as being considered for use in the induction programme of other trainee doctors. It is an effective tool for educating clinical medical students about the Mental Capacity Act.

What is the nature of Mental Capacity Act training and how do health and social care practitioners change their practice post‐training? A narrative review

“…However, Willner et al (2011) noted positive bias towards “true” statements, which may have skewed their results. This bias may have affected the results of Schofield et al (2012) in a similar way, but this study did not provide a detailed breakdown of the questions and responses. The quantitative studies measured knowledge and sometimes confidence, but did not report on retention of learning, knowledge transfer or practice change.…”

“…Of the included studies, seven were quantitative, seven qualitative and two mixed methods. Quantitative studies (McCormick, Bose, & Marinis, 2017; Morriss, Mudigonda, Bartlett, Chopra, & Jones, 2017; Sawhney, Mukhopadhyay, & Karki, 2009; Schofield et al, 2012; Shah, Banner, Heginbotham, & Fulford, 2010; Willner et al, 2011, 2013) investigated training experiences (Sawhney et al, 2009; and Shah et al, 2010) or post‐training knowledge of psychiatrists and medical trainees (other than Willner et al, 2011 and Willner et al, 2013, who surveyed newly appointed clinical and nonclinical staff members). Response rates tended to be low (27%–55%).…”

“…Willner et al (2011), Schofield et al (2012) and Willner et al (2013) tested knowledge post‐training, which resulted in higher response rates. Using true/false statements and scored responses, all three studies found improved knowledge.…”

“…Four studies directly reported on empirical research evaluating defined training programmes (Bose & McFiggans, 2019; Schofield et al, 2012; Willner et al, 2011, 2013). The remainder offered review of professional groups’ knowledge of the MCA and training experiences and outcomes (Manthorpe et al(2009); Sawhney et al (2009); Shah et al (2010); Willner et al (2011); Samsi et al, 2012; Gough and Kerlin (2012); Schofield et al (2012); Manthorpe and Samsi (2016); Marshall and Sprung (2016b); Morriss et al (2017)).…”

“…Scores ranged from 13–36. Four papers (Bose & McLiggans, 2019; Schofield, Di Mambro, & Schofield, 2012; Willner, Bridle, Dymond, & Lewis, 2011; Willner, Bridle, Price, Dymond, & Lewis, 2013) evaluated specific training programmes, and these scored most highly. However, we included lower scoring papers as these contributed to answering our review question.…”