Using Conversation Analysis to explore assessments of decision‐making capacity in a hospital setting
Background Healthcare professionals (HCPs) have a responsibility to conduct assessments of decision‐making capacity that comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Current best‐practice guidance, such as the Mental Capacity Code of Practice and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence...
Saved in:
| Published in: | International journal of language & communication disorders Vol. 59; no. 4; pp. 1612 - 1627 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
United States
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
01.07.2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 1368-2822, 1460-6984, 1460-6984 |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract | Background
Healthcare professionals (HCPs) have a responsibility to conduct assessments of decision‐making capacity that comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Current best‐practice guidance, such as the Mental Capacity Code of Practice and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision‐making and mental capacity guidance, does not stipulate how to accomplish this in practice, for example, what questions should be asked, how options and information should be provided. In addition, HCPs struggle to assess the capacity of individuals with communication difficulties.
Aims
This study was a service evaluation that aimed to objectively analyse, using Conversation Analysis (CA), how real‐life capacity assessments were conducted in a hospital setting with patients with acquired brain injury (ABI)‐related communication difficulties. A second aim was to establish the feasibility of using CA to advance knowledge of the conduct of capacity assessment.
Methods & Procedures
Four naturally occurring capacity assessments were video‐recorded. Recordings involved speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, neuropsychologists and patients with communication difficulties as a result of ABI. The methods and findings of CA were used to investigate the interactional behaviours of HCPs and patients during assessments of decision‐making capacity. The analysis was informed by our knowledge of the MCA best practice guidance.
Outcomes & Results
An overall structure of capacity assessment that enacted some of the best‐practice MCA guidance was identified in one recording, consisting of six phases: (i) opening, (ii) preparation, (iii) option‐listing, (iv) test, (v) decision, and (vi) close. The preparation phase consisted of two sub‐components: information gathering and information giving. Variation from this structure was observed across the dataset, notably in the way in which options were (or were not) presented.
Conclusions & Implications
CA is a feasible empirical method for exploring the structure and conduct of capacity assessments. CA identifies and provides ways of describing interactional behaviours that align with and diverge from best‐practice MCA guidance. Future CA studies including a wider range of health and social care professionals and patients have the potential to inform evidence based training for HCPs who conduct assessments of decision‐making capacity.
WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS
What is already known on this subject
The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) is poorly implemented in practice. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) find it challenging to assess the decision‐making capacity of individuals with communication difficulties, and people with communication difficulties are often excluded from or insufficiently supported during capacity assessment. Research is limited to self‐report methods. Observational studies of capacity assessment are required.
What this study adds
This is the first study to use Conversation Analysis (CA) to explore how capacity assessments are conducted in a hospital setting by HCPs with people with communication difficulties as a result of acquired brain injury. One video‐recorded capacity assessment was structured in six phases that aligned with best practice MCA guidance. However, other capacity assessments deviated from this structure. One phase, option listing, varied in practice and options were not always presented.
What are the clinical implications of this work?
CA revealed interactional behaviours that align with and diverge from best‐practice MCA guidance. Future CA studies are warranted to inform training for health and social care professionals who conduct capacity assessments. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Healthcare professionals (HCPs) have a responsibility to conduct assessments of decision-making capacity that comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Current best-practice guidance, such as the Mental Capacity Code of Practice and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making and mental capacity guidance, does not stipulate how to accomplish this in practice, for example, what questions should be asked, how options and information should be provided. In addition, HCPs struggle to assess the capacity of individuals with communication difficulties.BACKGROUNDHealthcare professionals (HCPs) have a responsibility to conduct assessments of decision-making capacity that comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Current best-practice guidance, such as the Mental Capacity Code of Practice and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making and mental capacity guidance, does not stipulate how to accomplish this in practice, for example, what questions should be asked, how options and information should be provided. In addition, HCPs struggle to assess the capacity of individuals with communication difficulties.This study was a service evaluation that aimed to objectively analyse, using Conversation Analysis (CA), how real-life capacity assessments were conducted in a hospital setting with patients with acquired brain injury (ABI)-related communication difficulties. A second aim was to establish the feasibility of using CA to advance knowledge of the conduct of capacity assessment.AIMSThis study was a service evaluation that aimed to objectively analyse, using Conversation Analysis (CA), how real-life capacity assessments were conducted in a hospital setting with patients with acquired brain injury (ABI)-related communication difficulties. A second aim was to establish the feasibility of using CA to advance knowledge of the conduct of capacity assessment.Four naturally occurring capacity assessments were video-recorded. Recordings involved speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, neuropsychologists and patients with communication difficulties as a result of ABI. The methods and findings of CA were used to investigate the interactional behaviours of HCPs and patients during assessments of decision-making capacity. The analysis was informed by our knowledge of the MCA best practice guidance.METHODS & PROCEDURESFour naturally occurring capacity assessments were video-recorded. Recordings involved speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, neuropsychologists and patients with communication difficulties as a result of ABI. The methods and findings of CA were used to investigate the interactional behaviours of HCPs and patients during assessments of decision-making capacity. The analysis was informed by our knowledge of the MCA best practice guidance.An overall structure of capacity assessment that enacted some of the best-practice MCA guidance was identified in one recording, consisting of six phases: (i) opening, (ii) preparation, (iii) option-listing, (iv) test, (v) decision, and (vi) close. The preparation phase consisted of two sub-components: information gathering and information giving. Variation from this structure was observed across the dataset, notably in the way in which options were (or were not) presented.OUTCOMES & RESULTSAn overall structure of capacity assessment that enacted some of the best-practice MCA guidance was identified in one recording, consisting of six phases: (i) opening, (ii) preparation, (iii) option-listing, (iv) test, (v) decision, and (vi) close. The preparation phase consisted of two sub-components: information gathering and information giving. Variation from this structure was observed across the dataset, notably in the way in which options were (or were not) presented.CA is a feasible empirical method for exploring the structure and conduct of capacity assessments. CA identifies and provides ways of describing interactional behaviours that align with and diverge from best-practice MCA guidance. Future CA studies including a wider range of health and social care professionals and patients have the potential to inform evidence based training for HCPs who conduct assessments of decision-making capacity.CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONSCA is a feasible empirical method for exploring the structure and conduct of capacity assessments. CA identifies and provides ways of describing interactional behaviours that align with and diverge from best-practice MCA guidance. Future CA studies including a wider range of health and social care professionals and patients have the potential to inform evidence based training for HCPs who conduct assessments of decision-making capacity.What is already known on this subject The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) is poorly implemented in practice. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) find it challenging to assess the decision-making capacity of individuals with communication difficulties, and people with communication difficulties are often excluded from or insufficiently supported during capacity assessment. Research is limited to self-report methods. Observational studies of capacity assessment are required. What this study adds This is the first study to use Conversation Analysis (CA) to explore how capacity assessments are conducted in a hospital setting by HCPs with people with communication difficulties as a result of acquired brain injury. One video-recorded capacity assessment was structured in six phases that aligned with best practice MCA guidance. However, other capacity assessments deviated from this structure. One phase, option listing, varied in practice and options were not always presented. What are the clinical implications of this work? CA revealed interactional behaviours that align with and diverge from best-practice MCA guidance. Future CA studies are warranted to inform training for health and social care professionals who conduct capacity assessments.WHAT THIS PAPER ADDSWhat is already known on this subject The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) is poorly implemented in practice. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) find it challenging to assess the decision-making capacity of individuals with communication difficulties, and people with communication difficulties are often excluded from or insufficiently supported during capacity assessment. Research is limited to self-report methods. Observational studies of capacity assessment are required. What this study adds This is the first study to use Conversation Analysis (CA) to explore how capacity assessments are conducted in a hospital setting by HCPs with people with communication difficulties as a result of acquired brain injury. One video-recorded capacity assessment was structured in six phases that aligned with best practice MCA guidance. However, other capacity assessments deviated from this structure. One phase, option listing, varied in practice and options were not always presented. What are the clinical implications of this work? CA revealed interactional behaviours that align with and diverge from best-practice MCA guidance. Future CA studies are warranted to inform training for health and social care professionals who conduct capacity assessments. BackgroundHealthcare professionals (HCPs) have a responsibility to conduct assessments of decision‐making capacity that comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Current best‐practice guidance, such as the Mental Capacity Code of Practice and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision‐making and mental capacity guidance, does not stipulate how to accomplish this in practice, for example, what questions should be asked, how options and information should be provided. In addition, HCPs struggle to assess the capacity of individuals with communication difficulties.AimsThis study was a service evaluation that aimed to objectively analyse, using Conversation Analysis (CA), how real‐life capacity assessments were conducted in a hospital setting with patients with acquired brain injury (ABI)‐related communication difficulties. A second aim was to establish the feasibility of using CA to advance knowledge of the conduct of capacity assessment.Methods & ProceduresFour naturally occurring capacity assessments were video‐recorded. Recordings involved speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, neuropsychologists and patients with communication difficulties as a result of ABI. The methods and findings of CA were used to investigate the interactional behaviours of HCPs and patients during assessments of decision‐making capacity. The analysis was informed by our knowledge of the MCA best practice guidance.Outcomes & ResultsAn overall structure of capacity assessment that enacted some of the best‐practice MCA guidance was identified in one recording, consisting of six phases: (i) opening, (ii) preparation, (iii) option‐listing, (iv) test, (v) decision, and (vi) close. The preparation phase consisted of two sub‐components: information gathering and information giving. Variation from this structure was observed across the dataset, notably in the way in which options were (or were not) presented.Conclusions & ImplicationsCA is a feasible empirical method for exploring the structure and conduct of capacity assessments. CA identifies and provides ways of describing interactional behaviours that align with and diverge from best‐practice MCA guidance. Future CA studies including a wider range of health and social care professionals and patients have the potential to inform evidence based training for HCPs who conduct assessments of decision‐making capacity.WHAT THIS PAPER ADDSWhat is already known on this subjectThe Mental Capacity Act (MCA) is poorly implemented in practice. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) find it challenging to assess the decision‐making capacity of individuals with communication difficulties, and people with communication difficulties are often excluded from or insufficiently supported during capacity assessment. Research is limited to self‐report methods. Observational studies of capacity assessment are required.What this study addsThis is the first study to use Conversation Analysis (CA) to explore how capacity assessments are conducted in a hospital setting by HCPs with people with communication difficulties as a result of acquired brain injury. One video‐recorded capacity assessment was structured in six phases that aligned with best practice MCA guidance. However, other capacity assessments deviated from this structure. One phase, option listing, varied in practice and options were not always presented.What are the clinical implications of this work?CA revealed interactional behaviours that align with and diverge from best‐practice MCA guidance. Future CA studies are warranted to inform training for health and social care professionals who conduct capacity assessments. Background Healthcare professionals (HCPs) have a responsibility to conduct assessments of decision‐making capacity that comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Current best‐practice guidance, such as the Mental Capacity Code of Practice and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision‐making and mental capacity guidance, does not stipulate how to accomplish this in practice, for example, what questions should be asked, how options and information should be provided. In addition, HCPs struggle to assess the capacity of individuals with communication difficulties. Aims This study was a service evaluation that aimed to objectively analyse, using Conversation Analysis (CA), how real‐life capacity assessments were conducted in a hospital setting with patients with acquired brain injury (ABI)‐related communication difficulties. A second aim was to establish the feasibility of using CA to advance knowledge of the conduct of capacity assessment. Methods & Procedures Four naturally occurring capacity assessments were video‐recorded. Recordings involved speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, neuropsychologists and patients with communication difficulties as a result of ABI. The methods and findings of CA were used to investigate the interactional behaviours of HCPs and patients during assessments of decision‐making capacity. The analysis was informed by our knowledge of the MCA best practice guidance. Outcomes & Results An overall structure of capacity assessment that enacted some of the best‐practice MCA guidance was identified in one recording, consisting of six phases: (i) opening, (ii) preparation, (iii) option‐listing, (iv) test, (v) decision, and (vi) close. The preparation phase consisted of two sub‐components: information gathering and information giving. Variation from this structure was observed across the dataset, notably in the way in which options were (or were not) presented. Conclusions & Implications CA is a feasible empirical method for exploring the structure and conduct of capacity assessments. CA identifies and provides ways of describing interactional behaviours that align with and diverge from best‐practice MCA guidance. Future CA studies including a wider range of health and social care professionals and patients have the potential to inform evidence based training for HCPs who conduct assessments of decision‐making capacity. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS What is already known on this subject The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) is poorly implemented in practice. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) find it challenging to assess the decision‐making capacity of individuals with communication difficulties, and people with communication difficulties are often excluded from or insufficiently supported during capacity assessment. Research is limited to self‐report methods. Observational studies of capacity assessment are required. What this study adds This is the first study to use Conversation Analysis (CA) to explore how capacity assessments are conducted in a hospital setting by HCPs with people with communication difficulties as a result of acquired brain injury. One video‐recorded capacity assessment was structured in six phases that aligned with best practice MCA guidance. However, other capacity assessments deviated from this structure. One phase, option listing, varied in practice and options were not always presented. What are the clinical implications of this work? CA revealed interactional behaviours that align with and diverge from best‐practice MCA guidance. Future CA studies are warranted to inform training for health and social care professionals who conduct capacity assessments. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) have a responsibility to conduct assessments of decision-making capacity that comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Current best-practice guidance, such as the Mental Capacity Code of Practice and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making and mental capacity guidance, does not stipulate how to accomplish this in practice, for example, what questions should be asked, how options and information should be provided. In addition, HCPs struggle to assess the capacity of individuals with communication difficulties. This study was a service evaluation that aimed to objectively analyse, using Conversation Analysis (CA), how real-life capacity assessments were conducted in a hospital setting with patients with acquired brain injury (ABI)-related communication difficulties. A second aim was to establish the feasibility of using CA to advance knowledge of the conduct of capacity assessment. Four naturally occurring capacity assessments were video-recorded. Recordings involved speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, neuropsychologists and patients with communication difficulties as a result of ABI. The methods and findings of CA were used to investigate the interactional behaviours of HCPs and patients during assessments of decision-making capacity. The analysis was informed by our knowledge of the MCA best practice guidance. An overall structure of capacity assessment that enacted some of the best-practice MCA guidance was identified in one recording, consisting of six phases: (i) opening, (ii) preparation, (iii) option-listing, (iv) test, (v) decision, and (vi) close. The preparation phase consisted of two sub-components: information gathering and information giving. Variation from this structure was observed across the dataset, notably in the way in which options were (or were not) presented. CA is a feasible empirical method for exploring the structure and conduct of capacity assessments. CA identifies and provides ways of describing interactional behaviours that align with and diverge from best-practice MCA guidance. Future CA studies including a wider range of health and social care professionals and patients have the potential to inform evidence based training for HCPs who conduct assessments of decision-making capacity. What is already known on this subject The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) is poorly implemented in practice. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) find it challenging to assess the decision-making capacity of individuals with communication difficulties, and people with communication difficulties are often excluded from or insufficiently supported during capacity assessment. Research is limited to self-report methods. Observational studies of capacity assessment are required. What this study adds This is the first study to use Conversation Analysis (CA) to explore how capacity assessments are conducted in a hospital setting by HCPs with people with communication difficulties as a result of acquired brain injury. One video-recorded capacity assessment was structured in six phases that aligned with best practice MCA guidance. However, other capacity assessments deviated from this structure. One phase, option listing, varied in practice and options were not always presented. What are the clinical implications of this work? CA revealed interactional behaviours that align with and diverge from best-practice MCA guidance. Future CA studies are warranted to inform training for health and social care professionals who conduct capacity assessments. Background Healthcare professionals (HCPs) have a responsibility to conduct assessments of decision‐making capacity that comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Current best‐practice guidance, such as the Mental Capacity Code of Practice and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision‐making and mental capacity guidance, does not stipulate how to accomplish this in practice, for example, what questions should be asked, how options and information should be provided. In addition, HCPs struggle to assess the capacity of individuals with communication difficulties. Aims This study was a service evaluation that aimed to objectively analyse, using Conversation Analysis (CA), how real‐life capacity assessments were conducted in a hospital setting with patients with acquired brain injury (ABI)‐related communication difficulties. A second aim was to establish the feasibility of using CA to advance knowledge of the conduct of capacity assessment. Methods & Procedures Four naturally occurring capacity assessments were video‐recorded. Recordings involved speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, neuropsychologists and patients with communication difficulties as a result of ABI. The methods and findings of CA were used to investigate the interactional behaviours of HCPs and patients during assessments of decision‐making capacity. The analysis was informed by our knowledge of the MCA best practice guidance. Outcomes & Results An overall structure of capacity assessment that enacted some of the best‐practice MCA guidance was identified in one recording, consisting of six phases: (i) opening, (ii) preparation, (iii) option‐listing, (iv) test, (v) decision, and (vi) close. The preparation phase consisted of two sub‐components: information gathering and information giving. Variation from this structure was observed across the dataset, notably in the way in which options were (or were not) presented. Conclusions & Implications CA is a feasible empirical method for exploring the structure and conduct of capacity assessments. CA identifies and provides ways of describing interactional behaviours that align with and diverge from best‐practice MCA guidance. Future CA studies including a wider range of health and social care professionals and patients have the potential to inform evidence based training for HCPs who conduct assessments of decision‐making capacity. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS What is already known on this subject The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) is poorly implemented in practice. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) find it challenging to assess the decision‐making capacity of individuals with communication difficulties, and people with communication difficulties are often excluded from or insufficiently supported during capacity assessment. Research is limited to self‐report methods. Observational studies of capacity assessment are required. What this study adds This is the first study to use Conversation Analysis (CA) to explore how capacity assessments are conducted in a hospital setting by HCPs with people with communication difficulties as a result of acquired brain injury. One video‐recorded capacity assessment was structured in six phases that aligned with best practice MCA guidance. However, other capacity assessments deviated from this structure. One phase, option listing, varied in practice and options were not always presented. What are the clinical implications of this work? CA revealed interactional behaviours that align with and diverge from best‐practice MCA guidance. Future CA studies are warranted to inform training for health and social care professionals who conduct capacity assessments. |
| Author | Foulkes, Jessica Volkmer, Anna Beeke, Suzanne |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Jessica surname: Foulkes fullname: Foulkes, Jessica organization: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – sequence: 2 givenname: Anna orcidid: 0000-0002-4149-409X surname: Volkmer fullname: Volkmer, Anna email: a.volkmer.15@ucl.ac.uk organization: University College London – sequence: 3 givenname: Suzanne surname: Beeke fullname: Beeke, Suzanne organization: University College London |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38377142$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNqFkT2PFDEMhiN0iPuAmg5FoqGZOzvJZGfK0_KtlWi4OsrMOZBjJhnGs8B2_AR-I7-ELHtcQQFubNnPa8l-T8VRyomEeIxwjiUu0FiobNuYc9Sg4J44uesclVrbplKNUsfilPkGABTW-EAc60avVmjUiQhXHNMHuc7pC83sl5iTvEx-2HFkuWRJ36YhzyQ9MzGPlBaWOchr6iMX9uf3H6P_tN_Q-8n3cdnJmKSXHzNPcfGDZFqWMn4o7gc_MD26zWfi6uWL9-vX1ebdqzfry03V67aGqlaI0PmAHbWm840OaMAGWNngNWoDnfUdgrEBQ6NVS54CNH1LRVMGVp-JZ4e905w_b4kXN0buaRh8orxlp1rV1gZaowv69C_0Jm_ncjo7reraAqoa_0lBg7W1rTKFenJLbbuRrt00x9HPO_fnzwW4OAD9nJlnCncIgts76fa-ub1v7reTRWEPiq9xoN3_cPd2s35-EP4CKHKfkg |
| Cites_doi | 10.1080/09638288.2019.1572793 10.1080/02699206.2019.1705915 10.1177/14614456221110669 10.1080/09638288.2016.1224275 10.3109/17549507.2013.871751 10.1080/00208825.2001.11656821 10.1017/CBO9780511607172 10.4324/9781003069652 10.1080/02699052.2017.1379613 10.3310/hsdr03070 10.1080/08351813.2014.925667 10.1080/02687038.2017.1355441 10.1080/02687038.2018.1486379 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef 10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2017.09.014 10.1177/0190272510379838 10.1080/09503153.2015.1074667 10.1371/journal.pone.0198567 10.1080/02687038.2020.1759772 10.1207/s15327027hc1902_1 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.11.009 10.1080/02687038.2020.1819954 10.1080/10410236.2017.1350913 10.1097/HTR.0b013e3182048f7c |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | 2024 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. 2024 The Authors. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. 2024. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. 2024. This work is published under Creative Commons Attribution License~https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the "License"). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: 2024 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. – notice: 2024 The Authors. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. – notice: 2024. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. – notice: 2024. This work is published under Creative Commons Attribution License~https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the "License"). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. |
| DBID | 24P AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7T9 8BM AHOVV K9. NAPCQ 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1111/1460-6984.13020 |
| DatabaseName | Wiley Online Library Open Access CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) ComDisDome Education Research Index ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Nursing & Allied Health Premium MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Nursing & Allied Health Premium Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) ComDisDome MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) MEDLINE ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: 24P name: Wiley Online Library Open Access url: https://authorservices.wiley.com/open-science/open-access/browse-journals.html sourceTypes: Publisher – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine Education |
| EISSN | 1460-6984 |
| EndPage | 1627 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 1011111460698413020 38377142 10_1111_1460_6984_13020 JLCD13020 |
| Genre | article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Journal Article |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: National Institute for Health and Care Research |
| GroupedDBID | --Z ..I .GA .Y3 04C 05W 0R~ 1OB 1OC 24P 29J 31~ 33P 36B 4.4 50Z 52M 52U 52V 53G 5GY 5VS 6PF 8-0 8-1 8-3 8-4 8-5 85S 930 A01 A04 AABNI AAESR AAHHS AAHQN AAIPD AAMNL AANHP AAONW AAOUF AASGY AAWTL AAXRX AAYCA AAZKR ABCUV ABIVO ABJNI ABQWH ABSOO ABXGK ACAHQ ACBKW ACBWZ ACCFJ ACCZN ACFBH ACGEJ ACGFS ACGOF ACHQT ACMXC ACPOU ACRPL ACXQS ACYXJ ADBBV ADBTR ADCVX ADEMA ADEOM ADIZJ ADKYN ADMGS ADNMO ADOJX ADXAS ADXPE ADZMN ADZOD AEEZP AEIGN AEIMD AENEX AEQDE AERSA AEUQT AEUYR AFBPY AFFPM AFGKR AFKFF AFKVX AFPWT AFWVQ AFYRF AHBTC AHMBA AIACR AIFKG AIURR AIWBW AJBDE AJWEG ALAGY ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN ALVPJ AMBMR AMYDB ASTYK AWYRJ AZBYB AZFZN AZVAB BAFTC BDRZF BFHJK BMSDO BMXJE BNVMJ BQESF BRXPI C2- CAG COF CS3 D-6 D-7 D-C D-D DCZOG DPXWK DRFUL DRMAN DRSSH DU5 EBD EBS ECE ECF ECT EIHBH EJD ERBFP F00 F01 FEDTE FUBAC G-S G50 GODZA HGLYW HVGLF HZ~ H~9 IN- KBYEO LATKE LEEKS LITHE LOXES LUTES LYRES M44 MEWTI MRFUL MRMAN MRSSH MSFUL MSMAN MSSSH MS~ MXFUL MXMAN MXSSH MY~ N04 N06 NF~ O66 O9- OHT P2P P2W P2Y P2Z P4E PALCI PQQKQ Q.N QB0 R.K RIWAO ROL SUPJJ TDBHL TFW UB1 W8V WBKPD WGLLI WIH WII WIJ WOHZO WQ9 WSUWO WXSBR XG2 XOL ZZTAW ~WP AAMMB AAYXX AEFGJ AEYWJ AGHNM AGQPQ AGXDD AIDQK AIDYY CITATION LH4 O8X CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7T9 8BM AHOVV AQTUD K9. NAPCQ 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c3950-52110baf1be94ba83f1406f076fa31340b6ab1046f1f8329eaef08c9ebafab163 |
| IEDL.DBID | DRFUL |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 0 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=001166360900001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1368-2822 1460-6984 |
| IngestDate | Fri Sep 05 10:07:19 EDT 2025 Sat Nov 08 00:06:46 EST 2025 Sat Nov 08 00:06:29 EST 2025 Thu Aug 14 01:43:19 EDT 2025 Sat Nov 29 07:23:37 EST 2025 Wed Jan 22 17:17:43 EST 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 4 |
| Keywords | aphasia decision‐making capacity communication disorders conversation analysis acquired brain injury |
| Language | English |
| License | Attribution 2024 The Authors. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c3950-52110baf1be94ba83f1406f076fa31340b6ab1046f1f8329eaef08c9ebafab163 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-4149-409X |
| OpenAccessLink | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2F1460-6984.13020 |
| PMID | 38377142 |
| PQID | 3081566924 |
| PQPubID | 105607 |
| PageCount | 16 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_2929540943 proquest_journals_3255601251 proquest_journals_3081566924 pubmed_primary_38377142 crossref_primary_10_1111_1460_6984_13020 wiley_primary_10_1111_1460_6984_13020_JLCD13020 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | July/August 2024 2024-07-00 2024 Jul-Aug 20240701 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2024-07-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 07 year: 2024 text: July/August 2024 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States – name: London |
| PublicationTitle | International journal of language & communication disorders |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Int J Lang Commun Disord |
| PublicationYear | 2024 |
| Publisher | Wiley Subscription Services, Inc |
| Publisher_xml | – name: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc |
| References | 2010; 34 2015; 3 2020; 42 2017; 191 2022; 24 2014; 47 2007 2006 2006; 19 1994 2005 2020; 34 2004 2021; 35 2009; 33 2017; 31 2013; 36 2017; 39 2020 2014; 16 2018 2016 2014 2011; 26 2016; 28 2018; 33 2018; 32 2012; 45 2010; 73 2001; 31 2018; 13 e_1_2_9_30_1 e_1_2_9_31_1 e_1_2_9_34_1 e_1_2_9_13_1 e_1_2_9_32_1 e_1_2_9_12_1 e_1_2_9_33_1 Boden D. (e_1_2_9_8_1) 1994 Braun M. (e_1_2_9_11_1) 2010; 34 e_1_2_9_15_1 e_1_2_9_14_1 e_1_2_9_17_1 e_1_2_9_16_1 e_1_2_9_19_1 e_1_2_9_18_1 e_1_2_9_20_1 e_1_2_9_22_1 e_1_2_9_21_1 e_1_2_9_24_1 e_1_2_9_23_1 e_1_2_9_7_1 e_1_2_9_6_1 e_1_2_9_5_1 e_1_2_9_4_1 e_1_2_9_3_1 e_1_2_9_2_1 Braun M. (e_1_2_9_10_1) 2009; 33 e_1_2_9_9_1 e_1_2_9_26_1 e_1_2_9_25_1 e_1_2_9_28_1 e_1_2_9_27_1 e_1_2_9_29_1 |
| References_xml | – volume: 35 start-page: 1463 issue: 11 year: 2021 end-page: 1481 article-title: Mental capacity assessment with people with aphasia: understanding the role of the speech and language therapist publication-title: Aphasiology – year: 2005 – year: 2007 – volume: 34 start-page: 102 issue: 2 year: 2010 end-page: 105 article-title: Decisional capacity assessment publication-title: Generations (San Francisco, Calif.) – volume: 42 start-page: 2797 issue: 19 year: 2020 end-page: 2808 article-title: How do health and social care professionals in England and Wales assess mental capacity? A literature review publication-title: Disability and Rehabilitation – volume: 39 start-page: 2148 issue: 21 year: 2017 end-page: 2157 article-title: An exploration of mental capacity assessment within acute hospital and intermediate care settings in England: a focus group study publication-title: Disability and Rehabilitation – volume: 45 start-page: 297 issue: 3 year: 2012 end-page: 321 article-title: Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide publication-title: Research on Language & Social Interaction – year: 2016 – volume: 34 start-page: 977 issue: 10‐11 year: 2020 end-page: 997 article-title: Dysarthria and other‐initiated repair in everyday conversation publication-title: Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics – year: 2018 – volume: 3 start-page: 1 issue: 7 year: 2015 end-page: 170 article-title: Delivering patient choice in clinical practice: a conversation analytic study of communication practices used in neurology clinics to involve patients in decision‐making publication-title: Health Services and Delivery Research – year: 1994 – year: 2014 – volume: 32 start-page: 16 issue: sup1 year: 2018 end-page: 17 article-title: The impact of better conversations with Aphasia on current practice by UK speech and language therapists publication-title: Aphasiology – volume: 33 start-page: 78 issue: 1 year: 2009 article-title: Are clinicians ever biased in their judgments of the capacity of older adults to make medical decisions? publication-title: Generations (San Francisco, Calif.) – volume: 13 start-page: e0198567 issue: 6 year: 2018 end-page: e0198567 article-title: The VOICE study—A before and after study of a dementia communication skills training course publication-title: PLoS ONE – volume: 191 start-page: 212 year: 2017 end-page: 225 article-title: Should I stay or should I go? How healthcare professionals close encounters with people with dementia in the acute hospital setting publication-title: Social Science & Medicine – volume: 35 start-page: 950 issue: 7 year: 2021 end-page: 960 article-title: Prevalence of aphasia and dysarthria among inpatient stroke survivors: describing the population, therapy provision and outcomes on discharge publication-title: Aphasiology – volume: 31 start-page: 1344 issue: 11 year: 2017 end-page: 1358 article-title: Decision‐making capacity in aphasia: SLT's contribution in England publication-title: Aphasiology – volume: 31 start-page: 69 issue: 3 year: 2001 end-page: 90 article-title: Decision‐making in meetings as talk‐in‐interaction publication-title: International Studies of Management & Organization – volume: 73 start-page: 265 issue: 3 year: 2010 end-page: 287 article-title: Advice‐implicative Interrogatives: building “Client‐centered” Support in a Children's Helpline publication-title: Social Psychology Quarterly – volume: 16 start-page: 231 issue: 3 year: 2014 end-page: 241 article-title: Speech‐language pathologists’ contribution to the assessment of decision‐making capacity in aphasia: a survey of common practices publication-title: International Journal of Speech Language Pathology – volume: 19 start-page: 89 issue: 2 year: 2006 end-page: 102 article-title: The structure of patients' presenting concerns: physicians' opening questions publication-title: Health communication – year: 2006 – year: 2020 – volume: 26 start-page: 30 issue: 1 year: 2011 end-page: 42 article-title: Examining the contribution of social communication abilities and affective/behavioral functioning to social integration outcomes for adults with traumatic brain injury publication-title: The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation – volume: 28 start-page: 21 issue: 1 year: 2016 end-page: 36 article-title: Assessing decision‐making capacity: the interpretation and implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 amongst social care professionals publication-title: Practice (Birmingham, England) – start-page: 13 year: 2004 end-page: 31 – volume: 31 start-page: 1760 issue: 13–14 year: 2017 end-page: 1780 article-title: Introducing the model of cognitive‐communication competence: a model to guide evidence‐based communication interventions after brain injury publication-title: Brain Injury – volume: 24 start-page: 385 issue: 4 year: 2022 end-page: 403 article-title: How professionals deal with clients' explicit objections to their advice publication-title: Discourse Studies – volume: 47 start-page: 292 issue: 3 year: 2014 end-page: 305 article-title: Enabling better conversations between a man with aphasia and his conversation partner: incorporating writing into turn taking publication-title: Research on Language and Social Interaction – volume: 33 start-page: 1335 issue: 11 year: 2018 end-page: 1344 article-title: Treatment recommendations as actions publication-title: Health Communication – volume: 36 start-page: 73 issue: 1 year: 2013 end-page: 82 article-title: Homeward bound or bound for a home? Assessing the capacity of dementia patients to make decisions about hospital discharge: comparing practice with legal standards publication-title: International Journal of Law and Psychiatry – ident: e_1_2_9_19_1 doi: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1572793 – ident: e_1_2_9_28_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_6_1 doi: 10.1080/02699206.2019.1705915 – ident: e_1_2_9_7_1 doi: 10.1177/14614456221110669 – ident: e_1_2_9_25_1 – volume: 33 start-page: 78 issue: 1 year: 2009 ident: e_1_2_9_10_1 article-title: Are clinicians ever biased in their judgments of the capacity of older adults to make medical decisions? publication-title: Generations (San Francisco, Calif.) – ident: e_1_2_9_18_1 doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1224275 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_1 doi: 10.3109/17549507.2013.871751 – ident: e_1_2_9_17_1 doi: 10.1080/00208825.2001.11656821 – ident: e_1_2_9_14_1 doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511607172 – ident: e_1_2_9_21_1 doi: 10.4324/9781003069652 – ident: e_1_2_9_16_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_22_1 doi: 10.1080/02699052.2017.1379613 – ident: e_1_2_9_31_1 doi: 10.3310/hsdr03070 – ident: e_1_2_9_24_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_4_1 doi: 10.1080/08351813.2014.925667 – ident: e_1_2_9_23_1 doi: 10.1080/02687038.2017.1355441 – ident: e_1_2_9_5_1 doi: 10.1080/02687038.2018.1486379 – ident: e_1_2_9_20_1 doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef – ident: e_1_2_9_3_1 doi: 10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2017.09.014 – ident: e_1_2_9_12_1 doi: 10.1177/0190272510379838 – ident: e_1_2_9_27_1 doi: 10.1080/09503153.2015.1074667 – ident: e_1_2_9_30_1 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198567 – ident: e_1_2_9_26_1 doi: 10.1080/02687038.2020.1759772 – volume-title: The business of talk : Organizations in action year: 1994 ident: e_1_2_9_8_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_15_1 doi: 10.1207/s15327027hc1902_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_32_1 doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 – volume: 34 start-page: 102 issue: 2 year: 2010 ident: e_1_2_9_11_1 article-title: Decisional capacity assessment publication-title: Generations (San Francisco, Calif.) – ident: e_1_2_9_13_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.11.009 – ident: e_1_2_9_9_1 doi: 10.1080/02687038.2020.1819954 – ident: e_1_2_9_29_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_33_1 doi: 10.1080/10410236.2017.1350913 – ident: e_1_2_9_34_1 doi: 10.1097/HTR.0b013e3182048f7c |
| SSID | ssj0002151 |
| Score | 2.3670511 |
| Snippet | Background
Healthcare professionals (HCPs) have a responsibility to conduct assessments of decision‐making capacity that comply with the Mental Capacity Act... Healthcare professionals (HCPs) have a responsibility to conduct assessments of decision-making capacity that comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).... BackgroundHealthcare professionals (HCPs) have a responsibility to conduct assessments of decision‐making capacity that comply with the Mental Capacity Act... Background Healthcare professionals (HCPs) have a responsibility to conduct assessments of decision‐making capacity that comply with the Mental Capacity Act... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed crossref wiley |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database Publisher |
| StartPage | 1612 |
| SubjectTerms | acquired brain injury Adult aphasia Behavior Best practice Best Practices Brain Brain damage Brain injured people Brain Injuries - psychology Brain Injuries - rehabilitation Clinical outcomes Codes of practice Communication Communication disorders Communication Disorders - psychology Communication Skills Conversation Conversation analysis Decision Making Decisions decision‐making capacity Evaluation Feasibility Female Guidance Health care Health services Humans Information Information gathering Injuries Job performance Male Medical decision making Medical personnel Mental Competency Mental health Middle Aged Neuropsychology Observational studies Occupational therapists Occupational therapy Patient communication Patients Professional Training Professionals Self evaluation Social education Social services Speech therapists Speech-language pathologists Therapists Therapy Training Traumatic brain injury Verbal communication |
| Title | Using Conversation Analysis to explore assessments of decision‐making capacity in a hospital setting |
| URI | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2F1460-6984.13020 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38377142 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3081566924 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3255601251 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2929540943 |
| Volume | 59 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos001166360900001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVAWR databaseName: Taylor and Francis Online Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 1460-6984 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0002151 issn: 1368-2822 databaseCode: TFW dateStart: 19980101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.tandfonline.com providerName: Taylor & Francis – providerCode: PRVWIB databaseName: Wiley Online Library customDbUrl: eissn: 1460-6984 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0002151 issn: 1368-2822 databaseCode: DRFUL dateStart: 19970101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com providerName: Wiley-Blackwell |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1LT9wwEB6VhxAXKI9CKEWuxKGXCCcxSXxEC6uq2iKEirS3yHZswYFstVk48xP4jfwSZhxvBC1SVYlLFMlJZNnzzHz-BuAwK4ythTbxMT4RC81tXIqa6PEKDBbQOJTas-uPivPzcjyWFwFNSGdhOn6I_ocbaYa316TgSrcvlBxVHBMfWQpqaJxi1r5ER6sw_1o6vRxejXpzTD6tO3yFIoHuMPD7EJznj0-8dk1_xZuvw1fvf4br7zDzj7AWgk920knLBnywzSb1bQ4Yj01Y-RlK7VvgPJiADQiVPu0gP2zOYMJmE2Y9eM8y1VN7tmziWB169jw9PN76RlfMoDs2GOuzm4Ypdh36lLDWesT1NlwNz34NvsehKUNsMnnMMXHFgEErl2grhVZl5jBFyx0vcqeyJBNc50pT4dglDq2FtMo6Xhpp8R0cyLNPsNhMGrsLDG1-Uae15Lk1wtZcSZ27UifGOWqmWkTwbb4f1e-Oe6Oa5yy0hhWtYeXXMIL9-X5VQQnbKuNEhZNjhvn2MLGvcQrwIvjaD6N2UclENXZy11appDoooS8j2OnEoJ8K5fZFItIIjvxu_2uO1Y_R4NTf7f33G59hNcVoqsMJ78PibHpnv8CyuZ_dtNMDWEjFBV6LcXkQxP8ZqrwB0A |
| linkProvider | Wiley-Blackwell |
| linkToHtml | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3NTtwwEB4hqFouUGiBAG2NxKGXqE5ikviIFhC0y4oDSNws27FVDs2izcKZR-AZeRJmnGwEFKlC6i2S48iy5zfz-RuA3aywrhLGxnv4RiwMd3EpKqLHKzBYQONQmsCuPyxGo_LyUj69C9PyQ_Q_3Egzgr0mBacf0k-0HHUcMx9ZCuponGLaviDQNxGsLxVnvTUml9bevUKJQG_Y0fsQmufFB557pr_CzefRa3A_R8v_Y-EfYakLPtl-Ky0rMOfqVerb3GE8VuH9aVdq_wQ-gAnYgFDpkxbyw2YMJmw6Zi6A9xzTPbVnw8aeVV3Pnoe7-z-h0RWz6I4txvrsqmaa_e76lLDGBcT1Z7g4OjwfHMddU4bYZnKPY-KKAYPRPjFOCqPLzGOKlnte5F5nSSa4ybWhwrFPPFoL6bTzvLTS4RwcyLM1mK_HtdsAhja_qNJK8txZ4Squpcl9aRLrPTVTLSL4PjsQdd1yb6hZzkJ7qGgPVdjDCLZnB6Y6JWxUxokKJ8cM8_VhYl_jFOBFsNMPo3ZRyUTXbnzTqFRSHZTQlxGst3LQL4Vy-yIRaQQ_wnH_a43q53BwEJ423zzjG3w4Pj8dquHJ6NcWLKYYWbWY4W2Yn05u3Bd4Z2-nV83ka5D-Rz-JAmY |
| linkToPdf | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3NbtQwEB5V26riAm35C5RiJA5cIpzEm8RHtNsVtMsKISr1ZtmOLXogW222nPsIfUaehBnHG7WAhJC4RXIcWfb8Zj5_A_C6qKxrhLHpGN9IheEurUVD9HgVBgtoHGoT2PXn1WJRn5_L23dhen6I4YcbaUaw16Tg7rLxt7QcdRwzH1kL6micY9q-LcZyLEawPf08O5sP9picWn_7CmUC_WEk-CE8zy-fuOubfgs478avwQHNHvyPpe_B_Rh-sne9vOzDlmsPqHNzRHkcwO7HWGx_CD7ACdiEcOmrHvTDNhwmbL1kLsD3HNMDuWfHlp41sWvPj-ubb6HVFbPokC1G--yiZZp9jZ1KWOcC5voRnM2Ov0zep7EtQ2oLOeaYumLIYLTPjJPC6LrwmKSVnlel10VWCG5Kbah07DOP9kI67TyvrXQ4BwfK4jGM2mXrngJDq181eSN56axwDdfSlL42mfWe2qlWCbzZHIi67Nk31CZroT1UtIcq7GECh5sDU1ENO1VwIsMpMcf88zDxr3EK8RJ4NQyjflHRRLduedWpXFIllPCXCTzp5WBYCmX3VSbyBN6G4_7bGtXJfDINT8_-ecZL2P00nan5h8Xpc7iXY2jVg4YPYbReXbkXsGO_ry-61VEU_5-IiwN8 |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Using+Conversation+Analysis+to+explore+assessments+of+decision-making+capacity+in+a+hospital+setting&rft.jtitle=International+journal+of+language+%26+communication+disorders&rft.au=Foulkes%2C+Jessica&rft.au=Volkmer%2C+Anna&rft.au=Beeke%2C+Suzanne&rft.date=2024-07-01&rft.issn=1460-6984&rft.eissn=1460-6984&rft.volume=59&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1612&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2F1460-6984.13020&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1368-2822&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1368-2822&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1368-2822&client=summon |