There is limited consensus about what constitutes humanly sensitive care, or how it can be sustained in care settings. A new humanised care assessment tool may point to caring practices that are up to the task of meeting persons as humans within busy healthcare environments. This paper describes qualitative development of a tool that is conceptually sensitive to human dimensions of care informed by a life‐world philosophical orientation. Items were generated to reflect eight theoretical dimensions that constitute what makes care (...) feel humanly focused. An action research group process in 2014–2015 with researchers, service users, healthcare professionals in two diverse clinical settings (stroke rehabilitation and dermatology) was used. Feedback on conceptual content, transparency of meaning and readability was then gained from a panel in Sweden and third‐year student nurses in the UK. The tool can be applied to attune staff to human dimensions of care, offering items which point to concrete examples of humanising and dehumanising features of practice in ways that have not yet been fully captured in the caring literature. Based on theoretically led experiential items, with dedicated focus on what makes people feel more, or less than human, it may offer improvement on available assessments of care. (shrink)

Informed consent represents a specific protocol for obtaining consent from a fully informed human subject to take part in clinical research. Still, informed consent is not only required for clinical trials but it also represents a critical precondition before enrolment in standard everyday medical procedures. Relevant fundamental criteria for obtaining informed consent must be followed, and that is that patient must have the decisional capacity to reach autonomous decision. The patient must be adequately informed and not coerced. Evaluating decisional capacity (...) is crucial to providing the required level of care. The decision of which decisional capacity tool to use can be challenging because of various dissimilarities among the instruments. In this paper, four widely documented instruments have been evaluated, namely, the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T), the Hopkins Competency Assessment Test (HCAT), the Structured Interview for Competency/Incompetency Assessment Testing, Ranking Inventory (SICIATRI), and the Capacity Assessment Tool (CAT). Some of them include a fully structured interview; semi-structured forms characterise others. Most of them are adaptable for different scenarios, and yet, some are tailored for specific treatment decisions. Some evaluate all four components of decisional capacity, while others do not. Although a broad range of capacity assessment tools is available, it has been shown that they notably improve the accuracy of capacity evaluations. Given that many pathological conditions could result in impaired decisional capacity, physicians must be able to correctly and consistently assess the capacity for which education and previous experience are pivotal. (shrink)