Reliability of clinical judgment for evaluation of informed consent in mental health settings and the validation of the Evaluation of Informed Consent to Treatment (EICT) scale

Reliability of clinical judgment for evaluation of informed consent in mental health settings and the validation of the Evaluation of Informed Consent to Treatment (EICT) scale
Original Research
Nicola Di Fazio, Donato Morena, Federica Piras, Fabrizio Piras, Nerisa Banaj, Giuseppe Delogu, Felice Damato, Paola Frati, Vittorio Fineschi, Stefano Ferracuti, Gabriele Sani, Claudia Dacquino
Frontiers of Psychology – Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, 26 February 2024
Excerpt
The competence assessment to give informed consent in the legal and healthcare settings is often performed merely through clinical judgment. In the present pilot study, we evaluated the reliability of clinical judgment in the mental health field, with a focus on assessing the general competence of outpatients with schizophrenia. Moreover, we tested a new scale (“Evaluation of Informed Consent to Treatment” -“EICT” Scale) suitable as a standardized assessment tool. The scale assesses four dimensions of competence, Understanding, Evaluating. Reasoning and Expressing a choice. Thirty-four outpatients with schizophrenia were evaluated for their competence to consent by five referring clinicians with different backgrounds (psychiatrist, forensic psychiatrist, geriatrician, anesthetist, and medico-legal doctor). Correlation analyses were conducted between the scores obtained by the clinicians on a modified version of the Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF) designed specifically to subjectively assess functioning in each of the four competence dimensions. Moreover, two validated competence scales (Mac-CAT-T, SICIATRI-R), and a neuropsychological battery were administered along with scales for evaluating neuropsychiatric symptoms severity and side effects of medication…