Search results

Canada’s primary care system has been described as “a culture of pilot projects” with little evidence of converting successful initiatives into funded, permanent programs or sharing project outcomes and insights across jurisdictions. Health services pilot projects are advocated as an effective strategy for identifying promising models of care and building integrated care partnerships in local settings. In the qualitative study reported here, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the strengths and challenges of this approach.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 primary care physicians who discussed their experiences as pilot project leads. Following thematic analysis methods, broad system issues were captured as well as individual project information.

While participants often portrayed themselves as advocates for vulnerable patients, mobilizing healthcare organizations and providers to support new models of care was discussed as challenging. Competition between local healthcare providers and initiatives could impact pilot project success. Participants also reported tensions between their clinical, project management and research roles with additional time demands and skill requirements interfering with the work of implementing and evaluating service innovations.

Study findings highlight the complexity of pilot project implementation, which encompasses physician commitment to addressing care for vulnerable populations through to the need for additional skill set requirements and the impact of local project environments. The current pilot project approach could be strengthened by including more multidisciplinary collaboration and providing infrastructure supports to enhance the design, implementation and evaluation of health services improvement initiatives.

The purpose in writing this paper is to highlight the lack of knowledge of many who are involved in capacity assessments, especially non‐professionals such as carers of the learning disabled, and the view that current guidance for capacity assessments does not take into account issues of emotionality.

The approach is to discuss current guidance and practice, and to offer academic criticism and explanation.

The findings include the discovery that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice suggests that healthcare professionals and family/carers may undertake assessments of decision‐making capacity, yet the guidance it provides for their doing so overlooks salient issues. Many of those involved in the daily lives of those, who may lack decision‐making capacity (and thus be seen as legally incompetent) such as the learning disabled, demented, mentally ill and neurodiverse, must decide whether to respect their decisions as competent, or to disregard the decisions on the grounds of incompetence and to act in the person's best interests. As many will lack training in their clinical and legal responsibilities and liabilities, it is crucial that they, and those they care for, are protected by not only an increased knowledge of mental capacity legislation and practice, but also how it may apply to questions of emotionality and neurodiversity.

This paper expands and builds on the authors' previous research into including emotionality in assessments of capacity, and will be of use to practitioners in the field of learning disability, and other psychiatric specialities.