NEWS

Balancing robust capacity assessments with person-centred practice: a tension at the heart of social work.

Abbie Cripwell reflects on a discussion within the team: how can an assessment be thorough while recognising when questioning is causing distress or fatigue?

On this page2 sections

During a recent training session, our team discussed how we balance thorough assessment with the person’s experience in Mental Capacity practice.

Assessors need to produce robust, evidence-based opinions with reasoning that others can scrutinise.

At the same time, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 requires us to support the person and consider their rights and freedom of action.

This creates a practical question for assessors.

How do we gather sufficiently thorough evidence while recognising when further questioning may cause distress or overwhelm?

I see this as an ethical and practical challenge within social work and capacity assessment.

Social workers may experience a tension between thoroughness and emotional impact. While there is understandable pressure to produce assessments that will stand up in court, we also need to recognise that:

● repeated or persistent questioning can cause distress or fatigue,

● emotional overwhelm may undermine the reliability of responses,

● and the assessment process itself can risk becoming intrusive or coercive.

Capacity assessments involve professional judgement, interpretation and relational engagement.

This is particularly apparent when considering the person’s ability to use or weigh relevant information.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 in England and Wales requires us to apply the decision-specific test and explain our reasoning. It also requires a presumption of capacity and all practicable steps to support the person. Section 1(6) requires consideration of whether the purpose of an act or decision made under the Act can be achieved in a less restrictive way. These responsibilities do not require questioning at all costs: the quality of participation and evidence matters.

So this begs the question: what do we do when continuing an assessment risks overwhelming or distressing the person but stopping might feel like we haven’t done enough?

I think it is important to recognise that this uncertainty is a legitimate subject for supervision and professional discussion. If you have felt it, you are unlikely to be alone.

So what should we do when someone becomes overwhelmed?

A useful way to reflect on mental capacity is to consider the person’s environment, relationships and emotional state alongside their individual abilities. A person may be able to weigh information when calm and supported but struggle to engage when overwhelmed. Distress should prompt us to examine the support and timing of the assessment; it does not, by itself, establish an inability caused by an impairment of the mind or brain.

In my experience, good capacity assessments rely heavily on trust.

Communication and understanding matter too. If a person becomes overwhelmed, they may disengage or give responses that no longer reflect their thinking. Continuing to question them without adjusting the approach may therefore reduce the reliability of the evidence.

The Mental Capacity Act requires us to take “all practicable steps” to support someone to make their own decision. Support might include: slowing the pace, using simpler language, taking breaks or involving someone the person trusts. Being able to document the support provided serves to strengthen your assessment by providing evidence that you have followed the law.

If someone becomes distressed, recognise that their ability to engage may be affected.

Consider whether continuing would reduce the reliability of their responses.

Adjust the approach where appropriate, for example by slowing down, pausing or simplifying information, and record what happened and why. The capacity question still requires evidence about the particular decision and the cause of any inability.

My final thoughts:

Ultimately, I do not think we must choose between being person-centred and producing evidence that can be scrutinised. Relational practice, ethical judgement and attention to context can help us understand the evidence more carefully.

In practice, this means recognising distress, supporting the person to engage, knowing when to pause or take breaks, and clearly recording the reasoning. Person-centred practice helps us apply the legal test fairly; it does not remove the need to establish and explain each part of that test.

For information about our mental capacity assessment service and expert capacity assessments for court or legal use, see the linked service descriptions. The appropriate assessor, scope and evidence depend on the particular decision and the purpose of the instruction.

Abbie Cripwell

Social Worker and Expert mental capacity assessor