Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Out of Hours

When to safety-net the bad decisions for patients with capacity?

Alexander Gillies
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (656): 131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X689773
Alexander Gillies
Oxfordshire.
Roles: First5 GP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading
Figure

John is 92. I’m visiting him as the out-of-hours GP at 10 pm on a Friday night. The phone triaging doctor has done their best but a home visit is unavoidable as there is no clear solution. He was in hospital for months after a stroke, then a downstream bed. He was advised to move to a nursing home as his swallowing is poor, and, although he can stumble to the toilet, he often falls. He wanted to return to his sheltered accommodation, and I’m told by the exhausted warden of the sheltered housing that he was deemed to have capacity to make this choice. Really? Did he really appreciate, understand, and repeat the inevitable crisis we are now in? If so, how responsible is he versus society for what happens next? How far should professionals go to put a contingency plan in place?

He’s been home for less than 24 hours. His own GP this morning felt he didn’t have capacity and wanted to move him back to the hospital immediately. Social services ‘are aware’ apparently, but there is no bed. Too late for advanced planning, and no resuscitation decision yet. He is tired and generally less responsive than usual. ‘Just not right, doctor.’ He wakes briefly when I speak to him, smiles sweetly, and then falls asleep. His physical examination is normal, as so are his observations. The carers are terrified because he keeps choking on food, and worried about their legal stance if he chokes to death. The family are in North America and uncontactable. The warden has been up all day and needs to sleep, and social services have no spare capacity (in August! I’m dreading winter already).

What is there to do? His deterioration is non-specific and he is probably dying. Or maybe he isn’t. It’s always hard meeting a patient at this stage for the first time, not knowing what their wishes are. But in the absence of specified wishes most people want to die peacefully in their beds. Modern medicine often denies them this. In my experience, often a refusal to engage in advance planning while asking to go home is symbolic of the patient wanting to be freed from medical intervention and allowed to die.

Admitting him poses more risks than benefits. The lack of emergency carers is out of my control. I resist the urge to prescribe amoxicillin that would only satisfy an urge to do something, anything. I feel sorry for the warden who herself is over 60, going well beyond her role, racked by guilt because she is not able to stay up all night. I try not to be dismissive as I explain the best thing is to leave him for now and check on him once overnight. Yes, he might be dead in the morning, but this is OK. I’m making decisions with no medical records, and it isn’t just the flickering corridor lightbulb that is leaving me in the dark. But that is the role of the generalist on a home visit — to make the hard judgement call and unburden the warden and carers from their worries. I write that choking is an acceptable risk, to continue feeding him, and the carers shouldn’t be sued.

Nine years ago I worked on a fantastic geriatric unit as a foundation doctor. We had a ‘trial of discharge’ for when a patient wanted to go home and it was judged to be very risky. Their bed was kept free for 24 hours, in case of problems. Many patients came back overnight. A valuable concrete learning experience to get the wheels of Kolb’s learning cycle1 rotating, helping patients to agree that the nursing home might be better after all. In contrast to acute care, chronic disease patient care is a collaborative working partnership. Informed decisions don’t have to be a single point in time, rather a shared process of understanding. Blocking a community bed for 24 hours ‘just in case’ isn’t acceptable any more. Beds are too efficiently used. But tonight, as I practise my trade in a dimly lit bedroom, I wish I had the option to ring a nursing home manager who could say, ‘Oh yes, I know about John. We have his bed ready.’

Footnotes

  • The sex and name of the patient described have been altered for anonymity reasons because the patient is unable to provide consent in the usual way to publication.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2017

REFERENCE

  1. 1.↵
    1. University of Leicester,
    2. Kolb David
    , http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/gradschool/training/eresources/teaching/theories/kolb (accessed 1 Feb 2017).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 67 (656)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 67, Issue 656
March 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
When to safety-net the bad decisions for patients with capacity?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
When to safety-net the bad decisions for patients with capacity?
Alexander Gillies
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (656): 131. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp17X689773

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
When to safety-net the bad decisions for patients with capacity?
Alexander Gillies
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (656): 131. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp17X689773
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCE
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Viewpoint: Redundant subjectivity?
  • Books: A Layman’s Guide to Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis
  • Can compassion help cure health-related disorders?
Show more Out of Hours

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242