The convergence of the aging of our society, the increase in blended families, and an enormous intergenerational transfer of wealth has greatly expanded the incidence and importance of capacity assessment of older adults. In this article we discuss the emergence of capacity assessment as a distinct field of study. We review research efforts in two domains: medical decision-making capacity and financial capacity. Existing research in these two areas provides a first pass at many key questions related to capacity assessment, but additional studies that replicate, extend, and improve on this research are urgently needed. An agenda for future is detailed that recommends studies of a wide range of capacity constructs, focusing on clinical markers of diminished capacity, methods to improve clinical assessment, and the many intersections of law and clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES To identify a taxonomy of health-related values that frame goals of care of older, multimorbid adults who recently faced cancer diagnosis and treatment. DESIGN Qualitative analysis of data from a longitudinal cohort study of multimorbid cancer survivors. SETTING Cancer registries from regional Department of Veterans Affairs networks in New England and southeast Texas. PARTICIPANTS Multimorbid adults who completed interviews 12 months after diagnosis of head and neck, colorectal, gastric, or esophageal cancer and after cancer treatment (N = 146). MEASUREMENTS An interdisciplinary team conducted thematic analyses of participants’ intuitive responses to two questions: Now that you have had cancer and may face ongoing decisions about medical care in the future, what would you want your family, friends, and doctors to know about you, in terms of what is most important to you in your life? If your cancer were to recur, is there anything you’d want to be sure your loved ones knew about you and your goals of care? RESULTS Analysis revealed five distinct health-related values that guide how multimorbid cancer survivors conceptualize specific health care goals and medical decisions: self-sufficiency, life enjoyment, connectedness and legacy, balancing quality and length of life, and engagement in care. Participants typically endorsed more than one value as important. CONCLUSION Older multimorbid adults who recently faced life-threatening cancer endorsed a multidimensional taxonomy of health-related values. These health-related values guide how they frame their goals for care and treatment preferences. Eliciting individuals’ sense of their values during clinical encounters may improve their experiences with health care and more effectively align treatments with goals of care.

The objective is to test the effectiveness of Partners in Dementia Care (PDC), a care-coordination program that integrates and improves access to medical and nonmedical services, while strengthening the informal care network and providing information, coaching, and emotional support. PDC was delivered via a partnership between Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers (VAMCs) and Alzheimer's Association chapters, for caregivers of veterans with dementia living in the community and receiving primary care from the VA. The initial sample was 486 caregivers of 508 veterans with diagnosed dementia. Outcomes were evaluated for 394 and 324 caregivers who completed 6- and 12- month follow-up, respectively. PDC had a standardized protocol that included assessment and reassessment, action planning, and ongoing monitoring. It was delivered by telephone and e-mail for cost efficiency and the ability to handle caseloads of 100 to 125. Care coordinators from VAMCs and Alzheimer's Association chapters worked as a team using a shared computerized record. A variety of caregiver outcomes was measured after 6 and 12 months. Intervention group caregivers had significant improvements in outcomes representing unmet needs, three types of caregiver strains, depression, and two support resources. Most improvements were evident after 6 months, with more-limited improvements from Months 6 to 12. Some outcomes improved for all caregivers, whereas some improved for caregivers experiencing more initial difficulties or caring for veterans with more-severe impairments. PDC is a promising model that improves linkages between healthcare services and community services, which is a goal of several new national initiatives such as the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease and a proposed amendment to the Older Americans Act.

The convergence of the aging of our society, the increase in blended families, and an enormous intergenerational transfer of wealth has greatly expanded the incidence and importance of capacity assessment of older adults. In this article we discuss the emergence of capacity assessment as a distinct field of study. We review research efforts in two domains: medical decision-making capacity and financial capacity. Existing research in these two areas provides a first pass at many key questions related to capacity assessment, but additional studies that replicate, extend, and improve on this research are urgently needed. An agenda for future is detailed that recommends studies of a wide range of capacity constructs, focusing on clinical markers of diminished capacity, methods to improve clinical assessment, and the many intersections of law and clinical practice.

Advance care planning ideally includes communication about values between patients, family members, and care providers. This study examined the utility of health care values assessment tools for older adults with and without dementia. Adults aged 60 and older, with and without dementia, completed three values assessment tools-open-ended, forced-choice, and rating scale questions-and named a preferred surrogate decision maker. Responses to forced-choice items were examined at 9-month retest. Adults with and without dementia appeared equally able to respond meaningfully to questions about values regarding quality of life and health care decisions. People with dementia were generally as able as controls to respond consistently after 9 months. Although values assessment methods show promise, further item and scale development work is needed. Older adults with dementia should be included in clarifying values for advance care planning to the extent that they desire and are able. Keywords advance care planning; values; dementiaOlder adults at risk for dementia or with early dementia may be particularly interested to engage in advance care planning. Broadly speaking, advance care planning entails communicating with loved ones, health care providers, or other relevant parties to prepare for decisions that may need to be made during a time of future decisional incapacity. For older adults at risk for dementia, such planning might entail preparing for financial, residential, and/or health care eventualities. Within the health care realm, advance care planning has primarily focused on the completion of advance directives that allow individuals to designate surrogate decision makers (i.e., durable power of attorney for health care) or to document particular health care instructions (i.e., living will). However, research and clinical evidence suggests that completing advance directives-in the absence of communication about an individual's and his or her family's values, fears, and preferences -may not ultimately help to facilitate good decisions on behalf of individuals with dementia or other incapacitating illnesses (Covinsky et al., 2000;Miles, Koepp, & Weber, 1996;Teno et al., 1997).Please address correspondence to Michele J. Karel, PhD, Psychology Service 3-5-C, Brockton VA Medical Center, 940 Belmont Street, Brockton, MA 02301; Michele.Karel@va.gov.. Authors' Note: Adam Bank is now in independent practice in Weston, Florida. Armin Azar is now at the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Louisville, Kentucky. U.S. Department of Veterans AffairsPublic Access Author manuscript J Aging Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 06. VA Author Manuscript VA Author Manuscript VA Author ManuscriptA process of values clarification in advance care planning recognizes both that individuals differ in health-care related beliefs and preferences and that medical decisions are made within a social context. With regard to individual differences, cultural (Blackhall, Murphy, Frank, Michel, & Aze...

Objective-To examine the contribution of neuropsychological test performance to treatment decision-making capacity in community volunteers with mild to moderate dementia.Methods-The authors recruited volunteers (44 men, 44 women) with mild to moderate dementia from the community. Subjects completed a battery of 11 neuropsychological tests that assessed auditory and visual attention, logical memory, language, and executive function. To measure decision making capacity, the authors administered the Capacity to Consent to Treatment Interview, the Hopemont Capacity Assessment Interview, and the MacCarthur Competence Assessment Tool-Treatment. Each of these instruments individually scores four decisional abilities serving capacity: understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and expression of choice. The authors used principal components analysis to generate component scores for each ability across instruments, and to extract principal components for neuropsychological performance.Results-Multiple linear regression analyses demonstrated that neuropsychological performance significantly predicted all four abilities. Specifically, it predicted 77.8% of the common variance for understanding, 39.4% for reasoning, 24.6% for appreciation, and 10.2% for expression of choice. Except for reasoning and appreciation, neuropsychological predictor (β) profiles were unique for each ability.Conclusions-Neuropsychological performance substantially and differentially predicted capacity for treatment decisions in individuals with mild to moderate dementia. Relationships between elemental cognitive function and decisional capacity may differ in individuals whose decisional capacity is impaired by other disorders, such as mental illness.Capacity for treatment decisions hinges on four legal standards, or abilities [1][2][3][4] : understanding (comprehension of diagnostic and treatment information), appreciation (personalization of information through integration with one's values, beliefs, and expectations), reasoning (evaluation of treatment alternatives in light of potential consequences for everyday life), and expression of choice (communication of a treatment Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Dr. Ronald J. Gurrera, VA Boston Healthcare System, 940 Belmont Street (116A), Brockton, MA 02301; Ronald.Gurrera@med.va.gov or Ronald_Gurrera@hms.harvard.edu. Disclosure: The authors report no conflicts of interest. It is logical to examine the neuropsychological correlates of decisional abilities for ways in which to refine their assessment, 8,19,24 and preliminary studies are encouraging with respect to the feasibility of this approach. 8,25,26 The authors evaluated the contribution of neuropsychological task performance to decisional abilities in community volunteers with mild to moderate dementia. They hypothesized that each ability would be significantly predicted by a distinct subset of neuropsychological tasks, and that understanding would be most, and expression of choice least, strongly associated with neuropsychologi...

Most adults with mild dementia can participate in medical decision making as defined by legal standards, although memory impairments may limit demonstration of understanding of diagnostic and treatment information. In dementia, assessments of reasoning about treatment options should focus on whether a person can describe salient reasons for a specific choice, whereas assessments of appreciation of the meaning of diagnostic and treatment information should focus on whether a person can describe the implications of various choices for future states. More research is needed to establish the reliability and validity of assessment tools and of capacity constructs.

Introduction“Partners in Dementia Care” (PDC) tested the effectiveness of a care-coordination program integrating healthcare and community services and supporting veterans with dementia and their caregivers. Delivered via partnerships between Veterans Affairs medical centers and Alzheimer’s Association chapters, PDC targeted both patients and caregivers, distinguishing it from many non-pharmacological interventions. Hypotheses posited PDC would improve five veteran self-reported outcomes: 1) unmet need, 2) embarrassment about memory problems, 3) isolation, 4) relationship strain and 5) depression. Greater impact was expected for more impaired veterans. A unique feature was self-reported research data collected from veterans with dementia.Methods and FindingsFive matched communities were study sites. Two randomly selected sites received PDC for 12 months; comparison sites received usual care. Three structured telephone interviews were completed every 6 months with veterans who could participate.ResultsOf 508 consenting veterans, 333 (65.6%) completed baseline interviews. Among those who completed baseline interviews, 263 (79.0%) completed 6-month follow-ups and 194 (58.3%) completed 12-month follow-ups. Regression analyses showed PDC veterans had significantly less adverse outcomes than those receiving usual care, particularly for more impaired veterans after 6 months, including reduced relationship strain (B = −0.09; p = 0.05), depression (B = −0.10; p = 0.03), and unmet need (B = −0.28; p = 0.02; and B = −0.52; p = 0.08). PDC veterans also had less embarrassment about memory problems (B = −0.24; p = 0.08). At 12 months, more impaired veterans had further reductions in unmet need (B = −0.96; p < 0.01) and embarrassment (B = −0.05; p = 0.02). Limitations included use of matched comparison sites rather than within-site randomization and lack of consideration for variation within the PDC group in amounts and types of assistance provided.ConclusionsPartnerships between community and health organizations have the potential to meet the dementia-related needs and improve the psychosocial functioning of persons with dementia.Trial RegistryNCT00291161