Skip to main content
  1. Right Decisions
  2. Maternity & Gynaecology Guidelines
  3. Maternity
  4. Back
  5. Antenatal, general
  6. Impaired capacity in maternity care (1024)
Important: please update your RDS app to version 4.7.3

Welcome to the March 2025 update from the RDS team

1.     RDS issues - resolutions

1.1 Stability issues - Tactuum implemented a fix on 24th March which we believe has finally addressed the stability issues experienced over recent weeks.  The issue seems to have been related to the new “Tool export” function making repeated calls for content when new toolkit nodes were opened in Umbraco. No outages have been reported since then, and no performance issues in the logs, so fingers crossed this is now resolved.

1.2 Toolkit URL redirects failing– these were restored manually for the antimicrobial calculators on the 13th March when the issue occurred, and by 15th March for the remainder. The root cause was traced to adding a new hostname for an app migrated from another health board and made live that day. This led to the content management system automatically creating internal duplicate redirects, reaching the maximum number of permitted redirects and most redirects therefore ceasing to function.

This issue should not happen again because:

  • All old apps are now fully migrated to RDS. The large number of migrations has contributed to the high number of automated redirects.
  • If there is any need to change hostnames in future, Tactuum will immediately check for duplicates.

1.3 Gentamicin calculators – Incidents have been reported incidents of people accessing the wrong gentamicin calculator for their health board.  This occurs when clinicians are searching for the gentamicin calculator via an online search engine - e.g. Google - rather than via the health board directed policy route. When accessed via an external search engine, the calculator results are not listed by health board, and the start page for the calculator does not make it clearly visible which health board calculator has been selected.

The Scottish Antimicrobial Prescribing Group has asked health boards to provide targeted communication and education to ensure that clinicians know how to access their health board antimicrobial calculators via the RDS, local Intranet or other local policy route. In terms of RDS amendments, it is not currently possible to change the internet search output, so the following changes are now in progress:

  • The health board name will now be displayed within the calculator and it will be made clear which boards are using the ‘Hartford’ (7mg/kg) higher dose calculator
  • Warning text will be added to the calculator to advise that more than one calculator is in use in NHS Scotland and that clinicians should ensure they access the correct one for their health board. A link to the Right Decision Service list of health board antimicrobial prescribing toolkits will be included with the warning text. Users can then access the correct calculator for their Board via the appropriate toolkit.

We would encourage all editors and users to use the Help and Support standard operating procedure and the Editors’ Teams channel to highlight issues, even if you think they may be temporary or already noted. This helps the RDS team to get a full picture of concerns and issues across the service.

 

2.     New RDS presentation – RDS supporting the patient journey

A new presentation illustrating how RDS supports all partners in the patient journey – multiple disciplines across secondary, primary, community and social care settings – as well as patients and carers through self-management and shared decision-making tools – is now available. You will find it in the Promotion and presentation resources for editors section of the Learning and support toolkit.

3.     User guides

A new user guide is now available in the Guidance and tips section of Resources for providers within the Learning and Support area, explaining how to embed content from Google Calendar, Google Maps, Daily Motion, Twitter feeds, Microsoft Stream and Jotforms into RDS pages. A webinar for editors on using this new functionality is scheduled for 1 May 3-4 pm (booking information below.)

A new checklist to support editors in making all the checks required before making a new toolkit live is now available at the foot of the “Request a new toolkit” standard operating procedure. Completing this checklist is not a mandatory part of the governance process, but we would encourage you to use it to make sure all the critical issues are covered at point of launch – including organisational tags, use of Alias URLs and editorial information.

4.Training sessions for RDS editors

Introductory webinars for RDS editors will take place on:

  • Tuesday 29th April 4-5 pm
  • Thursday 1st May 4-5 pm

Special webinar for RDS editors – 1 May 3-4 pm

This webinar will cover:

  1. a) Use of the new left hand navigation option for RDS toolkits.
  2. b) Integration into RDS pages of content from external sources, including Google Calendar, Google Maps and simple Jotforms calculators.

Running usage statistics reports using Google analytics

  • Wednesday 23rd April 2pm-3pm
  • Thursday 22nd May 2pm-3pm

To book a place on any of these webinars, please contact Olivia.graham@nhs.scot providing your name, role, organisation, title and date of the webinar you wish to attend.

5.New RDS toolkits

The following toolkits were launched during March 2025:

SIGN guideline - Prevention and remission of type 2 diabetes

Valproate – easy read version for people with learning disabilities (Scottish Government Medicines Division)

Obstetrics and gynaecology induction toolkit (NHS Lothian) – password-protected, in pilot stage.

Oral care for care home and care at home services (Public Health Scotland)

Postural care in care homes (NHS Lothian)

Quit Your Way Pregnancy Service (NHS GGC)

 

6.New RDS developments

Release of the redesign of RDS search and browse, archiving and version control functionality, and editing capability for shared content, is now provisionally scheduled for early June.

The Scottish Government Realistic Medicine Policy team is leading development of a national approach to implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) as a key objective within the Value Based Health and Care Action Plan. The Right Decision Service has been commissioned to deliver an initial version of a platform for issuing PROMs questionnaires to patients, making the PROMs reports available from patient record systems, and providing an analytics dashboard to compare outcomes across services.  This work is now underway and we will keep you updated on progress.

The RDS team has supported Scottish Government Effective Prescribing and Therapeutics Division, in partnership with Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland, in a successful bid for EU funding to test develop, implement and assess new integrated care pathways for polypharmacy, including pharmacogenomics. As part of this project, the RDS will be working with NHS Tayside to test extending the current polypharmacy RDS decision support in the Vision primary care electronic health record system to include pharmacogenomics decision support.

7. Implementation projects

We have just completed a series of three workshops consulting on proposed improvements to the Being a partner in my care: Realistic Medicine together app, following piloting on 10 sites in late 2024. This app has been commissioned by Scottish Government Realistic Medicine to support patients and citizens to become active partners in shared decision-making and encouraging personalised care based on outcomes that matter to the person. We are keen to gather more feedback on this app. Please forward any feedback to ann.wales3@nhs.scot

 

 

Impaired capacity in maternity care (1024)

Warning
Please report any inaccuracies or issues with this guideline using our online form

Capacity to consent may vary over time, and may depend on current circumstances. Therefore, it is decision specific, and may need to be assessed in relation to the particular decision that needs to be made, at that particular time, unless it is a clear and longstanding diagnosis.    

General principles remain the same as in any branch of medicine (the proposed intervention must benefit the patient, should take in to account their wishes, as far as it is possible to obtain them, should take in to account the views of relevant others, should restrict the patient’s freedom as little as possible, and enable the patient to exercise their capacity, as far as possible)

In general, emergency treatment to save the life of an adult is clear cut in law, and will cover maternal illness.

However, a baby has no rights in law until birth, so the situation is less clear cut when the intervention proposed is to promote the welfare of the baby, when the mother is otherwise well.

There may be a guardian or welfare attorney already in place, who can consent on the patient’s behalf. 

Often there is no legal guardian in place and maternity staff must act for the mother, in her best interests.

Everyone whose capacity to make decisions is impaired should have access to an independent advocate, in addition to health staff and family. This should be provided by social work, who must be involved if there is no legal guardian in place.

Lack of capacity may be well documented and longstanding, such as in a woman with a learning difficulty, but she may be well able to verbally consent to, and participate in, the routine episodes of antenatal care, and have views about her own wishes, even although any operative delivery may require to be carried out under section 47 of the adults with incapacity act.

It is also the case that pain, stress and unfamiliar surroundings will impact negatively on patients’ ability to make decisions, so discussing wishes with the patient when she is best able to participate, allows us to fulfil the duty to enhance capacity as far as it is possible to do so, and will inform a birth plan which is best able to meet her needs.

Providing information at a speed and in a format most suitable to her, with time for repetition of information, also enables staff to assess her understanding of the information given.

If advance planning is not possible, for example when there is a sudden alteration in mental health, then eliciting the views of family regarding the mother’s wishes, when well, is the next best option.

Ultimately, we have to act in her best interests, and knowledge of what her wishes would be, is the best guide.

Everyone who has impaired capacity to make decisions should be offered an advocate independent of family. This is arranged through social work. Some women, for example with learning disability, may already have this in place, and have their own allocated social worker.

If not, referral to the local social work team is essential, and they should appoint an advocate., as well as an allocated worker. It is always worth asking for this at an early stage, as the more time the advocate and the women have together, the better.

The advocate will be able to have contact with the patient throughout, and to attend appointments. This can greatly increase patient confidence and enable women to better discuss their wishes.

Depending on the timing of patients presenting with impaired capacity, two forms allowing treatment under AWI section 47 will probably be needed. For an operative delivery requiring signed consent, the form will require to be signed at the time by the obstetrician carrying out the delivery.

Experience suggests it is helpful to have this filed and ready with date and signature only to be added, to prevent uncertainty in an out of hours situation. For all other interventions in antenatal and postnatal care, such as venepunture, IV access, scans, vaginal examination, which would normally require verbal consent, it is helpful to have a form signed at the start of pregnancy, detailing these, and adding “any other interventions required for routine care”. The woman may well be able to verbally consent at the time, but as capacity can vary with pain and distress, it is helpful to have this legally covered.

Both forms can be prepared and filed in the notes to guide any staff who will be looking after her.

Continuity of care from a small team is likely to be best, when staff can get to know the patient and her family, and be best placed to know her wishes. Some care delivered at home may be ideal, as the patient may be at her most relaxed there.

There may be mainstream learning disability team input, or mainstream psychiatry, and it should be discussed with them whether they, or the Perinatal Mental Health Team, will take the lead for the pregnancy. This will probably depend on whether she is ultimately likely to be the main carer for her baby, but the mental health lead is best established as soon as possible.

Clinical psychology input is also likely to be extremely helpful, particularly in terms of adapting a birth plan to meet the patient’s needs as much as possible.

The decision about offering antenatal fetal screening can only be made after considering what the management of the pregnancy would be in the event of a fetal anomaly; the ability to participate in that discussion will inform what is offered, and will depend on the understanding and wishes of the patient and her individual circumstances. If the impairment of capacity is such that consent to termination of the pregnancy would be impossible, or the views of family are that such an action would be unacceptable, there may be no benefit in detecting an anomaly. However, where prior knowledge of a fetal condition is beneficial to the baby, by allowing early neonatal intervention / discussion of site of delivery ,( -eg cardiac anomaly), it would be regarded as being in the mother’s best interests also. For this reason, fetal anomaly scanning, as a non interventional screening, would usually be offered. The decision to offer screening will therefore depend on the nature of the patient’s lack of capacity, and the views of those close to her.

If the patient finds communication problematic, relying on her for an assessment of fetal movement may be difficult, and third trimester scans for fetal wellbeing may be helpful, as well as enhancing bonding.

It will also influence whether or not intervention is best offered around EDD- if it is not possible for a woman to reliably report changes in fetal movement, it will need to be considered whether allowing the pregnancy to go beyond the EDD is advisable.

Vaginal delivery

May be the best option; in general safer, and with good pain relief, less distressing.

Stress and pain may cause impaired capacity to diminish further, so a plan, in conjunction with anaesthetic staff, for early pain relief, is essential. If monitoring mum or baby become difficult, early recourse to operative delivery may be needed, particularly if the mother is finding monitoring/ assessments distressing.

A clear plan in advance, for a trial of labour, with pain relief, and clear escalation to C/S if distress is occurring, is helpful to everyone involved. This would ideally be discussed well in advance with the woman and her family.

Depending on the complexity of the situation, a date for induction of labour could be considered to increase the chance of the staff present being those most familiar to her, and already aware of her needs.

Caesarean section

This may be thought necessary as an elective procedure, either on obstetric grounds, or because the difficulty of safe vaginal delivery in a patient who is unable to cooperate is thought too great to leave to an out of hours situation.

This needs a consensus view and MDT planning.

If the patient does not wish this, but it is held by the MDT that any other course is likely to result in harm to the patient herself (-eg placenta praevia), the decision is relatively straightforward.

If the decision is that the significant harm may be to the baby rather than the mother (-eg breech presentation), it is still possible to proceed, on the grounds that avoiding harm to her child is ultimately in the mother’s best interests. In this case, having had a prior discussion with the mother, documenting her anticipation of a healthy child, and expectation of family life, is extremely useful. Failing that, the views of the father and other family members are helpful, regarding how she would have been likely to judge, had she been well.

If a C/S delivery is against the mother’s known wishes, involvement of the CLO is extremely helpful to reassure all staff regarding the legality of their actions.

Contraception - will depend on patient’s individual circumstances, her own wishes, and those of her family/ guardian but may well be needed if she is socially vulnerable, or if another pregnancy would be detrimental to her emotionally or physically. LARC is most likely the best option, before discharge if possible, or with a robust plan for as soon as possible afterwards.

Emotional support – this will be needed particularly if she is not to be the main carer for her baby. This may limit the input she receives from the Perinatal Mental Health services, but clinical psychology will be able to continue input. Her mainstream psychiatry team, or learning disability team, as well as GP, should all be made aware, so that support can be provided as soon as possible.

The Infant Mental Health team are a new resource who are also able to provide excellent support in a family setting, enabling the mother to participate as much as she can alongside other family members.

Safe delivery may involve obstetrics, anaesthetics, midwifery, psychiatry, and potentially paediatrics, so MDT planning is usually beneficial.

It is essential if the patient has no ability to cooperate, or there is any forensic history / threat of violence.

It may cover;

  1. timing and mode of delivery- is there enough maternal communication/ awareness to allow the pregnancy to go postdates?
    • Is IOL a valid option?
    • Is an out of hours delivery potentially safe?
  2. pain relief- for early labour, and delivery
  3. potential need for sedation/ restraint?
  4. transport- ambulance service may need to be aware of a transfer, especially if CPNs will be in attendance, this might require advance planning for a larger vehicle, or information about the best destination, which might not be the nearest.
  5. staffing- both midwifery staff and any CPN cover needed, both for labour ward and wherever the patient will be postnatally.
  6. ensuring everyone involved is aware of the plan.
  7. communication with CLO.

Where dispute regarding best management exists between medical staff and family, or different members of medical staff, the case may go to court. This is time consuming, so the earlier the plan is agreed, the better.

It is also recommended that when a C/S planned in the fetal interest is expected to pose higher than average risk to the mother, this should be brought to court also.

The option of sterilisation cannot be decided by staff or family; again, that is a court decision.

Editorial Information

Last reviewed: 12/04/2022

Next review date: 01/04/2027

Author(s): Elizabeth Ellis.

Version: 1

Approved By: Obstetrics Clinical Governance Group

Document Id: 1024