Reflection journal

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 1 of 62

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 3 of 62

About the Health Information and Quality Authority

The Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) is an independent Authority

established to drive high quality and safe care for people using our health and social

care and support services in Ireland. HIQA’s role is to develop standards, inspect

and review health and social care and support services, and support informed

decisions on how services are delivered. HIQA’s ultimate aim is to safeguard people

using services and improve the quality and safety of services across its full range of

functions.

HIQA’s mandate to date extends across a specified range of public, private and

voluntary sector services. Reporting to the Minister for Health and the Minister for

Children and Youth Affairs, the Health Information and Quality Authority has

statutory responsibility for:

 Setting Standards for Health and Social Services — Developing person-

centred standards, based on evidence and best international practice, for

health and social care and support services in Ireland.

 Regulation – Registering and inspecting designated centres.

 Monitoring Children’s Services — Monitoring and inspecting children’s

social services.

 Monitoring Healthcare Quality and Safety — Monitoring the quality and

safety of health services and investigating as necessary serious concerns

about the health and welfare of people who use these services.

 Health Technology Assessment — Providing advice that enables the best

outcome for people who use our health service and the best use of resources

by evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drugs,

equipment, diagnostic techniques and health promotion and protection

activities.

 Health Information — Advising on the efficient and secure collection and

sharing of health information, setting standards, evaluating information

resources and publishing information about the delivery and performance of

Ireland’s health and social care and support services.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 4 of 62

Note on this guidance

This guidance document is produced by the Health Information and Quality

Authority (HIQA). It supports the commitments made by HIQA in 2013 to ensure

that the rights of vulnerable services users are placed at the heart of our work,

whether that be in development of standards and guidance or in our assessment of

the quality and safety of services through our programmes of regulation. It is HIQA’s

belief that through our increased focus on rights, those providing services will

become increasingly aware of their responsibilities in promoting and protecting

service users.

The core human rights principles to be found in HIQA’s standards and service

assessments can be summarised as:

 fairness

 respect

 equality

 dignity

 autonomy

HIQA’s motivation in developing and adopting a rights-based approach and in the

development of associated guidance is that it can enable a move beyond questions

of strict legal compliance to ensuring delivery of effective public services which

respect individual rights and put the needs of individual service users at their heart.

The purpose of this guidance on autonomy is to help services to demonstrate how

they show respect for human dignity, how they provide person-centred care, and

how they ensure an informed consent process that values personal choice and

decision-making. By ensuring that people’s autonomy is respected, service providers

will improve the quality of care, safety and quality of life of people who use health

and social care services.

In considering and adopting this guidance, we would recommend that providers of

services ensure:

1. A clear understanding of supporting autonomy within the organisation — this

will require training of the executive and non-executive leadership and

management within the organisation.

2. A policy review — possibly with the use of a supporting autonomy champion

within the organisation.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 5 of 62

3. Organisational reflection on strategic incorporation of a human rights based

approach in the development of their corporate plan, strategic objectives and

outcomes.

4. Review of the work carried out by staff and how the application of this

guidance on supporting autonomy can add value to the lives of those in

receipt of services

The guidance explains the meaning of autonomy, and outlines a supporting

autonomy framework. A separate explanatory leaflet — entitled My Choices: My

Autonomy, which explains the significance of this guidance to people using services

— is available on www.hiqa.ie.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 6 of 62

Glossary of terms used in this report

This glossary details important terms used in this guidance document and a

description of their meaning in the context used.

Accountability: being answerable to another person or organisation for decisions,

behaviours and associated consequences.

Adverse event: an undesired outcome that may or may not be the result of an

error. 

Autonomy: autonomy relates to being human and worthy of respect. In a practical

sense, it is the ability of an individual to direct how he or she lives on a day-to-day

basis according to personal values, beliefs and preferences. In health and social

care, this involves the person who uses services making informed decisions about

the care, support or treatment that he or she receives. The ability to be

autonomous, and make decisions, can be supported and developed.

Capacity (legal capacity): in practice, having legal capacity means being

recognised as a person who can make decisions. It includes the capacity to be both

a holder of rights and an actor under the law [the ability to exercise those rights].

Legal capacity to be a holder of rights entitles a person to full protection of his or

her rights by the legal system. Legal capacity to act under the law recognises the

person as an agent with the power to engage in transactions and to create, modify

or end legal relationships. 

Capacity (mental capacity): the ability of a person to understand the nature and

consequences of a decision to be made by him or her, in the context of the available

choices at the time the decision is to be made. Essentially, individuals may require

various supports to assist the decision-making process. A person should not be

regarded as unable to understand information relevant to a decision if he or she is

able to understand an explanation of it which is given to him or her in a way that is

appropriate to his or her circumstances (whether using simple language, visual aids

or any other means of communication). 

 Adapted from: Thomas EJ and Brennan TA. Errors and adverse events in medicine: An overview. In:

Vincent C, ed. Clinical Risk Management: Enhancing Patient Safety. London: BMJ Publishing, 2001,

pp. 31–43. In: World Health Organization. Conceptual; Framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety. Version 1.1. Technical Report. WHO; 2009. Available online from: http://www.who.int/patientsafety/taxonomy/icps_full_report.pdf.  United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. General comment No. 1.

Article 12: Equal recognition before the law. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Eleventh session; 2014.  Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013. Dublin: Stationery Office; 2013.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 7 of 62

Consent: the giving of permission or agreement for an intervention, receipt or use

of a service or participation in research, following a process of communication in

which a person using a service has received enough information to enable him or

her to understand the nature, potential risks and benefits of the proposed

intervention or service. 

Positive risk assessment: positive risk-taking is weighing up the potential benefits

and harms of exercising one choice of action over another. It involves identifying the

potential risks involved (good risk assessment), and developing plans and actions

that reflect the positive potentials and stated priorities of the service user (good risk

management). It involves using available resources to achieve the desired

outcomes, and to minimise harmful outcomes. 

Risk: the likelihood of an adverse event or outcome.

Risk management: the systematic identification, evaluation and management of

risk. It is a continuous process with the aim of reducing risk to an organisation and

individuals.

Service-provider: person, persons or organisations that provide services. This

includes staff and management that are employed, self-employed, visiting,

temporary, volunteers, contracted or anyone who is responsible or accountable to

the organisation when providing a service. Accountability to the organisation and

responsibility for care provided extends to those persons who may not be members

of a regulated profession.

 National Consent Advisory Group. National Consent Policy. Dublin: Health Service Executive (HSE);

2013.  Morgan, S. Positive risk-taking: a basis for good risk decision-making. Health Care Risk Report,

March: 20-21; 2010.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 9 of 62

Contents

About the Health Information and Quality Authority ............................................... 3

Note on this guidance .......................................................................................... 4

Glossary of terms used in this report ..................................................................... 6

Section A. Introduction — about the guidance .......................................... 10

1. What is autonomy and why is it important? .................................................... 10

2. What is this guidance about and who is it for? ................................................ 11

3. Why is this guidance important? ..................................................................... 11

4. How was this guidance developed? ................................................................ 13

5. How does this guidance relate to existing HIQA standards and regulations? .... 13

Section B: The guidance ............................................................................. 14

6. Promoting autonomy in health and social care — key principles ...................... 14

7. A supporting autonomy framework for service providers ................................. 15

7.1 Respect the person’s right to autonomy ................................................... 17

7.2 Avoid pre-judging ................................................................................... 20

7.3 Communicate appropriately to establish, explore and promote preferences 21

7.4 Balance rights, risks and responsibilities .................................................. 26

7.5 Agree person-centred supports ............................................................... 29

7.6 Implement and evaluate supportive actions ............................................. 31

8. Barriers to autonomy ...................................................................................... 33

9. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 34

Resources.................................................................................................... 35

References .................................................................................................. 40

Appendices .................................................................................................. 44

Appendix 1 — Terms of Reference: Autonomy Guidance Advisory Group ............ 44

Appendix 2 — Members of the Autonomy Guidance Advisory Group convened by

the Health Information and Quality Authority ............................... 45

Appendix 3 — Location and membership of the three Action-learning Groups ..... 47

Appendix 4 – Understanding autonomy in health and social care ......................... 49

Appendix 5 — Self-reflection checklist for health and social care providers: Am I

respecting and promoting autonomy? ........................................... 59

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 10 of 62

Section A. Introduction — about the guidance

1. What is autonomy and why is it important?

Although there are many different definitions of autonomy, there is some general

agreement about the term. (1-7)

Personal autonomy, which this guidance focuses on,

refers to an understanding of human beings as being worthy of respect. (2)

This

includes respecting a person’s dignity, privacy and his or her choices. Respect for

autonomy is important in the context of health and social care, as it is central to

person-centred care.

In a practical sense, and in general use of the term, autonomy is about self-

determination (directing how one lives). (8)

Autonomy is the ability of an individual to

direct how he or she lives on a day-to-day basis according to personal values, beliefs

and preferences. In health and social care, this involves the person who uses

services making informed decisions about the care, support or treatment that he or

she receives.

Informed consent is one important practical example of the principle of autonomy.

To ‘give consent’ to a medical treatment or a service means to give permission. The

definition of consent provided by the National Consent Advisory Group’s National

Consent Policy specifies the importance of communication and information sharing in

the consent process. (9)

The purpose of communication is to ensure that before giving

consent, people using services have sufficient information to understand the care,

support, or treatment they are agreeing to, and understand the associated potential

risks or benefits.

People who use health and social care services have the right to control their own

lives, and the right to make informed decisions on matters that relate to them.

Individuals may require different levels of assistance to exercise this control and

make their own decisions, and therefore health and social care providers have a key

role in this process. This involves providers taking practical steps to promote and

support people’s autonomy.

 Autonomy can also be defined in a political sense, referring to the autonomy, or power, of a state

or nation.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 11 of 62

2. What is this guidance about and who is it for?

This guidance explains the meaning of autonomy and outlines a supporting-

autonomy framework for implementing good practice in promoting people’s

autonomy when they are using health and social care services. The guidance is

written for providers of all adult health and social care services that are regulated by

HIQA. The aim of the guidance is to assist in promoting and supporting individuals’

autonomy, choice and decision-making in the care setting.

Health and social care providers should champion autonomy in their services. People

who use services may be vulnerable due to personal circumstances, or possible

power imbalances, and may not be in a position to promote their own autonomy. A

supplementary explanatory leaflet, My Choices: My Autonomy, explains the

significance of the guidance for people receiving care, support and treatment. This

shared understanding is important. The leaflet is available on www.hiqa.ie.

Central to the guidance is the supporting autonomy framework, which outlines six

steps involved in promoting autonomy. These are outlined in Section 7 of this report.

The framework applies to adults in health and social care services. While autonomy

may be promoted in different ways in the acute and social care setting, there are

core principles that apply. The framework is a practical tool to balance service-

provider responsibility and accountability with respect for autonomy and individual

choice.

The guidance document includes a series of examples that explain how the various

stages of the framework apply to real-life health and social care situations. These

examples are based on discussions with people using services and service providers

during the consultation phase. A number of published resources are included further

on in this document to assist people in using the framework in their workplaces. A

glossary at the front of this document explains key terms used in this guidance.

3. Why is this guidance important?

The law, codes of professional conduct, and regulatory standards (10-17)

place

increasing importance on the autonomy of the person receiving care, support or

treatment. This guidance reflects a human rights approach to care delivery. The

guidance aims to maximise the rights and autonomy of the person who uses health

and social care services within a supportive framework. (18-21)

Promoting autonomy is

central to a caring service. Promoting autonomy, choice and decision-making

involves more than keeping people safe and healthy. It involves respecting them,

and their choices, and enhancing their quality of life.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 12 of 62

Promoting autonomy can sometimes create challenges for individual health and

social care providers. They may not know how best to promote autonomy, and may

be concerned that respecting a person’s autonomous choices could conflict with their

responsibilities — as a care provider — to do no harm. (22-26)

This could arise when a

person’s values, beliefs and preferences may be contrary to what best-evidence

suggests. Service providers may sometimes not promote autonomy because of

concerns for the person’s safety. This can create a risk-averse culture that may

inhibit personal autonomy and disregard human rights. It is important to achieve an

appropriate balance between promoting autonomy and maintaining safety. This

guidance aims to assist in this process.

HIQA acknowledges that promoting autonomy, and improving quality of life, may

sometimes require a degree of risk. People who use health and social care services

are entitled to the dignity and personal development associated with risk-taking. A

positive approach to risk assessment acknowledges that risk-taking is part of a

fulfilled life. (27)

Positive risk assessment considers possible harms, and focuses on individual

strengths and collaborating with people to meet their individual needs. (28-31)

HIQA

supports positive risk assessment in appropriate settings when person-centred

planning and associated necessary safeguards are in place. (32)

This guidance aims to

assist providers in promoting autonomy in an accountable way. The supporting

autonomy framework includes a step where rights, risks and responsibilities are

considered. This section of the framework explains positive risk assessment in

greater detail, and provides a guide to some helpful resources.

All preferences are not necessarily facilitated in accordance with respect for

autonomy. A careful process of individualised risk assessment, communication, and

informed decision-making is essential. A number of factors potentially affect the

extent to which a person’s individual choices can be facilitated. (9)

These can include:

 person’s capacity (ability) to make decisions (33-35)

 respect for the autonomy of others

 specific provisions of The Mental Health Act (36)

 available resources.

It is also important to stress that the issue of inadequate resources is not an

acceptable excuse for poor care.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 13 of 62

4. How was this guidance developed?

The guidance was developed in line with standard guidance procedures produced by

HIQA. Core elements of the process included:

 a literature review

 consulting with an advisory group (see terms of reference in Appendix 1, and

membership in Appendix 2)

 an action-learning consultation with three distinct groups in health and social

care services (see locations and membership in Appendix 3)

An action-learning approach was used as it values practical experience, and is

compatible with the cycle of quality improvement. (37; 38)

Autonomy is a complex term

that can be better understood in everyday practice. (39; 40)

Meetings took place in

health and social care environments, organised by the project lead, as the guidance

developed. This was important to ensure the guidance was informed by and

understood in the practice setting. Problems and solutions in promoting autonomy

were explored from the perspective of various informed and interested parties.

HIQA inspectors were also consulted as part of the process.

5. How does this guidance relate to existing HIQA standards and

regulations?

This guidance document can support providers in implementing various National

Standards produced by HIQA. The guidance supports these National Standards (15-17)

and any associated regulations for health and social care services which promote the

autonomy of adults using services.

The guidance has particular relevance in terms of the following themes in these

Standards, ‘Person-centred Care and Support’ (15;16) and ‘Individualised Supports and

Care.’(17) However, as respect for human dignity, privacy and choice extends across

various aspects of care giving, the guidance is also relevant to other themes and

associated standards. This could include standards in relation to the physical care

environment, intimate care, information sharing and or effective resource

management.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 14 of 62

Section B: The guidance

6. Promoting autonomy in health and social care — key principles

Autonomy can be promoted in different ways depending on the person, his or her

individual needs and the care setting. Promoting autonomy may involve supporting a

young adult in the informed consent process prior to surgery in an acute hospital

environment. In a residential service for older adults, promoting autonomy may be

as simple as helping an individual to start a club in the place where they live. While

in the maternity services, it may involve exploring a woman’s birth plan preferences

with her during the ante-natal period.  Despite these diverse settings, in all

instances the personal preferences of the person are considered in a staged process.

This section lists some key principles about autonomy in health and social care.

These principles are the ideas underpinning the guidance. For readers who wish to

explore these ideas further, the associated legal and ethical aspects of autonomy are

explained in greater detail in Appendix 4.

Key principles about autonomy in this guidance

 Autonomy is one of the ethical principles that health and social care

providers use to guide their practice.

 Autonomy does not always involve total independence; often, decisions

are made based on our relationships with others, or with the assistance

of others.

 Irish and international laws support the promotion of personal autonomy

in health and social care.

 Respect for autonomy is compatible with a human-rights approach to

care.

 Respect for autonomy means that every adult person has a right to be

involved in decisions that affect them.

 The will and preferences of the individual are central to promoting

autonomy.

 Respect for autonomy means that every adult person has a right to

consent to, or refuse, treatment, unless it is decided they do not have the

mental capacity (ability) to do so.

 The issue of autonomy in pregnancy presents additional challenges. The foetus is afforded equal protection to

that of the mother in Irish law in accordance with article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland. In this sense, the rights and autonomy of both the mother and foetus are considered. In unresolved situations of competing rights, legal advice may be required. For a further analysis of these specific issues see: Wade, K. Refusal of emergency caesarean in Ireland: A relational approach. Medical Law Review. 2013 22(1): pp.1-25.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 15 of 62

 Respect for autonomy means that informed consent involves a process of

communicating with people, and not merely the signing of a consent

form.

 The ability of people to be autonomous and make decisions can be

developed if appropriate supports are put in place.

 The ability to make a decision can change over time and is specific to the

decision to be made. This is a Functional approach to capacity.

 Respecting autonomy involves careful balancing of the rights of people

who use services, their safety and wellbeing, and the professional

accountability of service providers.

 An ongoing process of engagement, and person-centred communication,

with people who use services can help promote autonomy and wellbeing.

 Some individuals may wish to take less of a role in the decision-making

process at some stages in their interaction with services. This should be

respected.

 Respect for autonomy does not mean all choices are facilitated.

7. Supporting autonomy: a framework for service providers

Steps involved in promoting autonomy in health and social care services are outlined

in this section.

This supporting autonomy framework is a practical tool to assist providers to

promote the autonomy of people who use health and social care services (see Figure

2). It involves six steps as follows:

 Respect the person’s right to autonomy.

 Avoid pre-judging.

 Communicate appropriately to establish, explore and promote preferences.

 Balance rights, risks and responsibilities.

 Agree person-centred supports.

 Implement and evaluate supportive actions.

The steps are not necessarily chronological, but highlight significant stages in the

process.

The framework is based on experiences of autonomy in everyday life. (41-44)

In this

sense, autonomy is viewed as an interdependent process that involves our

relationships with other people. This is referred to as relational autonomy. (45-46)

The

framework is compatible with a human-rights approach of supported decision-

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 16 of 62

making. (18-21)

It reflects recent developments in assisted decision-making legislation

in Ireland. (11)

It also supports the rights of people who use health and social care

services to make decisions about the care, support and treatment they receive.

Figure 2. Supporting autonomy: a framework for promoting autonomy in

health and social care services

The framework can help health and social care providers to balance respect for

autonomy with professional responsibility and accountability for a quality service. It

not only reflects an approach to caregiving that respects the autonomy of service

users, but also appreciates the concepts of care, responsibility, accountability and

 At the time of publication, the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013 had not yet been

enacted. All guidance should be interpreted in accordance with the prevailing law.

Supporting autonomy

Respect the person's right to

autonomy

Avoid pre-judging

Communicate appropriately to establish, explore and

promote preferences

Balance rights, risks and

responsibilities

Agree person- centred supports

Implement and

evaluate supportive

actions

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 17 of 62

interdependence that are present in a professional caring relationship. (26; 44; 47-50)

Effective communication with people who use services is a core aspect of the

framework.

This section of the guidance explains the various steps in the framework, and what

they mean for service providers. Each step in the framework incorporates some

practical examples that draw on discussions in the action learning groups. Examples

are not presented in order of importance. Examples include three fictitious case

studies, using the first names John, Claire and Erik. The case studies are followed

through in each step to explain the process that promoting autonomy involves.

7.1 Respect the person’s right to autonomy

Every person who uses health and social care services has the right to have his or

her autonomy respected. This includes respect for their dignity, privacy and personal

preferences. Autonomy can be respected in simple ways in the care setting. This

could involve assisting a person to carry out their daily activities in a manner that

suits their individual needs. The process of informed consent is an important

practical application of respect for autonomy in health and social care.

It is important that people are supported in the decision-making process but are not

subjected to undue influence. When health and social care providers share

information, give advice, or assist in the decision-making process, it should be with

the intention of promoting the autonomy of the person receiving care, support and

or treatment. The will and preferences of the individual is central to the process.

Respecting a person’s autonomy includes respecting what others may consider to be

unwise decisions.

It is essential that people who use services are aware of their right to an active role

in deciding the care, support and treatment they receive. Service providers are

required to appreciate the power imbalances that can occur within services and take

the lead in promoting autonomy. Respect for autonomy does not mean every

preference or choice can be facilitated. The person will require the necessary

capacity to make that particular decision at that specific point in time. If proposed

actions are prohibited by law, affect the autonomy of others, are clinically unsound

or legitimately exceed available resources, a specific choice may not be supported.

However, the issue of insufficient resources should not be an acceptable excuse for

poor care and practice in relation to promoting people’s autonomy. When resource

issues are a factor inhibiting autonomy, they should be reported to the relevant

authority. It may be possible, in some instances, to actively manage resource

challenges to find practical solutions that do not require additional funding.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 18 of 62

What this means for service providers

 Service providers design and deliver care which respects service-users’

dignity, privacy, bodily integrity and personal will and preferences.

 Service providers support policy development, staff training and supervision in

positive risk assessment.

 Individual health and social care providers respect autonomy in line with

legislation, best-available evidence and any codes of conduct produced by

professional regulators.

Examples of respect for autonomy can include the following:

 organising a community homecare package to allow a person to live in their

own home

 including a person in communication, regardless of cognitive ability

 committing to an informed consent process underpinned by person-centred

communication

 respecting a person’s right to refuse professional advice

 introducing and facilitating advance care planning

 having a residents’ forum

 promoting dignity at end of life

 working in creative ways to establish the will and preferences of people who

do not communicate verbally

 creating a sense of the person in the care environment, for example, pictures

in their room, use of life histories

 working inter-professionally to assist in meeting the preferences of people

with complex needs

 providing same-gender accommodation in acute hospital settings

 adopting an open-disclosure policy

 putting in place access to independent advocacy services

 respecting a person’s information as private in accordance with the law

 maintaining privacy and confidentiality in any online and or digital

communication

 creating environments which allow respect for privacy in intimate care

 involving patients, residents and other people using services in assessment,

planning, delivery and evaluation of their care, support and treatment

 operating restraint-free environments wherever possible. Any restrictive

practices should be person-centred, policy driven and based on individual risk

assessment

 preserving human dignity and protecting vulnerable adults from abuse.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 19 of 62

Case study A, John: Example 1

John is an older adult with dementia living in a community-nursing unit. John is

scheduled to have a total hip replacement in hospital, following referral by his

general practitioner (GP) for unresolved hip pain. In accordance with respect for

John’s autonomy, the team at the hospital appreciates John’s right to an informed-

consent process. This is evident in its efforts to communicate effectively with him to

date, and seek his permission to discuss his care with family members. Staff in the

hospital and the community nursing unit are committed to working with John to

support his autonomy and promote his role in the decision-making process.

Case study B, Claire: Example 1

Claire is a young woman with an intellectual disability. She attends a vocational

education centre and wants to travel to classes unaccompanied on public transport.

Respect for her autonomy suggests that this is the right thing to do. Claire is 19

years old and wants some independence like the other students. However, the team

in the education centre and her parents have concerns as Claire has never travelled

alone and may be at risk of harm from traffic, being hassled, or could get lost in an

unfamiliar environment.

Despite these legitimate concerns, the staff and Claire’s parents appreciate how

important this choice is to Claire. They respect her autonomy and personal

preferences, and consider how best to facilitate her choices. Claire lives in a

community with other people. Claire is encouraged to reflect on how this choice

could affect her personal safety and how it affects her parents and care workers who

are concerned about her wellbeing. Claire’s request to use public transport is not

facilitated immediately but a staged process of skills building is put in place for her.

Case study C, Erik: Example 1

Erik is a middle-aged Western-European man who has lived in Ireland for the past

two years. Erik is currently being cared for by his general practitioner (GP) and the

local public health nurse. Erik has Type 1 diabetes and has a diabetic leg ulcer due

to the long-term vascular complications of his diabetes. The vascular team at the

hospital clinic have recommended a vacuum assisted dressing to heal the wound.

Erik refuses a vacuum dressing stating that he would not like to have a device like

that attached to his leg when he goes to his weekly card game. The GP and public

health nurse respect his right to refuse treatment, even though, based on available

evidence, they consider it an unwise decision. The public health nurse and GP

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 20 of 62

respect Erik’s right to autonomy, and consider how best to balance that right with

their responsibility to deliver evidence-based care, and their concern for his

wellbeing. Following further discussion between Eric, the public health nurse and the

GP, a decision is made to continue with more standard ulcer dressings, to increase

pain relief medication and arrange follow-up observation. All three agree to review

the decision in a month’s time.

7.2 Avoid pre-judging

Every person is presumed to have capacity to make his or her own decisions unless

there is evidence to the contrary. Pre-conceived ideas about autonomy are not

appropriate. People may differ in terms of the amount of assistance they require to

make decisions. This does not mean they lack decision-making capacity. In line with

a functional approach to capacity, a person may have different decision-making

abilities depending on the decision to be made and the time at which the decision is

required. All individuals may require assistance with decision-making at different

points in their lives. While it is important not to underestimate the ability of a person

to make his or her own decisions, it also important not to overestimate the extent to

which a person may be confident to make decisions on his or her own.

What this means for service providers

 Service providers have systems in place to support decision-making.

 Services create a culture in which the decision-making potential of all

individuals is respected.

Examples of avoiding pre-judging include services:

 focusing and maximising human potential and avoiding a focus on

limitations

 respecting that an unwise choice does not necessarily mean a lack of

capacity

 presuming that all persons have ability to make their own decisions unless

an assessment of capacity, in line with the law, indicates otherwise

 treating people in a non-discriminatory manner

 avoiding overestimating decision-making ability in some circumstances. For

example, if an expectant mother may have worked as a nurse and this is

known to the service, this does not mean that she requires less

information or support prior to her admission to the labour ward

 appreciating that people have different life goals, needs and wants, for

example, a person in a residential setting may wish to spend a lot of

money on the most recent jersey from their football team.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 21 of 62

Case study A, John: Example 2

John’s care team in the community-nursing unit, and the hospital, do not pre-judge

his ability to make decisions based on a diagnosis of dementia. Hospital policy

includes reference to supporting people with cognitive impairment to be involved in

decisions that affect them. The community-nursing unit has always engaged with

John in a manner that encourages his role in decision-making. John has indicated

that he likes his daughter to be involved in the decision-making process. She visits

regularly and assists John in his communication with the community hospital staff.

Case study B, Claire: Example 2

Claire’s decision-making ability is not pre-judged because of her intellectual

disability.

Case study C, Erik: Example 2

Erik’s refusal of treatment is not viewed as an indication of lack of capacity, despite

the healthcare team’s view that it is an unwise decision.

7.3 Communicate appropriately to establish, explore and promote

preferences

Promoting autonomy requires an ongoing process of communication to address

individual need. This requires truthful, open communication and an atmosphere of

trust and mutual respect. Effective communication is the cornerstone of informed

consent and is essential to ascertain an individual’s will and preferences with regard

to care, support and treatment. Effective communication can also identify any

supports required in the decision-making process.

A shared dialogue about care, support and treatment will ensure that information is

both given and understood. A person’s preferences and requirements for assistance

with decision-making may change over time. An awareness of the service-user’s

personal story is an important aspect to promoting autonomy. This story can only be

known through real engagement with people who access services. While clinical data

can assist in making appropriate assessments, information about a person, his or her

life and what is important to them is required to promote autonomy in a meaningful

way. (44; 51-52)

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 22 of 62

A person must be given information in a manner they can understand to assist them

to make decisions. The communication process should accommodate any specific

communication needs and be culturally sensitive. Communication should ideally take

place at a time that people are best able to assimilate information. Plain language

and easy-to-read documents will help with communication.

It is essential that communication in the consent process is a two-way process. This

will enable sufficient discussion, and move beyond a mere process of

authorisation. (53)

If an individual has an extensive cognitive impairment or

communication difficulties, his or her preferences can be identified with the

assistance of family members and carers who are aware of his or her needs and

wishes. Family involvement must be with the person’s consent.

Should the communication process suggest an individual lacks capacity to make a

specific decision, then the person’s capacity should be assessed in accordance with

the law. Every effort should be made to support the person to make his or her own

decisions. A lack of supportive measures should not be confused with a lack of

capacity. Capacity is assessed in accordance with a specific decision at a specific

time. The current test for capacity in Ireland is a three-part test. It is referred to as

a ‘Functional Test’ for capacity. Capacity to consent to, or refuse, treatment is

dependent on the following criteria:

 Does the person understand and retain the information?

 Does the person believe the information?

 Does the person use the information to weigh up the risks and benefits of the

situation and make a choice? 

 This is referred to as the ‘C test’. The C test is based on UK case law, Re C - Re C [1994] 1WLR

290. Recent case law in Ireland supports this (Fitzpatrick & Anor v K & Anor [2008] IEHC 104). Note that capacity should be assessed in accordance with the prevailing law. At the time of preparing this

guidance, the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013 was awaiting enactment.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 23 of 62

What this means for service providers

 Services communicate with people to establish their identity as a unique

individual. Autonomy cannot be promoted unless the person and their

preferences are known.

 Service providers recognise possible power imbalances in order to promote open

communication.

 Service providers have processes in place to assess capacity in accordance with

legislation and best available evidence.

 Services consult with family and friends to assist in identifying the preferences of

the person receiving care, support or treatment. Services are mindful of

confidentiality in this regard.

Examples of effective communication to establish, explore and promote

preferences include:

 basing person-centred communication on individual needs assessment

 using plain language, and or easy-to-read documents as required (refer to the

resources section for some examples)

 communicating to explore choices that may cause harm. For example, discussion

with a woman in labour, who is refusing a clinically indicated caesarean section,

may reveal inaccurate concerns which can be corrected

 assessing understanding at the time of giving information. Asking questions that

avoid yes and no answers, for example, asking: “What is your understanding of

this treatment plan?”

 establishing the circumstances that support effective communication. For

example, a comfortable, quiet, unrushed environment

 speaking with people in a respectful and approachable way

 working creatively with people who are unable to speak to establish processes of

communication, for example, use of communication aids such as pictorial

systems, picking up non-verbal cues, use of eye contact, use of assistive

technologies

 sharing patient and or service-user information in a variety of mediums to

support written text, such as pictures, DVDs, online

 recognising the significance of non-verbal cues. This can include interpreting

behaviour that challenges as being responsive behaviour and an indication of

possible need. As an example, a person who continuously throws cushions on the

floor may be indicating a wish to sit on the floor in comfort with use of a bean

bag

 using interpreters or technology to communicate with people who do not speak

English

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 24 of 62

 finding out what matters to the person in relation to their care, support or

treatment

 using communication and or hospital passports to explain a person’s needs and

wants when they are in unfamiliar environments  (see the resources section of

this guidance report for examples of passport documents)

 promoting end-of-life discussions and advance care planning to enable evidence

of expressed will and preferences in future care situations (see the resources

section for some examples of advance care planning tools).

Case study A, John: Example 3

With his permission, John’s daughter attends the hospital pre-assessment clinic with

him. John’s cognitive ability fluctuates. He can communicate verbally but sometimes

requires assistance to take in and understand information. He is very sensitive to

background noise and finds large-group conversations difficult. John’s daughter is able

to share this detail with the team at the hospital.

John also brings his hospital passport with him from the community-nursing unit. John’s

passport explains John’s specific communication needs in addition to other information

about his needs, wants and his life story. It outlines that John was a school principal and

loved fishing during his retirement. John had also completed an advance care-planning

document in accordance with the policy of the community-nursing unit.

All staff in the pre-admission clinic appreciate that John communicates best in a quiet

environment. Any non-essential staff are asked to leave the consulting room on this

occasion. Through a process of communication, using clear language, at a slow pace,

the surgeon establishes that John has the capacity to consent to surgery. John indicates

that he understands the purpose of the surgery, the risks involved, and is able to retain

and weigh up those risks to give his permission to proceed at this time. John sometimes

refers to his daughter for assistance during the decision-making process. However, staff

communicate directly with John. The consent process is documented in his hospital

notes by the surgeon.

The nurse and physiotherapist spend some time with John after the consultation, to

explain in detail what the post-surgical period will be like, and establish any specific

post-operative needs. Additional written information is given, using plain language

statements about surgery and explanatory pictures. John is provided with a follow-up

contact number to raise any future queries. John and his daughter are also introduced

 Communication, or hospital, passports provide a brief outline of the specific needs of individuals

who may not be able to communicate in an unfamiliar environment. They are predominantly in use in dementia care and intellectual disability settings, but can be useful for any person with a cognitive

impairment.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 25 of 62

to the medical social worker and her role is explained. As John will be returning to the

community-nursing unit, discharge planning is arranged by the medical social worker

and or nursing staff in association with the nursing staff in the unit.

Case study B, Claire: Example 3

Claire can communicate very effectively. The education centre staff, her family and staff

in the residential centre have always supported Claire to express her preferences and

engage in conversation. Claire requires information in an easy-to-read format in order to

take it in. Claire’s social care worker asks another student in the centre to talk to Claire

about how he developed skills in using public transport independently over a period of

time. Issues about choices, and balancing safety and choice, are discussed in the house

group meeting. The social care worker, Claire and others who live in the house

contribute to this discussion. Claire writes about this choice, and how to progress it, in a

decision-making diary. 

Case study C, Erik: Example 3

Erik is currently distressed about the chronic nature of his diabetes diagnosis, the onset

of complications and planned management strategies. The public health nurse explains

to her line manager that she needs to spend some extra time with Erik to explore his

decision to refuse the vacuum-assisted dressing. In the course of discussions with Erik,

he reveals that he feels the management of his diabetes is taking over his life and that it

is causing him great distress. The public health nurse listens to his concerns and

discusses how he can accommodate treatment measures within his daily life.

This may include pre-planning meals out with friends in advance to adhere to dietary

recommendations. It could also involve, where possible, reorganising the time of

vacuum-dressing changes to suit Erik’s lifestyle. Erik seems open to negotiation

regarding the vacuum dressing once he realises the nurse is willing to work with his

specific quality-of-life needs, in addition to more general clinical needs. Erik retains the

right to refuse the treatment proposed but agrees to consider the points raised.



The use of a decision-making diary has been noted as a useful step in supported decision-making,

by the Office of the Public Advocate in South Australia in an evaluation of its processes. For further information, see: Wallace M. Evaluation of the Supported Decision Making Project. Office of the Public Advocate (Government of South Australia); November 2012. Available online from: http://www.opa.sa.gov.au/resources/supported_decision_making. (See: Participant Experiences

{Johnny} p.17).

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 26 of 62

7.4 Balance rights, risks and responsibilities

Health and social care providers are responsible and accountable for the extent to

which they promote autonomy, deliver quality care and maintain the safety of

people who use health and social care services. Codes of professional conduct,

contracts of employment and the rule of law underpin this accountability. People

who use health and social care services are responsible for the decisions they make

when those decisions are informed, voluntary and made with sufficient capacity. 

While personal limitations and or vulnerability should not prevent individuals from

being autonomous or making decisions about their care, support and treatment, it is

important to consider a person’s vulnerabilities when exploring their choices with

them. Taking the time to consider any limitations, and how they can be addressed,

will prevent the abandonment of service-users under the guise of promoting

autonomy. In this way, autonomy can be promoted while also protecting people who

use services. Allowing a compromised person do as they wish, without appropriate

assessment and support, is not respecting or promoting autonomy.

Appropriate risk assessment is essential to ensure that autonomy is promoted in a

safe, supportive environment. Risk assessment should incorporate best available

evidence. Positive risk assessment acknowledges the role of risk in human

development, and prevents a risk-averse culture from developing, which may

impede autonomy, human rights and human flourishing. A risk-averse culture may

result in restrictive practices that are unnecessary.

Some additional resources for health and social care providers around positive risk

assessment are included in the resource section of this document. Self-reflection can

be used by health and social care professionals to enable them to consider the

extent to which they balance the competing ethical principles of ‘autonomy’ and ‘do

no harm’. This can help promote autonomy and safety. See Appendix 5 for a self-

reflection checklist.

Following a risk assessment, and discussion about these risks, both parties may

come to a negotiated position. Alternatively, the individual may choose to ignore

professional advice and engage in behaviours that constitute a significant degree of

risk to their health and wellbeing. The engagement with people using services is

central to professional accountability. Meaningful interaction about rights, risks and

responsibilities is required. While the decisions of individuals must be respected,

respect for autonomy can never be used to avoid engagement and discussion. It is

essential that all decisions are fully informed as part of a thorough consent process.

 The concept of shared patient and or service-user responsibility, and subsequent contributory

negligence, cannot be assumed in the Irish courts. Irish case law has recognised the relationship between patient and specialist as a ‘dependent’ one, and outlines the duties of healthcare

professionals in this regard. For further detail, see Philp v Bon Secours Hospital [2004] IEHC 121.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 27 of 62

It is also important to document the consent process and discussions regarding risk.

Refusal of treatment is to be respected unless the person lacks the capacity to make

that specific decision. Any refusal of treatment is also documented. Documentation

should be completed by the health or social care professional who has been

engaged in the discussion with the person.

What this means for service providers

 Service providers balance the person’s right to autonomy with the service’s

responsibility to deliver safe, evidence-based care.

 The ethos of service providers is to promote autonomy in order to avoid a risk-

averse culture.

 Service providers appreciate the importance of safeguarding when facilitating the

person’s autonomy and choices.

Examples of balancing, rights, risks and responsibilities include:

 carrying out evidence-based, person-centred risk assessments to establish the

magnitude and likelihood of risk

 considering the person’s strengths in the risk assessment process

 engaging in personal reflection to identify over-protective behaviours (see the

checklist in Appendix 5)

 engaging in effective communication as outlined in the step above to establish

factors that may be influencing decisions

 explaining the risks associated with personal preferences. For example, the

midwife caring for a woman who refuses to discontinue smoking during

pregnancy will continue to engage with the woman during her ante-natal care, in

a non-judgmental manner, to ensure she understands the associated risks

 balancing a person’s preferences with a professional obligation to give safe,

evidenced-based care. In the example above, the midwife informs the woman of

smoking cessation and stress reduction programmes and/or strategies. She

continues to care for the woman and monitor the pregnancy for any deviations

from the norm. All care and education is documented

 negotiating with people to balance their wishes with safe, health-promoting

behaviours where possible. For example, a person who wants to eat unhealthy

fast-foods five times a week may agree to eat this type of food only at the

weekend in order to improve their overall health and wellbeing.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 28 of 62

Case study A, John: Example 4

John’s surgeon explains the risks associated with surgery during the consent process in

a manner John can understand. John may wish to have his daughter present to support

him. Knowledge of these risks is an important factor to facilitate John to give an

informed consent. An opportunity is given to ask questions. If John refuses the surgery,

the risks associated with not having the operation will be explained. These include the

likely persistence of his osteoarthritis pain, and the need for ongoing pain relief

medication.

John’s capacity to refuse treatment is assessed in exactly the same way as his capacity

to consent to treatment (see example 3). John retains a right to refuse treatment, once

it is established he has the capacity to do so. Refusal of treatment should not be

interpreted as a lack of capacity without appropriate communication and assessment.

Case study B, Claire: Example 4

A thorough discussion takes place with Claire to explain, in a way she can understand,

how dangerous the town centre can be in times of peak traffic without proper use of the

rules of the road. The steps involved in travelling to the centre independently are listed

and any risks are identified. The positive aspects of taking this risk are also listed. A

compromise occurs where Claire agrees to be assessed weekly on another aspect of

travelling safely to the centre, until she is eventually allowed to travel unaccompanied.

This involves Clare demonstrating that she applies the rules of the road. It also includes

Claire accepting responsibility for not wearing head phones when walking.

Claire discusses this support plan with her parents who are happy with the level of

support in place. However, a social worker (Kate) who is working with Claire in the

vocational education centre is concerned about her accountability if Claire is harmed

during her journey to and from the centre. The process of communication with Claire

and the safeguarding measures in place to develop her competency in using public

transport show that autonomy is promoted in a responsible way.

Kate can explain that both Claire’s autonomy and safety are considered in the plan of

action. Kate has documentary evidence of this. The process of capacity building, support

and skills development, outlined above, allows Kate to be accountable for her practice.

(Further discussion of the associated legal and ethical principles is contained in Appendix

4 of this report. 

)



Should an adverse event occur, any claim for negligence will be considered on the basis of the facts

of the individual case. Documentary evidence is important in this regard.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 29 of 62

Case study C, Erik: Example 4

Erik retains the right to refuse the vacuum assisted dressing for his leg ulcer. However,

the public health nurse and GP are obligated to care for Erik in the best possible way,

and to ensure his decision is informed and that he is aware of possible risks arising from

his decision. The public health nurse and GP need to ensure, in so far as is possible, that

his refusal is not influenced by wider factors that could have been addressed in the care

planning process. All discussions about rights and risks are documented.

7.5 Agree person-centred supports

In this stage of the framework, the person is supported to be more autonomous, or

self-directing, in their care, support or treatment. The level of support that will be

required to enable a person to be autonomous can vary depending on the issues

involved. Supporting a person to be autonomous is sometimes referred to as

capacity building. This means that the support assists the person to have greater

ability to make their own decisions and live more independently. This type of

support is relevant in health and social care settings, even though the specific nature

of support may vary.

In social care, support may involve skills teaching about relationships and boundary

setting for a young adult with an intellectual disability. This will allow the person to

be more autonomous in interacting with their peers. In an acute care setting,

supportive measures may involve using a language interpreter to assist a non-

English speaking person to understand the treatment the medical team is proposing.

This will facilitate an informed-consent process. More long-term supportive measures

in the healthcare setting may involve education and skills development to promote

independence in the management of chronic illness. Access to service providers is an

important element of support for people with long-term conditions.

Supportive measures are consistent with the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill

2013. The bill outlines procedures for decision-making assistance agreements, where

somebody is appointed by a person to assist, or support, them in the decision-

making process.  Supports are also an important part of balancing safeguarding with

promoting autonomy. Supported decision-making has been positively evaluated. It

has been shown to increase the confidence of people who have been supported,

increase the extent to which they feel in control of their lives and improve their

decision-making ability. (54)

Ongoing support is also recognised as an important

feature of promoting autonomy and independence in the management of long-term

 This is only one provision of the bill. The bill also outlines other supportive measures, which are

detailed further in Appendix 4. This bill has not yet been passed and not currently law in Ireland.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 30 of 62

conditions. Supported mechanisms are identified on the basis of individual

assessment and evaluated to decide their effectiveness. The resource section of this

document highlights a number of helpful documents and websites to assist you in

supporting the decision-making of people who access your services.

What this means for service providers

 Service providers identify and provide individualised supports to promote

autonomy, choice, decision-making and independent living.

Examples of person-centred support include:

 including other people in the decision-making process, with the service-user’s

consent, in line with the law

 promoting informed decision-making by providing person-centred communication

 providing home care plans to promote independent living

 building skills in the use of public transport to promote autonomy in community

living

 providing education and ongoing support for people with long-term care needs,

for example, individuals receiving home dialysis therapies

 developing decision-making ability through the use of decision-making diaries

 scheduling first or last hospital appointment times for people with specific

communication needs to promote their decision-making capacity.

Case study A, John: Example 5

John is supported in decision-making by ensuring an informed-consent process that

meets his individual needs. The team at the hospital pre-assessment clinic also

considers how John can be supported to make decisions, and have his autonomy

respected during his time as an inpatient. The team makes specific reference to John’s

hospital passport as a useful tool in his admission notes. With his permission, the

involvement of John’s daughter is also another form of support.

Case study B, Claire: Example 5

Claire’s will and preferences to travel independently by bus is respected in the example

above. Her decision and autonomy are supported. Claire receives support in the form of

information she can understand about the risks involved in using public transport in the

town centre. The step-by-step programme to build her ability and confidence in applying

the rules of the road, and using public transport safely, is a vital aspect of support in

this example. The sense of autonomy in community could be enhanced if the local bus

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 31 of 62

company is informed that some passengers may require more assistance in buying

tickets and locating their stop. Some bus companies are willing to work with services in

this regard. The involvement of the wider community in supporting people with decision-

making and independent living is an important factor.

Case study C, Erik: Example 5

Erik is supported by appropriate communication to allow him an opportunity to express

his difficulties adjusting to his illness at this point in time. Further support is offered in

the form of additional education about his diabetes, and practical measures to

accommodate his treatment regime in his everyday life. The public health nurse working

with Erik, arranges, in so far as is possible, dressing changes to accommodate his

personal needs.

7.6 Implement and evaluate supportive actions

In this step, health and social care providers implement supportive actions and

facilitate their choices where possible with regard to care, support and treatment.

Ongoing evaluation of supportive mechanisms is required. People’s ability to make

autonomous decisions, carry out their autonomous wishes and the level of support

they require to do so can vary over time. The supportive systems put in place may

result in increasing a person’s independence and ability to make future decisions.

Alternatively, changes in the person’s health or general life circumstances may mean

that a greater level of support is required in future situations. This can only be

known through ongoing engagement with the person and assessment and

identification of their changing needs.

What this means for service providers

 Service providers appreciate that a person’s ability to be autonomous can

change over time.

 Service providers evaluate supportive measures in place to decide if they

remain effective for the person’s needs.

Examples of implementing and evaluating supportive actions include:

 implementing supportive measures with agreement by the person and

multidisciplinary team

 constantly evaluating all supportive mechanisms to decide their effectiveness

and any changes required.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 32 of 62

Case study A, John: Example 6

John’s cognitive abilities may have deteriorated when he is admitted to hospital for

surgery. This may alter his decision-making ability for this hospital stay. Additional

supports may need to be put in place to maintain his role in the decision-making

process. His capacity may need to be assessed in relation to each decision to be

made.

Under existing legislation, if John is considered to lack capacity, he may then

become a Ward of Court, and decisions regarding his care will either be made by the

High Court, or by a Committee of the Ward appointed by the Court. This would likely

be John’s daughter in this case study, but not necessarily so. While family members

may be consulted about an adult’s care and treatment (with permission from the

adult) they do not have the legal right to consent to, or refuse treatment, on the

person’s behalf unless formally appointed in law to do so.

The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, which is currently awaiting

enactment, provides for a series of measures to support decision-making, including

decision-making assistance agreements. This law, once enacted, would allow John,

as one option, to assign his daughter, or another individual, as his designated

healthcare representative in an advance healthcare directive. John would do this

while he had the necessary capacity. Once this legislation is enacted, codes of

practice will be developed to outline the process of decision-making for individuals

who require support. 

Even when deemed to lack the capacity to make his own decisions, John’s autonomy

can be promoted by ensuring his care, support and treatment reflects any previously

expressed will and preferences. Advance care planning documentation, a life-story

book, John’s communication or hospital passport or communication with John’s

family and friends could assist in providing this evidence.

Case study B, Claire: Example 6

Claire makes great progress and enjoys travelling to the education centre

independently. The exposure to, and appropriate management of, risk has greatly

increased her self-confidence. The staff at the centre and her parents may be less

apprehensive regarding Claire’s future choices and preferences.



For current information on the status of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, see the

Houses of the Oireachtas’ website: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=24147&&CatID=59.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 33 of 62

Case study C, Erik: Example 6

Erik agreed to the vacuum-assisted dressing for a while but later changed his mind

and refused to give consent, despite ongoing interaction from the public health

nurse and GP. The discussion that took place and Erik’s refusal of treatment is

documented by the professionals involved. An alternative dressing is now in place. It

is not working as effectively. The public health nurse and GP continue to work with

Erik.

8. Barriers to autonomy

Sometimes barriers can exist which inhibit the ability of people who use health and

social care services to be autonomous. Some individuals may lack the ability to

communicate, or facilitate, their own will and preferences. Person-centred

communication, individualised supports, communication with significant others and

advance care planning may assist in this process. Organisational barriers to

autonomy include:

 an organisational culture that does not respect service-user autonomy

 a risk averse, overprotective approach to care

 staff who do not implement actions or supports to promote autonomy.

This framework presented within this guidance document can assist service-

providers to promote autonomy and support organisational change.

Insufficient funding and resources to neither meet personal will and preferences nor

provide sufficient supports are another significant barrier. When a lack of resources

prevents measures to promote autonomy, this should be made known to the

appropriate authorities. A lack of resources does not mean that poor standards of

care are acceptable. Prudent management of resources is essential.

In some instances, practical solutions may be found that do not require additional

funding. Resource decisions should take account of the needs of people and the

levels of demand on the service. Staff who make decisions on the use of resources

are accountable for the decisions made, and should ensure these decisions are well

informed. (17)

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 34 of 62

9. Conclusion

Promoting the autonomy of people who use health and social care services is a

central aspect of person-centred care. Promoting autonomy involves service

providers engaging with people who use services to respect their dignity, privacy

and personal preferences. This includes assisting an individual, as required, to make

informed decisions about the care, support and treatment that he or she receives.

The supporting autonomy framework outlined within this document provides a

practical tool to assist providers in promoting autonomy in their services.

It is important to engage with people to balance any safety concerns with promoting

autonomy. This will help avoid a risk-averse service developing. It is also important

to view the informed consent process as an ongoing process of dialogue with the

person receiving care, support or treatment. This guidance should be interpreted in

parallel with the law and contemporary national health and social care policies.

In the development of this guidance, many comments were received from those

engaged with. Specifically, one service provider outlined:

“This is an extremely interesting and welcome document and when put in

place will further empower the individuals accessing, or already in our

services. The inclusion of service users in a meaningful way is long overdue

but can be challenging to put in place. The document is informative and

thought provoking for staff and hopefully will encourage us to examine our

own attitudes, take account of our own communication skills and encourages

us to treat others with respect.”

The reflective checklist provided in Appendix 5 will help you to decide the extent to

which you promote autonomy in your place of work.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 35 of 62

Resources

This section lists a series of published resources that directly support the individual

steps in the framework. A list of wider reading related to the guidance is included in

the reference list that follows.

This list is not exhaustive. It is does not include all the resources that may be

relevant to service providers. It is up to service providers to identify the best

available, and most current, evidence relevant to their activities.

All online resources and references were accessed when preparing this guidance

document.

Respect the person’s right to autonomy

Anthony, S. Consent to Medical Treatment in Ireland. London: Medical protection

Society; 2015. Available online from:

http://www.medicalprotection.org/docs/default-source/pdfs/Booklet-PDFs/ireland-

booklets/consent-to-medical-treatment-in-ireland---an-mps-guide-for-

clinicians.pdf?sfvrsn=0.

Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013. Dublin: Stationery Office; 2013.

Available online from:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=24147&&CatID=59.

Department of Health. Towards a Restraint Free Environment in Nursing Homes.

Dublin: Department of Health; 2011. Available online from:

http://health.gov.ie/blog/publications/towards-a-restraint-free-environment-in-

nursing-homes/.

Health Service Executive (Social Care Division). Safeguarding Vulnerable Persons at

Risk of Abuse: National Policy & Procedures. Dublin: Health Service Executive; 2014.

Available online from:

http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/publications/corporate/personsatriskofabuse.pdf.

Letts, P (General Ed). Assessment of mental capacity: A practical guide for doctors

and lawyers. 3rd Edition. London: British Medical Association and the Law Society;

2009.

National Consent Advisory Group. Consent: A guide for health and social care

professionals. Dublin: Health Service Executive; 2013. Available online from:

http://www.hse.ie/eng/about/Who/qualityandpatientsafety/National_Consent_Policy/

Consentguidehealthsocialcareprofessionals240414.pdf.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 36 of 62

Tysall, A and Duffy, A. Open Disclosure: National Guidelines. Dublin: Health Service

Executive and State Claims Agency; 2013. Available online from:

http://www.hse.ie/eng/about/Who/qualityandpatientsafety/nau/Open_Disclosure/op

endiscFiles/opdiscnationalguidelines2013.pdf.

The Irish Hospice Foundation. Ethical Framework for End of Life Care. Module 4:

Patient Autonomy in Law and Practice. Available online from:

http://hospicefoundation.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Module-4-Patient-

Autonomy-in-Law-and-Practice.pdf.

Avoid pre-judging

Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013. Dublin: Stationery Office; 2013.

Available online from:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=24147&&CatID=59.

Communicate appropriately to establish, explore and promote preferences

Accessible Information Working Group. Make it Easy: A guide to preparing Easy to

Read Information. Accessible Information Working Group; 2011. Available online

from: http://info.iaslt.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Make-it-Easy-December-

2011.pdf.

Alzheimer’s Society (UK) and Royal College of Nursing. This is me — tool for people

with dementia receiving professional care. Available online from:

http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=1290.

Anthony, S. Consent to Medical Treatment in Ireland. London: Medical protection

Society; 2015. Available online from:

http://www.medicalprotection.org/docs/default-source/pdfs/Booklet-PDFs/ireland-

booklets/consent-to-medical-treatment-in-ireland---an-mps-guide-for-

clinicians.pdf?sfvrsn=0.

Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013. Dublin: Stationery Office; 2013.

Available online from:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=24147&&CatID=59.

Citizen’s Information Board. Accessible Information for All. Citizen’s Information

Board; 2009. Available online from:

http://www.citizensinformationboard.ie/publications/social/downloads/Accessible_Inf

ormation_For_All.pdf.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 37 of 62

Letts, P (General Ed). Assessment of mental capacity: A practical guide for doctors

and lawyers. 3rd Edition. London: British Medical Association and the Law Society;

2009.

Molly, W. Let me decide. Health and Personal Care Directive; 2012. Available online

from: http://www.letmedecide.ie/index.php/home.

National Adult Literacy Agency. Literacy Audit for Healthcare Settings. Dublin:

National Adult Literacy Agency; 2009. Available online from:

https://www.nala.ie/sites/default/files/publications/literacy_audit_for_healthcare_set

tings.pdf.

National Consent Advisory Group. Consent: A guide for health and social care

professionals. Dublin: Health Service Executive; 2013. Available online from:

http://www.hse.ie/eng/about/Who/qualityandpatientsafety/National_Consent_Policy/

Consentguidehealthsocialcareprofessionals240414.pdf.

Public Health England: Reasonable adjustments database. My Hospital Passport.

(Hospital passport for people with communication difficulties developed by West

Sussex Access to Healthcare Group, Brighton Learning Disability Liaison Team and

Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. Inspired by previous hospital passports

developed by Gloucestershire Partnership NHS Trust and St. George's Healthcare

Trust.) Available online from:

https://www.improvinghealthandlives.org.uk/adjustments/?adjustment=21

The Alzheimer Society of Ireland and The Irish Hospice Foundation. I have

dementia: How do I plan for the future? Dublin: The Alzheimer Society of Ireland;

2015. Available online from:

http://www.alzheimer.ie/Alzheimer/media/SiteMedia/Helpline%20and%20Informatio

n%20Resources/publications/Alzheimers_PlanForFuture-Brochure_web1-

%281%29.pdf?ext=.pdf.

The Irish Hospice Foundation. Think Ahead: a guide for members of the public in

discussing and recording their preferences in the event of emergency, serious illness

or death. Dublin: The Irish Hospice Foundation; 2015. Available online from:

www.thinkahead.ie.

The Learning Disability Partnership Board in Surrey. Hospital Communication Book:

Helping to make sure people who have difficulties understanding and/or

communicating get an equal service in hospital. Available online from:

https://www.mencap.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2008-

04/hospitalcommunicationbook.pdf.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 38 of 62

Balance rights, risks and responsibilities

Department of Health (UK). Independence, choice and risk: a guide to best practice

in supported decision-making. London: Policy Management Unit; 2007. Available

online from:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/publicationsandstati

stics/publications/publicationspolicyandguidance/dh_074773.

Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidance for Designated Centres Risk

Management. Dublin: Health Information and Quality Authority; 2014. Available

online from:

http://www.hiqa.ie/system/files/publications/Guidance%20on%20Risk%20Managem

ent.pdf.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation. How can positive-risk taking help build dementia-

friendly communities. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 2014. Available online

from: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/how-can-positive-risk-taking-help-build-

dementia-friendly-communities.

Morgan S. Making good risk decisions in mental health and social care. Health Care

Risk Report. April 2010: pp.16-17. Available online at:

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/586382/9502403/1290262567967/HCCR+16-

5morgan.pdf?token=N%2FXY%2BStYg8J132L%2F%2F348iM7gxB8%3D.

National Health Service (UK), Isle of Wight and Isle of Wight Council. Managing Risk

Positively A Guide for Staff in Health and Social Care. Isle of Wight: National Health

Service (UK), Isle of Wight and Isle of Wight Council; 2009. Available online from:

https://www.iwight.com/azservices/documents/riskmanagementguidance.pdf.

Agree person-centred supports

Blair, J. Care adjustments for people with learning disabilities in hospitals. Nursing

Management. 2011 18(8); pp.21-24.

Department of Health (UK). Independence, choice and risk: a guide to best practice

in supported decision-making. London: Policy Management Unit; 2006. Available

online from:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http:/www.dh.gov.uk/p

rod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_0747

75.pdf. (See Annex A: A Supported Decision Tool, Annex B: Issues and solutions:

some illustrative cases based on real-life case stories.)

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 39 of 62

Health Service Executive in partnership with the National Disability Unit. National

Guidelines on Accessible Health and Social Care Services. Dublin: National Advocacy

Unit; 2014. Available online from:

http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/yourhealthservice/access/NatGuideAccessibleService

s/NatGuideAccessibleServices.pdf.

State of Victoria. Department of Human Services. Supporting decision-making: A

guide to supporting people with a disability to make their own decisions. Melbourne:

Victorian Government; 2012.

Government of South Australia. Office of the Public Advocate. Supporting Decision

Making; 2015. Available online from:

http://www.opa.sa.gov.au/resources/supported_decision_making.

Taylor, H. Helping people with learning disabilities exercise their right to autonomy.

Learning Disability Practice. 2014 17(7); pp.32-37.

Implement and evaluate supportive actions

Refer to previous resources.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 40 of 62

References ‡

1. Dworkin, G. The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press; 1988.

2. Kant, I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translation by M. Gregor

and Introduction and Commentary by C. Korsgaard. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press; 1998.

3. Keenan, J. A concept analysis of autonomy. Journal of Advanced Nursing.

1999 29 (3): pp.556-562.

4. O’Neill, O. Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press; 2002.

5. Slowther, AM. The concept of autonomy and interpretation in healthcare.

Clinical Ethics. 2007 2: pp.173-175.

6. Ashley, V. Philosophical Models of Autonomy. Essex Autonomy Project Green

Paper Report (University of Essex: Essex Autonomy Project); 2012. Available

online from: http://autonomy.essex.ac.uk/philosophical-models-of-autonomy.

7. Beauchamp, T and Childress, J. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th Edition.

New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.

8. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford English Dictionary; 2011. Available

online from: http://dictionary.oed.com/.

9. National Consent Advisory Group. National Consent Policy. Dublin: HSE; 2013.

10. UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:

resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 24 January 2007, A/RES/61/106.

Available online at: http://www.un-documents.net/a61r106.htm.

11. Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill. Dublin: Stationery Office; 2013.

12. Irish Medical Council. Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered

Medical Practitioners. Dublin: Irish Medical Council; 2009.

13. Social Workers Registration Board. Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics

for Social Workers. Dublin: Social Workers Registration Board; 2011.

14. Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland. Code of Professional Conduct and

Ethics for Registered Nurses and Registered Midwives. Dublin: Nursing and

Midwifery Board of Ireland; 2014.

15. Health Information and Quality Authority. National Quality Standards for

Residential Care Settings for Older People in Ireland. Dublin: Health

Information and Quality Authority; 2009.

16. Health Information and Quality Authority. National Standards for Safer Better

Healthcare. Dublin: Health Information and Quality Authority; 2012.

17. Health Information and Quality Authority. National Standards for Residential

Services for Children and Adults with Disabilities. Dublin: Health Information

and Quality Authority; 2013.

‡ All online references were accessed when preparing this guidance document.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 41 of 62

18. Bach, M and Kerzner, L. A New Paradigm for Protecting Autonomy and the

Right to Legal Capacity. Ontario: Law Commission of Ontario; 2010.

19. Quinn, G. Personhood & Legal Capacity. Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift of

Article 12 CRPD. In: HPOD Conference. Harvard Law School, 20th February

2010, Boston, USA. Boston: Harvard Law School; 2010.

20. The Alzheimer’s Society of Ireland. Human Rights & Older People in Ireland;

Policy Paper. Dublin: The Alzheimer’s Society of Ireland; 2013.

21. Flynn, E and Arstein-Kerslake, A. Legislating personhood: realising the right to

support in exercising legal capacity. International Journal of Law in Context.

2014: 10, pp 81-104. DOI: 10.1017/S1744552313000384, Published online:

31 January 2014.

22. Holm, S. Not just autonomy – the principles of American biomedical ethics.

Journal of Medical Ethics. 1997 21: pp.332-33.

23. Kukla, R. Conscientious autonomy: displacing decisions in health care.

Hastings Centre Report. 2005 35(2): pp.34-44.

24. Tauber, AI. Patient autonomy and the ethics of responsibility. Cambridge:

MIT Press; 2005.

25. Harnett, PJ and Greaney, AM. Operationalising autonomy: solutions for

mental health nursing practice. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health

Nursing. 2008 15: pp.2-9.

26. Mol, AM. The logic of care: Health and the problem of patient choice. London:

Routledge; 2008.

27. Morgan, S. Positive risk-taking: a basis for good risk decision-making. Health

Care Risk Report. March 2010: pp.20-21. Available online at:

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/586382/9502389/1290262470707/HCCR

+16-4morgan.pdf?token=k3j3ciVukfDiJTwOwp7EqJBbspc%3D.

28. Department of Health (UK). Independence, choice and risk: a guide to best

practice in supported decision-making. London: Policy Management Unit;

2006. Available online from:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/publicationsa

ndstatistics/publications/publicationspolicyandguidance/dh_074773

29. National Health Service (UK), Isle of Wight and Isle of Wight Council.

Managing Risk Positively A Guide for Staff in Health and Social Care. Isle of

Wight: National Health Service (UK), Isle of Wight and Isle of Wight Council;

2009. Available online from:

https://www.iwight.com/azservices/documents/riskmanagementguidance.pdf.

30. Morgan, S. Making good risk decisions in mental health and social care.

Health Care Risk Report; April 2010: pp.16-17. Available online at:

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/586382/9502403/1290262567967/HCCR

+16-5morgan.pdf?token=N%2FXY%2BStYg8J132L%2F%2F348iM7gxB8%3D

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 42 of 62

31. Higgins A, Morrissey J, Doyle L, Bailey J and Gill A. Best Practice Principles for

Risk Assessment and Safety Planning for Nurses working in Mental Health

Services. Dublin: Health Service Executive; 2015.

32. Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidance for Designated Centres:

Risk Management. Dublin: Health Information and Quality Authority; 2014.

Available online from:

http://www.hiqa.ie/system/files/publications/Guidance%20on%20Risk%20Ma

nagement.pdf.

33. Fitzpatrick & Anor v K & Anor [2008] IEHC 104

34. Madden, D. Medical Law in Ireland. Kluwer Law International, The

Netherlands; 2011.

35. Anthony, S. Consent to Medical Treatment in Ireland. London: Medical

protection Society; 2015. Available online from:

http://www.medicalprotection.org/docs/default-source/pdfs/Booklet-

PDFs/ireland-booklets/consent-to-medical-treatment-in-ireland---an-mps-

guide-for-clinicians.pdf?sfvrsn=0.

36. Mental Health Act 2001. Stationery Office: Dublin; 2001.

37. Peddler M. and Abbot C. Facilitating Action Learning: A Practitioner's Guide.

Open University Press, Maidenhead; 2013.

38. Kumar, MR. Use of Action Research to Institutionalize Organizational Learning

within TQM. Quality Management Journal 2012; 19(3): PP.51-68.

39. Agledahl KM, Forde R and Wifstad A. Choice is not the issue. The

misrepresentation of healthcare in bioethical discourse. Journal of Medical

Ethics. 2011 37: pp.212-215.

40. Broer T, Nieboer AP and Bal RA. Quest for client autonomy in improving long-

term mental health care. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing. 2010

19: pp.385-393.

41. Agich, GJ. Dependency and autonomy in old age. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press; 2003.

42. Delmar C, Bøje T, Dylmer D, Forup L, Jakobsen C, Møller M, Sønder H and

Pedersen BD. Independence/dependence – a contradictory relationship? Life

with a chronic illness. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. 2006 20(3):

pp.261–268.

43. Schlimme, JE. Lived autonomy and chronic mental illness: a

phenomenological approach. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2012 33:

pp.387-404.

44. Greaney, AM. Autonomy as lived: An empirical-ethical analysis of patient

autonomy in the clinical context of individuals engaged with self-testing

technology. Unpublished PhD thesis. Dublin City University; 2014. Available

online from: http://doras.dcu.ie/20159.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 43 of 62

45. Meyers, D. Self, society and personal choice. New York: Columbia University

Press; 1989.

46. Christman, J. Relational autonomy, liberal individualism, and the social

constitution of selves. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for

Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition. 2004 117, (1/2): pp.143-164.

47. Holm, S. Ethical problems in clinical practice. Manchester: Manchester

University Press; 1997.

48. Chiovitti, RF. Theory of protective empowering for balancing patient safety

and choice. Nursing Ethics. 2011 18(1): pp.88-101.

49. Dooley, D and McCarthy, J. Nursing Ethics: Irish cases and concerns. 2nd ed.,

Dublin: Gill and Macmillan; 2012.

50. Greaney AM, O’Mathúna D and Scott PA. Patient autonomy and choice in

healthcare: Self-testing devices as a case in point. Medicine, Health Care and

Philosophy. 2012 15: pp.383-395.

51. Brody, H. “My story is broken; can you help me fix it”. In Fulford K.W.M.,

Dickenson D.L. and Murray T.H. (eds) Healthcare ethics and human values:

An introductory text with readings and values. Oxford: Blackwell publishers;

2002, pp.133-140.

52. Toombs, SK. Healing and incurable illness. In Fulford, K.W.M., Dickenson,

D.L. and Murray T.H. (eds) 2002. Healthcare ethics and human values: An

introductory text with readings and values. Oxford: Blackwell publishers;

2002, pp.125-132.

53. Turillazzi, E and Neri, M. 2015. Informed consent and Italian physicians:

change course or abandon ship - from formal authorisation to a culture of

sharing. Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy. 2015 18: 449-453.

54. Wallace, M. Evaluation of the Supported Decision Making Project. Office of

the Public Advocate (Government of South Australia); November 2012.

Available online

from:http://www.opa.sa.gov.au/resources/supported_decision_making.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 44 of 62

Appendices

Appendix 1 — Terms of Reference: Autonomy Guidance

Advisory Group

1. To advise the Authority during the development of guidance on promoting

service user autonomy in health and social care services.

2. To advise on a guidance document that will:

 Support existing standards from the authority, and associated

regulation, with regard to promoting autonomy and person-centred

care.

 Reflect recent evidence, relevant legislation and national policy

documents of reference to autonomy/decision-making in health and

social care.

 Explain what autonomy means for services providers and people who

use those services.

 Outline a model of communication/interaction to support the promotion

and facilitation of autonomy in health and social care services.

 Be fit for purpose as practical guidance for health and social care

professionals, individuals who access those services, regulators and

local ethics committees.

 Provide a means to reconcile respect for autonomy and individual

choice with service-provider responsibility and accountability.

3. To advise on the final guidance document in preparation for approval by the

Executive Management Team of the Health Information and Quality Authority.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 45 of 62

Appendix 2 — Members of the Autonomy Guidance Advisory

Group convened by the Health Information and

Quality Authority

 Until April 2015.

* Until February 2015.

Name Affiliation

Dr Anna-Marie Greaney, Chairperson and Project Lead

Institute of Technology, Tralee

Paul Alford Inclusion Ireland

Bernie Austin Health Service Executive

Emer Begley The Alzheimer Society of Ireland

Ann Bridge World Health Organization Alliance, Patients for Patient

Safety 

Michael Corbett Disability Federation of Ireland

Eilionóir Flynn Centre for Disability Law and Policy, NUIG

Tony Foley General Practitioner

James Forbes ChildVision: National Education Centre for Blind Children

Mary Godfrey State Claims Agency

Mary-Rose Gough Member of Relatives’ Panel, Health Information and Quality

Authority

Joan Heffernan Health Information and Quality Authority *

Paul Ivory Bioethics Unit, Department Of Health

Marie Kehoe-O’Sullivan,

Director, Safety & Quality

Improvement and

Project Sponsor

Health Information and Quality Authority

John Kubiak National Institute for Intellectual Disability, Trinity College

Dublin

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 46 of 62

Acknowledgements

HIQA would like to thank all of the individuals and organisations who provided their

time, advice and information in support of developing this guidance.

We would also like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr Anna-Marie Greaney,

Institute of Technology, Tralee, as Chairperson and Project Lead.

 Until May 2015.

‡ Until May 2015.

≠ Until July 2015.

Name Affiliation

Miriam McCarthy Health Service Executive 

Sinead McEvoy Health Information and Quality Authority ‡

Josephine Mcloughlin St John of Gods

Regina McQuillan Beaumont Hospital / St Francis Hospice

Fiona Martin Cherry Orchard Hospital

Danielle Monahan SAGE, Support & Advocacy Service for Older People

Linda Moore Health Information and Quality Authority ≠

Aine Ní Aileagain Inclusion Ireland

Brid-Ann O’Connor Kerry Parents and Friends Association

Patricia O’Sullivan Service-user

Margaret Philbin Irish Association of Directors of Nursing and Midwifery

Iryna Pokhilo Cairde: Challenging ethnic minority health inequalities

Kathy Ryan Irish Dementia Working Group

Lorraine Ryan Social Care Ireland

Asim A. Sheikh Barrister at Law / University College Dublin

David Smith Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland

Gregory Swanwick Health Service Executive

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 47 of 62

Appendix 3 — Location and membership of the three action-

learning groups 

ChildVision, National Education Centre for Blind Children, Grace Park

Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 9

(Incorporating residential and vocational education services for young adults with an

intellectual disability)

Mary Burke, Staff Nurse, Intellectual Disability

Mary-Theresa Cahill-Kennedy, External Advocate

James Forbes, Head of Care (Action-learning Site Lead)

Tracy Hale, Vocational Education Coordinator

Marion Hayes, Family Member

Michael Hayes, Service-user

Ger Hopkins, Social Care Worker — Residential Services, Orientation and Mobility

Instructor

Orlaith Jackson, Service-user

Roisin Winters, Social Care Worker — Residential Services.

Croom Orthopaedic Hospital, Croom, Co. Limerick

Patricia Fitzgerald, Staff Nurse

Miriam McCarthy, Patient Advocacy Liaison Services Manager (Action-learning

Site Lead until May 2015)

Mary Neenan, Service-user (previous inpatient)

Eileen O’Sullivan, Service-user (outpatient)

Bonita Page, Medical Social Worker

Geraldine Ringrose, Family Member

Raymond Sheehy, Healthcare Assistant

Rosalie Stack, Physiotherapist (Action-learning Site Lead from May 2015).

 The names of services and individuals are listed here with their permission.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 48 of 62

St Brendan’s Community Nursing Unit, Lake Road, Loughrea, Co. Galway

Bernie Austin, Director of Nursing (Action-learning Site Lead)

Sabina Fahy, Consultant Psychiatrist of Old Age

Jimmy Kennedy, Service-user

Trish Martyn, SAGE, Support and Advocacy Services for Older People

Callum McGougan, Occupational Therapist

Brian O’Brien, Family member

Patsy-Ann Quinn, Occupational Therapist

Edel Shiel, Clinical Nurse Manager.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 49 of 62

Appendix 4 – Understanding autonomy in health and social care

1. Autonomy and ethical principles

While autonomy is supported by the law, it is also important in another system of

rules and principles known as ethics. Ethics is about the rightness and wrongness of

actions. Sometimes, the terms ethics and morality are used to mean the same thing.

Actions may be determined as unethical (immoral) even if they are permissible in

law. Ethics gives us another way to view the world or judge how appropriate actions

may be. There are a number of ethical principles which can be considered when

deciding what the right course of action is. Autonomy is one of these principles,

along with beneficence (to do good), non-maleficence (to do no harm) and justice

(to treat people fairly). 1 See Figure 1.

Figure 1. Principles of bio-medical ethics (Beauchamp and Childress 2013)

Sometimes, principles can conflict with one another. For example, from time to time,

a person’s choices (respecting the principle of autonomy) could result in harm to

themselves or others (contrary to the principles of beneficence and non-

maleficence). This is an ethical dilemma, as outlined in the example which follows.

The guidance in this document can support ethical decision-making in dilemmas

involving personal autonomy. An ethical decision-making framework, of which a

number exist, can also assist in this process. These frameworks adopt a problem-

AUTONOMY BENEFICIENCE

NON- MALEFICENCE

JUSTICE

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 50 of 62

solving approach to ethical decision-making and help with the thought processes

necessary to make ethical decisions. 2

Example of an ethical dilemma where other ethical principles conflict with

autonomy

Magda is a young woman with a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. Magda has recently

refused to take her insulin medication. Her refusal continues despite being told by

her diabetes team about the risks of hyperglycemia (high blood glucose levels) as a

result of not taking it.

Magda’s expressed preference, her choice, is to discontinue her insulin (the principle

of autonomy) but the healthcare team is aware of the risks this poses to her health

and life (the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence).

This is a typical situation that health and social care professionals may find

themselves in, when promoting a person’s autonomy conflicts with their professional

responsibilities to deliver evidence-based care. It is important to note that respect

for autonomy, and measures to promote autonomy, do not abdicate professional

responsibility for the standard of care delivered. It is essential to reconcile

professional accountability with respect for the autonomy of people who use health

and social care services. Magda’s choices will require discussion and exploration.

There may be specific issues in Magda’s life that are resulting in her refusal to take

her medication at this time. For example, she may have had a bereavement, be

stressed because of exams, or may have concerns about side effects. There may be

other treatment options, though less effective, to explore. If Magda continues to

refuse insulin therapy, and is assessed to have the capacity to do so, this choice

must be respected. The law supports the right of a person to make what may be

considered an unwise decision if they are deemed to have the necessary capacity.

This is also supported by the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013. The

supporting autonomy framework outlined in this guidance document provides a

pathway to reconcile the principles of autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence

in a staged process.

 The Irish Hospice Foundation provides a series of online modules as part of the Ethical Framework

for End-of-Life Care to support ethical decision-making at end of life. These modules, developed in

association with University College Cork and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland provide further

material of relevance on autonomy, ethics and the law. This is available online from:

http://hospicefoundation.ie/healthcare-programmes/hospice-friendly-hospitals/initiatives-staff-

development/ethical-decission-making/[sic].

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 51 of 62

2. Autonomy and community — relational autonomy

Philosophers have varied ideas about the extent to which autonomy involves

absolute control over personal preferences and isolated decision-making. Research

has shown that in the real world of practice, autonomy can be experienced as an

independent process. 3 This guidance builds on a relational understanding of

autonomy, or autonomy in a community. In this sense, autonomy does not involve

isolated decision-making. Rather, it involves our interdependent relationships with

other people. 4 People often consult with, or consider, others when making decisions

and may invite others to assist in the decision-making process.

In the same way, autonomous decisions in health and social care sometimes

necessitate assistance from service-providers, and involve considering factors

beyond a person’s personal preferences. Respecting the autonomy of others (in

certain situations), and living within the laws of the state, may limit the extent of

people’s personal preferences. This does not mean that autonomy is less important.

Making decisions involves considering how those decisions affect others. This

involves meaningful communication and may on occasion require negotiation and

compromise.

Example of autonomy in a community

Stephen lives in a designated residential centre for adults with an intellectual

disability. He enjoys listening to late-night radio on high volume. This is an

expression of his autonomy (his personal will and preferences). However, respect for

the autonomy of the people he lives with (and their right to a good night’s sleep)

requires consideration.

In discussion with his link worker, and the other residents at the house meeting, Stephen

agrees to use headphones, or listen to his music in another part of the house where others

will be undisturbed. Stephen’s preferences remain important but his final actions incorporate

a concern for others.

In a wider sense, the role of community is important is promoting autonomy. Recent

initiatives such as dementia-friendly communities can contribute to the

independence and quality of life of people living with dementia. 5 The supporting

autonomy framework in this document helps develop such initiatives to promote the

autonomy of people who use health and social care services.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 52 of 62

3. Autonomy and the law 

The right to autonomy is protected in Ireland in accordance with Article 40.3.1 of the

Constitution of Ireland. 6 The right to autonomy is not specifically mentioned, but is

interpreted by the courts as an aspect of the constitutional right to privacy. The right

to autonomy is understood in healthcare law to include the right to consent to, or

refuse, medical treatment. 7 Autonomy is also indirectly protected in line with Article

8 of The European Convention on Human Rights, as an associated right to respect

for privacy, family life and the home. 8

The 2006 United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,

which came into force in 2008, refers specifically to the autonomy of people with

disabilities. 9 The convention obliges Member States to provide people with

disabilities with access to the necessary supports to make their own decisions. The

Convention represents a significant change in how people with disabilities are

supported to make their decisions. 

In line with the Convention, many countries are moving from a protective legal focus

on the best interests of the individual to one that respects and promotes autonomy.

This means that what is in somebody’s best interests, according to health and social

care professionals, while important, is no longer the overriding factor in the decision-

making process. In line with the UN Convention, an individual’s personal will and

preferences is central to promoting their autonomy.

In Ireland, the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013 reflects this change in

many respects. 10

The bill provides for a reform of the law in individuals who require,

or may require, future assistance to make decisions (exercise their legal capacity).

The reform includes removal of the existing ward-of-court system and providing a

series of measures to support decision-making. Supportive measures in the bill

include provision for:

 decision-making assistance agreements

 the appointment of co-decision-makers

 nominating an attorney under an enduring power of attorney

 the appointment of a designated healthcare representative in line with an

advance healthcare directive.

The principles of the bill include a presumption of mental capacity and the right of a

person to make what may be deemed to be an unwise decision.

 All guidance should be interpreted in accordance with existing legislation  At the time of publication, Ireland has signed up to, but not ratified this treaty. Ratification is

pending following enactment of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 53 of 62

The bill outlines a functional assessment of mental capacity (the ability to make a

decision is decided on during a specific decision at a specific time). This is instead of

a status approach to capacity (an individual’s decision-making ability is decided by

their diagnosis).  The level of support required to enable a person to make their own

decisions may vary considerably. In some cases, simply providing a person with the

opportunity to make decisions is enough. For others, support in the form of

appropriate communication may be required to help with decision-making. Ongoing

support may be required to enable individuals to enact their personal choices. The

supporting autonomy framework in this guidance provides a pathway to enable

assistance with decision-making.

Autonomy underpins the legal principle of informed consent. The National Consent

Advisory Group’s National Consent Policy 11

specifies the importance of

communication and information sharing in the consent process. In order for a

person to make an informed consent, the common law states that he or she requires

the necessary capacity to make that decision. The courts currently assess capacity in

line with a functional approach, as outlined above. This means that a person is

deemed to have capacity to consent to a service, or refuse a treatment or service, if

they meet certain criteria.

Capacity to consent to treatment as interpreted in the Irish courts

Capacity to consent to or refuse treatment is dependent on the following criteria:

 Does the person understand and retain the information?

 Does the person believe the information?

 Does the person use the information to weigh up the risks and benefits of the situation

and make a choice? 

It is also essential that an individual give their consent freely. Health and social care

providers can educate and advise but not coerce people to make decisions. In

essence, informed consent has three core elements: full disclosure, capacity and

voluntariness. Adherence with the criminal law and certain provisions of the Mental

Health Act 2001 12

mean that all personal will and preferences may not be respected.

 The UN Committee has expressed concern that a functional approach to capacity, as in the

functional test, may place too onerous an obligation of proof on the person. There is also concern

from a human rights perspective, that a lack of mental capacity, when assessed in this way, is then used to deny legal capacity. For further detail see: Committee on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities, General Comment No. 1 – Article 12: Equal Recognition Before the Law, Paragraph 12-15, UN Doc. No. CRPD/C/GC/1, adopted at the 11

th Session (April 2014).

 This is referred to as the ‘C test’. The C test is based on UK case law, Re C - Re C [1994] 1WLR

290. Recent case law in Ireland supports this (Fitzpatrick & Anor v K & Anor [2008] IEHC 104).

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 54 of 62

4. Respecting autonomy and professional accountability — towards a

solution

Health and social care providers are required to consider the concept of autonomy in

association with the law, contracts of employment, regulatory requirements,

organisational policies and professional codes of conduct. Therefore, they may have

concerns that respecting autonomy conflicts with professional responsibility and

accountability to deliver safe, quality and evidence-based care. This is when an

individual’s autonomous decision (the principle of autonomy) may conflict with a

professional’s obligation to do no harm and promote the wellbeing of those in their

care (the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence). 13

Respecting autonomy does not mean that these issues are unimportant. It means

that professionals communicate with service users to ensure that decisions are

informed, and undertake appropriate risk assessments in light of the person’s

wishes. Positive risk assessment will focus on the value of risk as well as the possible

hazards. 14

The relevance of positive risk assessment may vary depending on the

issue and the specific health and social care setting. It is important that health and

social care professionals document discussion about risks, and any service-user

decisions to disregard the advice given about their care, support or treatment. 

A process of engagement and person-centred communication is essential to balance

respect for autonomy with a professional concern to care ‘in the best way’. The

framework presented in this guidance draws on an understanding of autonomy in a

community as outlined above, and builds on theoretical accounts of respect for

autonomy within a caring, accountable and professional relationship.

5. Autonomy as context-dependent and optional

An individual may require greater help with autonomy at different points in their

lives. In addition, an individual may require health and social care professionals to

take a greater role in the decision-making process at certain points in their care,

support or treatment. Research has shown that sometimes people who use services

like to place trust in their healthcare professionals to make the right decisions for

them. 15

While research has shown that people like their healthcare providers to

respect their autonomy, 16

studies have also shown that when receiving care, people

sometimes prefer a more shared approach to decision-making. 17

Research also

suggests that decision-making can create distress for some people. 18

 Should a person experience an adverse event when using health and social care services, any legal

action will be judged on its own merit, to determine if negligence has occurred. The courts in Ireland have outlined the relationship between patient and specialist as a ‘dependent’ one and extend

particular duties to healthcare providers. As an example see Philip v Bon Secours Hospital [2004] IEHC 121. Patient responsibility cannot be assumed if this is not properly informed and supported.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 55 of 62

There is some concern that an overemphasis on informed consent and a rights-

based culture may minimise the trust that is important in a therapeutic and caring

relationship. 19

When informed consent is interpreted only as the signing of a consent

form, it does not promote autonomy effectively. Respect for autonomy also involves

respecting a person’s wish not to engage in every decision-making opportunity.

Mandatory autonomy is not appropriate. It can impede autonomy, as it disregards

personal will and preference, and could result in undue stress. 20

6. Autonomy, advance care planning and advance care directives

Advance care planning is recognised as an important aspect of promoting the

autonomy of people who use health and social care services. Advance care planning

enables people to highlight their will and preferences about their care, support and

treatment in future care situations when they may not be in a position to

communicate their wishes. Legislation to support advance care planning in Ireland is

pending as part of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013. The bill

provides a legislative framework for advance care directives.

The provisions in the bill will enable a person to prepare an advance care directive,

detailing the care they would like to receive, or not receive, in future healthcare

situations. The bill also provides for the appointment of a designated healthcare

representative. A list of resources to assist in advance care planning is provided in

the resources section of this HIQA guidance document. These resources can be used

in the absence of specific legislation. However, once the legislation is enacted, it will

provide greater clarity for service providers and service users on using advance care

planning instruments and their legal status.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 56 of 62

Notes to Appendix 4 1 Beauchamp, T and Childress, J. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th Edition. New

York: Oxford University Press; 2013.

2 Benjamin M and Curtis, J. Ethics in nursing: Cases, principles and reasoning. 4th

Edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.

3 See:

a. Agich, GJ. Dependency and autonomy in old age. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press; 2003.

b. Delmar C, Bøje T, Dylmer D, Forup L, Jakobsen C, Møller M, Sønder H and

Pedersen BD. Independence/dependence – a contradictory relationship? Life

with a chronic illness. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. 2006 20(3):

pp.261–268.

c. Schlimme, JE. Lived autonomy and chronic mental illness: a

phenomenological approach. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2012 33:

pp.387-404.

d. Greaney, AM. Autonomy as lived: An empirical-ethical analysis of patient

autonomy in the clinical context of individuals engaged with self-testing

technology. Unpublished PhD thesis. Dublin City University; 2014. Available

online from: http://doras.dcu.ie/20159.

4 Meyers, D. Self, society and personal choice. New York: Columbia University Press;

1989.

5 The Alzheimer’s Society of Ireland. Defining and Delivering on Dementia Friendly

Communities. Dublin: The Alzheimer’s Society of Ireland; 2011.

6 Constitution of Ireland. Dublin: The Stationery Office; 1937 (2012 edition).

Available online at:

https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Bhunreacht_na_hEireann_web.pdf.

7 Madden, D. Medical Law in Ireland. Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands;

2011.

8 Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as Amended)

(ECHR) Article 8. Geneva: Council of Europe: 1950.

9 UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:

resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 24 January 2007, A/RES/61/106.

Available online at: http://www.un-documents.net/a61r106.htm.

10 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013. Dublin: Stationery Office; 2013.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 57 of 62

11

National Consent Advisory Group. National Consent Policy. Dublin: Health Service

Executive; 2013.

12 Mental Health Act 2001. Dublin: Stationery Office; 2001.

13 See:

a. Holm, S. Not just autonomy – the principles of American biomedical ethics.

Journal of Medical Ethics. 1997 21: pp.332-33.

b. Kukla, R. Conscientious autonomy: displacing decisions in health care.

Hastings Centre Report. 2005 35(2): pp.34-44.

c. Tauber, AI. Patient autonomy and the ethics of responsibility. Cambridge:

MIT Press; 2005.

d. Harnett, PJ and Greaney, AM. Operationalising autonomy: solutions for

mental health nursing practice. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health

Nursing. 2008 15: pp.2-9.

e. Mol, AM. The logic of care: Health and the problem of patient choice. London:

Routledge; 2008.

14 See:

a. Morgan, S. Positive risk-taking: a basis for good risk decision-making. Health

Care Risk Report. March 2010: pp.20-21. Available online at:

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/586382/9502389/1290262470707/HCCR

+16-4morgan.pdf?token=k3j3ciVukfDiJTwOwp7EqJBbspc%3D.

b. Department of Health (UK). Independence, choice and risk: a guide to best

practice in supported decision-making. London: Policy Management Unit;

2006. Available online from:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/publicationsa

ndstatistics/publications/publicationspolicyandguidance/dh_074773.

15 Schildmann J, Ritter P, Salloch S, Uhl W and Vollmann J. ‘One also needs a bit of

trust in the doctor…’ a qualitative interview study with pancreatic cancer patients

about their perceptions and views on information and treatment decision-making.

Annals of Oncology. 2013 24: pp.2444-2449.

16 See:

a. Hill A, Smith V and Hadden B. Autonomy in the obstetrician / gynaecologist-

patient relationship as a predictor of patient satisfaction. Yale Journal of

Biology and Medicine. 86: pp.179-188; 2013.

b. Oliveira VC, Refshauge KM, Ferreira ML, Pinto RZ, Beckenkamp PR, Negrao

Filho RF and Ferreira PH. Communication that values patient autonomy is

associated with satisfaction with care: a systematic review. Journal of

Physiotherapy. 2012 58(4): pp.215-229.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 58 of 62

17

Hamann J, Neuner B, Kasper J, Vodermaier A, Loh A, Deinzer A, Heesen C,

Kissling W, Busch R, Schmieder MD, Spies C, Casparis C and Harter M. Participation

preferences of patients with acute and chronic conditions. Health Expectations. 2007

10: pp.358-363.

18 Myron R, Gillespie S, Swift P and Williamson T. Whose decision? Preparation for

and implementation of the Mental Capacity Act in statutory and non-statutory

services in England and Wales. London: Mental Health Foundation; 2008.

19 Turillazzi, E and Neri, M. Informed consent and Italian physicians: change course

or abandon ship — from formal authorisation to a culture of sharing. Medicine,

Healthcare and Philosophy. 2015 18: 449-453. 20

Davies, M and Elwyn, G. Advocating mandatory patient ‘autonomy’ in healthcare;

adverse reactions and side effects. Health Care Analysis. 2008. 16(4), pp. 315-328.

DRAFT - N OT FOR CIR CU LATIO N

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 59 of 62

Appendix 5 — Self-reflection checklist for health and social care

providers: Am I respecting and promoting

autonomy? 

Use the 20-item checklist below to assist you to reflect on the extent to which you

promote autonomy.

Respect the person’s right to autonomy

1. Do I value the service-user’s right to privacy and dignity?

2. Do I respect the service-user’s knowledge, preferences and choices?

3. Do I appreciate the person’s right to make decisions that I may consider unwise?

Avoid pre-judging

4. Do I avoid making assumptions about decision-making ability?

5. Do I understand that a lack of ability to make some decisions does not mean an

inability to make any decisions?

6. Do I rush to capacity assessment if the person does not agree with what the service

suggests?

Communicate appropriately to establish, explore and promote preferences

7. Do I communicate with people in a manner they can understand?

8. Do I make an effort to know the person and what is important to them?

9. Do I take the time to ensure that a person’s decisions are informed?

10. If I am unable to support a person’s choices, do I explain this and give the reasons

why?

11. Do I make every effort to communicate in a manner that builds decision-making

capacity?

12. If an assessment of capacity is required, do I carry this out in accordance with the

law?

 This checklist was inspired by the work of Chiovitti (2011) who encourages self-reflection as a

means to balance safety and personal choice in professional caring relationships. For further information see: Chiovitti, R.F. 2011. Theory of protective empowering for balancing patient safety

and choice. Nursing Ethics. 2011 18(1): pp.88-101.

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 60 of 62

Balance rights, risks, and responsibilities

13. Am I overprotective?

14. Do I carry out risk assessments that balance the positive and negative aspects of

risk taking?

15. Are risk assessments based on best available evidence?

Agree person-centred supports

16. Do I consider how personal choices can be facilitated when limitations exist?

17. Do I consult with service users and colleagues to identify supports that may be

required to promote autonomy?

18. Do I retain a commitment to supporting autonomy even when this may be

challenging?

Implement and evaluate supportive actions

19. Do I appreciate that autonomy and decision-making ability fluctuate?

20. Do I evaluate supports, to decide if additional, or less, support is required?

DRAFT - N OT FOR CIR CU LATIO N

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Supporting people’s autonomy: a guidance document

Health Information and Quality Authority

Page 62 of 62

Published January 2016 by the Health Information and Quality Authority. For further information please contact: Health Information and Quality Authority Dublin Regional Office, George’s Court, George’s Lane, Smithfield, Dublin 7, D07 E98Y Phone: +353 (0) 1 814 7400 Web: www.hiqa.ie © 2016 Health Information and Quality Authority