Risk, Capacity & Safeguarding — MCQs
On this page
A 54-year-old woman with recurrent severe depression is reviewed in the psychiatric outpatient clinic. She has made three previous suicide attempts, all requiring intensive care admission. She is currently on maximum doses of antidepressant medication and attending psychological therapy. She describes persistent suicidal ideation but states she has no current plan or intent. She lives alone and is unemployed. Which feature in her presentation most significantly increases her long-term suicide risk?
According to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which of the following statements regarding the assessment of capacity is correct?
A 19-year-old man with no previous psychiatric history is brought to the Emergency Department after being found by police with self-inflicted lacerations to his wrists and forearms. He reports feeling 'numb' and states he cut himself 'to feel something'. He has recently started university and describes feeling socially isolated. He denies suicidal intent. What factor most significantly reduces his immediate suicide risk?
A 66-year-old woman with a 6-month history of progressive memory loss and behavioural changes is assessed for capacity to consent to participation in a research study testing a new medication for Alzheimer's disease. She can repeat back information about the study but cannot explain why she is being asked to participate or what the potential risks might mean for her. What aspect of mental capacity is she primarily lacking?
A 32-year-old man with paranoid schizophrenia is admitted following a suicide attempt by hanging. He has command hallucinations telling him to kill himself. He is started on antipsychotic medication and placed on 1:1 observation. Over 48 hours, his psychotic symptoms improve significantly and he states he no longer wishes to die. He requests to leave hospital. What is the most appropriate next step in managing his suicide risk?
A 44-year-old woman with recurrent depression presents to her GP describing passive suicidal thoughts occurring daily for 3 months. She states 'I think about dying but would never act on it because of my children'. She has no current plans or intent. She is adherent to antidepressant medication and engages with psychological therapy. What is the most appropriate management?
A 31-year-old man with first-episode psychosis is detained under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act. He has capacity regarding medical decisions. He is diagnosed with community-acquired pneumonia requiring antibiotics but refuses treatment, stating 'I'm not really ill, this is all a government conspiracy'. His physical health is deteriorating. What is the legal basis for treating his pneumonia?
A 73-year-old man with newly diagnosed Lewy body dementia (MMSE 21/30) is assessed for capacity to consent to a research study involving a new medication for his condition. He understands the study information, can retain and explain it clearly, and states he wants to participate 'to help others like me'. However, his wife states he would never have agreed to this before his diagnosis and is worried he doesn't understand the risks. What is the most appropriate action?
A 38-year-old woman with bipolar affective disorder, currently depressed, is admitted after stockpiling medication. During assessment she describes detailed plans for suicide but also talks about her children and future plans. She states 'Part of me wants to die but part of me wants to be there for my children'. What is the most appropriate interpretation of this presentation?
A 57-year-old man with treatment-resistant depression is assessed following discharge after a suicide attempt by hanging that resulted in brief hypoxic injury. He reports ongoing suicidal thoughts but states 'I won't try again, I've learnt my lesson'. He minimises the severity of his attempt and appears irritable during assessment. Collateral history from his wife reveals he has been searching suicide methods online since returning home. What does his presentation most suggest?
Risk, Capacity & Safeguarding UK Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Question 81: A 54-year-old woman with recurrent severe depression is reviewed in the psychiatric outpatient clinic. She has made three previous suicide attempts, all requiring intensive care admission. She is currently on maximum doses of antidepressant medication and attending psychological therapy. She describes persistent suicidal ideation but states she has no current plan or intent. She lives alone and is unemployed. Which feature in her presentation most significantly increases her long-term suicide risk?
- A. Living alone and being unemployed
- B. Being female
- C. Current persistent suicidal ideation without plan or intent
- D. History of multiple high-lethality suicide attempts (Correct Answer)
- E. Current treatment with antidepressant medication
Explanation: ***History of multiple high-lethality suicide attempts***- A history of previous **suicide attempts** is the single strongest predictor of future completed suicide, especially when multiple attempts have occurred.- The severity of these attempts, evidenced by the requirement for **intensive care admission**, indicates high **lethality** and a genuine intent to die, which significantly elevates long-term risk.*Living alone and being unemployed*- These represent **socioeconomic risk factors** that contribute to social isolation and provide less external support or protective structure.- While important, these **distal factors** are considered less predictive of eventual suicide than a clinical history of high-lethality self-harm.*Being female*- Statistically, **females** are more likely to attempt suicide, but **males** have a significantly higher rate of completed suicide.- In this clinical context, her gender is a less significant predictor of mortality than her specific **past psychiatric history**.*Current persistent suicidal ideation without plan or intent*- Suicidal ideation is a major warning sign, but the lack of a **current plan or intent** suggests the immediate risk is lower than the risk posed by her history.- Ideation is common in **recurrent depression**, whereas high-lethality attempts differentiate those at the highest risk of eventual completion.*Current treatment with antidepressant medication*- Adherence to **pharmacotherapy** and psychological therapy are generally considered protective factors as they aim to stabilize the underlying **mood disorder**.- Although energy levels may increase before mood improves in early treatment, she is currently on **maximum doses**, making her history of refractory illness a more dominant risk factor.
Question 82: According to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which of the following statements regarding the assessment of capacity is correct?
- A. Capacity should be assessed globally across all decisions if a person has a diagnosis of dementia
- B. A person's capacity must be assessed by a psychiatrist for decisions regarding psychiatric treatment
- C. Capacity is decision-specific and time-specific (Correct Answer)
- D. An unwise decision is evidence that a person lacks capacity for that decision
- E. Capacity cannot fluctuate once it has been established that a person lacks capacity
Explanation: ***Capacity is decision-specific and time-specific*** - Under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005**, capacity must be assessed in relation to a **specific decision** at the **particular time** the decision needs to be made. - This principle ensures that a person is not incorrectly labeled as lacking capacity for all areas of life due to a specific impairment or fixed diagnosis.*Capacity should be assessed globally across all decisions if a person has a diagnosis of dementia* - The Act explicitly states that a person must be **assumed to have capacity** unless it is established otherwise; a diagnosis of dementia does not automatically equate to total incapacity. - Assessment must be **functional**, focusing on the person’s ability to communicate, understand, and weigh information relevant to the individual task at hand.*A person's capacity must be assessed by a psychiatrist for decisions regarding psychiatric treatment* - Any **healthcare professional** proposing a treatment or intervention is responsible for assessing the patient’s capacity to consent to it. - While psychiatrists provide expertise in complex cases, the **primary clinician** (e.g., GP or surgeon) is legally empowered to conduct the assessment.*An unwise decision is evidence that a person lacks capacity for that decision* - A fundamental principle of the MCA is that a person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because they make a decision that others consider **unwise**. - Respect for **autonomy** means that as long as the person understands the risks and benefits, they have the right to make choices contrary to medical advice.*Capacity cannot fluctuate once it has been established that a person lacks capacity* - Capacity is often **fluctuating**, particularly in conditions like **delirium**, intoxication, or certain mental health crises. - Assessments must be repeated if there is a possibility that the person might **regain capacity** in the future, allowing them to make their own decision.
Question 83: A 19-year-old man with no previous psychiatric history is brought to the Emergency Department after being found by police with self-inflicted lacerations to his wrists and forearms. He reports feeling 'numb' and states he cut himself 'to feel something'. He has recently started university and describes feeling socially isolated. He denies suicidal intent. What factor most significantly reduces his immediate suicide risk?
- A. His young age
- B. The absence of suicidal intent (Correct Answer)
- C. This being his first presentation to services
- D. The superficial nature of the injuries
- E. The recent psychosocial stressor being a normal life transition
Explanation: ***The absence of suicidal intent*** - The patient's explicit **denial of suicidal intent** and the description of cutting "to feel something" categorize this as **Non-Suicidal Self-Injury (NSSI)**, which carries a lower immediate lethality risk than an active suicide attempt. - While NSSI is a long-term risk factor for future suicide, the **lack of clear intent** or a specific plan is the most critical factor reducing the risk of a completed act in the immediate short-term. *His young age* - **Young age**, particularly in the late teens and early twenties, is actually a period of higher vulnerability and is associated with **increased risk** of self-harm and impulsivity. - Specifically, **young males** are at a statistically higher risk for completed suicide compared to their female counterparts. *This being his first presentation to services* - A first presentation does not reduce risk; it may indicate a **lack of established support** systems or therapeutic engagement that usually serves as a protective factor. - Patients **new to psychiatric services** are often at a high-risk period because their underlying psychopathology is newly emerging and unmanaged. *The superficial nature of the injuries* - The **physical severity** of self-inflicted wounds is a poor predictor of the patient's underlying **suicidal intent** or the potential for future lethal acts. - Many individuals with high suicidal intent use **less lethal means** initially, and dismissing a patient based on wound depth is a common clinical error in risk assessment. *The recent psychosocial stressor being a normal life transition* - Transitions such as starting **university** represent a major period of social isolation and **identity adjustment**, which often act as significant triggers for mental health crises. - Labeling a stressor as "normal" is dismissive and ignores the objective **increase in risk** associated with periods of major life change and loss of previous social support.
Question 84: A 66-year-old woman with a 6-month history of progressive memory loss and behavioural changes is assessed for capacity to consent to participation in a research study testing a new medication for Alzheimer's disease. She can repeat back information about the study but cannot explain why she is being asked to participate or what the potential risks might mean for her. What aspect of mental capacity is she primarily lacking?
- A. The ability to retain information relevant to the decision
- B. The ability to understand information relevant to the decision
- C. The ability to communicate her decision
- D. The ability to weigh information as part of the decision-making process (Correct Answer)
- E. The ability to appreciate the consequences of her decision
Explanation: ***The ability to weigh information as part of the decision-making process*** - The patient's inability to explain *why* she is being asked to participate or what the **potential risks** might mean for her demonstrates a deficit in processing and evaluating the significance of the information. - This aspect of capacity requires the individual to **use and balance** the provided information, including benefits and risks, to arrive at a decision. *The ability to retain information relevant to the decision* - The patient can **repeat back information** about the study, indicating that her capacity to hold the information in her mind for a sufficient period is intact. - Retention is about the ability to **recall facts** relevant to the decision, which she successfully does. *The ability to understand information relevant to the decision* - While she struggles with the implications, her ability to **reproduce the study details** suggests a basic comprehension of the factual content. - Understanding primarily refers to grasping the **surface-level facts**, distinct from evaluating their personal significance. *The ability to communicate her decision* - The scenario describes her being assessed and speaking (repeating information), implying she **can communicate** her thoughts and decisions. - This criterion is typically compromised in individuals with severe expressive aphasia or those who are **non-verbal**. *The ability to appreciate the consequences of her decision* - While appreciating consequences is crucial for an informed decision, it is often subsumed under the **ability to weigh information** within legal frameworks like the Mental Capacity Act. - The specific deficit described aligns more directly with the process of **evaluating and using information** in decision-making, rather than solely appreciation as a standalone component.
Question 85: A 32-year-old man with paranoid schizophrenia is admitted following a suicide attempt by hanging. He has command hallucinations telling him to kill himself. He is started on antipsychotic medication and placed on 1:1 observation. Over 48 hours, his psychotic symptoms improve significantly and he states he no longer wishes to die. He requests to leave hospital. What is the most appropriate next step in managing his suicide risk?
- A. Discharge him home with crisis team follow-up as his psychotic symptoms have improved
- B. Continue 1:1 observation for at least another 5 days as suicide risk remains highest in the week following admission
- C. Reduce to 15-minute intermittent observations and continue inpatient admission for further assessment (Correct Answer)
- D. Discharge him on Section 17 leave with family supervision
- E. Transfer him to a low secure unit given the high lethality of his suicide attempt
Explanation: ***Reduce to 15-minute intermittent observations and continue inpatient admission for further assessment*** - Although psychotic symptoms have improved, a high-lethality attempt like **hanging** indicates a high ongoing **suicide risk** that requires prolonged inpatient monitoring. - Stepping down from **1:1 observation** to intermittent checks allows for continued clinical assessment while moving toward a less restrictive environment in a controlled manner. *Discharge him home with crisis team follow-up as his psychotic symptoms have improved* - Discharging a patient only 48 hours after a **near-lethal suicide attempt** is premature and poses a significant safety risk. - Improvement in **command hallucinations** does not immediately equate to a resolution of the underlying **suicidal intent** or the risk of a repeat attempt. *Continue 1:1 observation for at least another 5 days as suicide risk remains highest in the week following admission* - While the risk is indeed high following admission, fixing a specific **5-day timeframe** for 1:1 observation is not standard clinical practice. - Observation levels should be dynamic and based on **individual clinical assessment** rather than arbitrary fixed durations. *Discharge him on Section 17 leave with family supervision* - **Section 17 leave** is generally used for planned periods of leave to test stability; applying it within 48 hours of a hanging attempt is clinically inappropriate. - Relying solely on **family supervision** is insufficient for managing a patient who recently acted on high-lethality **command hallucinations**. *Transfer him to a low secure unit given the high lethality of his suicide attempt* - **Low secure units** are intended for patients with long-term risk management needs or those posing a risk to others, not for acute stabilization of suicidal ideation. - The current **acute inpatient ward** is the appropriate setting for his initial recovery and risk titration phase.
Question 86: A 44-year-old woman with recurrent depression presents to her GP describing passive suicidal thoughts occurring daily for 3 months. She states 'I think about dying but would never act on it because of my children'. She has no current plans or intent. She is adherent to antidepressant medication and engages with psychological therapy. What is the most appropriate management?
- A. Urgent psychiatric admission for safety
- B. Urgent psychiatric outpatient assessment within 24 hours
- C. Continue current treatment with regular monitoring and clear safety planning (Correct Answer)
- D. Increase antidepressant dose and review in 2 weeks
- E. Refer to crisis resolution team for intensive home treatment
Explanation: ***Continue current treatment with regular monitoring and clear safety planning***- The patient presents with **passive suicidal ideation** but explicitly states she would **never act on it** and has **no current plans or intent**, indicating a lower acute risk that can be managed in the community.- Crucial **protective factors**, such as her children, combined with **adherence to antidepressant medication** and engagement with psychological therapy, support continuing her current treatment with a robust **safety plan**. *Urgent psychiatric admission for safety* - Admission is reserved for patients with an **immediate and active risk of harm** to themselves or others, which is not present here due to the clear lack of intent and plans. - Unnecessary hospitalisation can be **traumatising** and is a disproportionate response when significant protective factors are present and active intent is absent. *Urgent psychiatric outpatient assessment within 24 hours* - This level of urgency is typically appropriate for patients experiencing an **acute psychiatric crisis** or a rapid escalation of suicidal thoughts and plans. - Since her passive thoughts have been stable (daily for 3 months) and she is already **engaged in ongoing therapy**, an urgent 24-hour review is not clinically mandated. *Increase antidepressant dose and review in 2 weeks* - Increasing medication should be based on a comprehensive assessment of **symptom severity**, treatment response, and side effects, not solely on stable passive suicidal thoughts. - A review in 2 weeks is insufficient for immediate risk management; **safety planning** and continuous monitoring are more critical than a simple medication adjustment at this stage. *Refer to crisis resolution team for intensive home treatment* - **Crisis resolution teams** (CRTs) are designed to provide intensive support for individuals experiencing an **acute psychiatric crisis** to prevent hospital admission. - This patient is stable, adherent to her existing treatment, and not in an acute crisis, making referral to a CRT for intensive home treatment inappropriate.
Question 87: A 31-year-old man with first-episode psychosis is detained under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act. He has capacity regarding medical decisions. He is diagnosed with community-acquired pneumonia requiring antibiotics but refuses treatment, stating 'I'm not really ill, this is all a government conspiracy'. His physical health is deteriorating. What is the legal basis for treating his pneumonia?
- A. Section 63 of the Mental Health Act as the pneumonia is a consequence of his mental disorder
- B. Section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act as detention under Mental Health Act removes his capacity
- C. Common law doctrine of necessity for emergency physical health treatment
- D. Cannot treat without consent as he has capacity for this decision (Correct Answer)
- E. Section 58 of the Mental Health Act with approval from a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor
Explanation: ***Cannot treat without consent as he has capacity for this decision***- A person is presumed to have **capacity**, and under the **Mental Capacity Act (MCA)**, autonomous decisions must be respected regardless of whether others find those decisions unwise.- Even if a patient is detained under the **Mental Health Act (MHA)**, they retain the right to refuse treatment for **physical conditions** that are not a direct cause or consequence of their mental disorder.*Section 63 of the Mental Health Act as the pneumonia is a consequence of his mental disorder*- **Section 63** only permits treatment without consent for a **mental disorder** or physical conditions that are a direct result/manifestation of that disorder (e.g., self-harm injuries).- **Pneumonia** is an unrelated physical health problem; therefore, the MHA cannot be used as a legal basis for its compulsory treatment.*Section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act as detention under Mental Health Act removes his capacity*- Detention under the **Mental Health Act** does not automatically negate a patient's **capacity** to make decisions about their physical healthcare.- **Section 5** of the MCA allows for treatment in a patient's **best interests** ONLY if they have been formally assessed and found to lack capacity for that specific decision.*Common law doctrine of necessity for emergency physical health treatment*- The **doctrine of necessity** usually applies in life-threatening emergencies where a patient is **unconscious** or unable to communicate their wishes.- Because the patient has **capacity** and has clearly communicated a refusal, common law cannot be used to overrule his competent decision.*Section 58 of the Mental Health Act with approval from a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor*- **Section 58** refers specifically to the administration of **psychotropic medication** or electroconvulsive therapy after a three-month period of detention.- This section governs **psychiatric treatments** and has no legal jurisdiction over the treatment of unrelated physical illnesses like **pneumonia**.
Question 88: A 73-year-old man with newly diagnosed Lewy body dementia (MMSE 21/30) is assessed for capacity to consent to a research study involving a new medication for his condition. He understands the study information, can retain and explain it clearly, and states he wants to participate 'to help others like me'. However, his wife states he would never have agreed to this before his diagnosis and is worried he doesn't understand the risks. What is the most appropriate action?
- A. Exclude him from the study as his wife's concerns suggest he lacks capacity
- B. Accept his decision to participate as he has demonstrated capacity (Correct Answer)
- C. Defer to his wife's judgment as she knows him best
- D. Require assessment by an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate
- E. Obtain consent from both the patient and his wife as joint decision-makers
Explanation: ***Accept his decision to participate as he has demonstrated capacity***- The patient has demonstrated the four functional elements of **capacity**: he can **understand, retain, weigh up** relevant information, and **communicate** his decision clearly.- Under the **Mental Capacity Act (2005)**, a person must be presumed to have capacity, and an "unwise decision" or change in personality does not prove incapacity.*Exclude him from the study as his wife's concerns suggest he lacks capacity*- A diagnosis of **Lewy body dementia** or an MMSE score of 21/30 does not automatically mean a patient lacks the capacity to consent to specific decisions.- Capacity is **decision-specific**; because he successfully processed and explained the study information, his choice should not be overruled based on third-party concerns.*Defer to his wife's judgment as she knows him best*- A **proxy decision-maker** or next of kin only has legal standing to make decisions if the patient is formally assessed to **lack capacity**.- Respecting **patient autonomy** is the primary legal and ethical obligation when a patient is capable of making their own choice.*Require assessment by an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate*- An **IMCA** is typically appointed to represent individuals who **lack capacity** and have no friends or family to support them during major decisions.- Since the patient is assessed as having capacity and has family involvement, involving an IMCA is **inappropriate** and legally unnecessary.*Obtain consent from both the patient and his wife as joint decision-makers*- Consent is an individual right; the patient is the **sole decision-maker** as long as they possess the requisite capacity.- While involving family is good practice for support, the wife cannot be a **joint legal consenter** for a patient who is mentally competent to decide for himself.
Question 89: A 38-year-old woman with bipolar affective disorder, currently depressed, is admitted after stockpiling medication. During assessment she describes detailed plans for suicide but also talks about her children and future plans. She states 'Part of me wants to die but part of me wants to be there for my children'. What is the most appropriate interpretation of this presentation?
- A. Low risk as she has protective factors (children) that will prevent suicide
- B. Ambivalence about suicide which requires careful assessment but may indicate opportunity for intervention (Correct Answer)
- C. Manipulative behaviour to gain attention from clinical staff
- D. Reduced capacity to make decisions due to contradictory thoughts
- E. Chronic suicidal ideation typical of bipolar disorder requiring outpatient management
Explanation: ***Ambivalence about suicide which requires careful assessment but may indicate opportunity for intervention***- The patient exhibits **ambivalence**, which is the simultaneous presence of conflicting desires to live and die, often seen in high-risk psychiatric states.- Identifying these **reasons for living** (e.g., her children) is crucial as it provides a therapeutic window for **intervention** to strengthen protective factors.*Low risk as she has protective factors (children) that will prevent suicide*- While children are a **protective factor**, they do not eliminate risk, as severe depression can cause **cognitive distortions** where a patient believes family are better off without them.- The fact that she has **stockpiled medication** and has **detailed plans** indicates a high, not low, level of acute risk.*Manipulative behaviour to gain attention from clinical staff*- Describing suicidal conflict as "manipulative" is clinically inappropriate and fails to address the underlying **psychopathology** of a bipolar depressive episode.- **Self-harm history** and active planning must always be taken as serious indicators of distress rather than attention-seeking tactics.*Reduced capacity to make decisions due to contradictory thoughts*- Having **contradictory thoughts** (ambivalence) does not automatically mean a patient lacks the **mental capacity** to make decisions about their care.- Capacity is specific to the decision at hand and requires an assessment of whether she can **understand, retain, and weigh** information regardless of her emotional conflict.*Chronic suicidal ideation typical of bipolar disorder requiring outpatient management*- The acute presentation of **stockpiling medication** and a specific plan suggests an **acute crisis** rather than baseline chronic ideation.- Given the immediate danger and the transition into a depressive phase of **bipolar disorder**, inpatient admission is more appropriate than simple outpatient management.
Question 90: A 57-year-old man with treatment-resistant depression is assessed following discharge after a suicide attempt by hanging that resulted in brief hypoxic injury. He reports ongoing suicidal thoughts but states 'I won't try again, I've learnt my lesson'. He minimises the severity of his attempt and appears irritable during assessment. Collateral history from his wife reveals he has been searching suicide methods online since returning home. What does his presentation most suggest?
- A. Genuine resolution of suicidal intent following the traumatic experience
- B. Concealment of ongoing suicidal intent to avoid hospital admission (Correct Answer)
- C. Organic personality change secondary to hypoxic brain injury
- D. Normal psychological response to recent trauma and hospitalisation
- E. Reduced suicide risk due to learning experience from failed attempt
Explanation: ***Concealment of ongoing suicidal intent to avoid hospital admission*** - The patient exhibits a significant **discrepancy** between his verbal reassurance ("I won't try again") and his active behavior (searching suicide methods online), strongly indicating an intent to deceive. - **Minimization** of a serious suicide attempt, persistent suicidal thoughts, and **irritability** during assessment are common signs that a patient is attempting to avoid further psychiatric intervention or hospitalization to facilitate another attempt. *Genuine resolution of suicidal intent following the traumatic experience* - This option is contradicted by the **collateral history** from his wife, revealing he is actively researching new suicide methods, which directly indicates ongoing intent. - A true resolution would typically involve a cessation of suicidal ideation and planning, along with a more positive and engaged outlook on recovery, rather than **deception**. *Organic personality change secondary to hypoxic brain injury* - While a **hypoxic injury** can cause neurological and personality changes (e.g., irritability, impaired judgment), it does not specifically explain the highly targeted and deceptive behavior of researching suicide methods while denying intent. - The patient's history of **treatment-resistant depression** and the specific pattern of behavior are more indicative of a psychiatric crisis than a primary organic brain syndrome. *Normal psychological response to recent trauma and hospitalisation* - Actively searching for suicide methods online is a **high-risk pathological behavior**, not a normal or adaptive psychological response to trauma or hospitalization. - Normal responses to trauma might include anxiety, sadness, or adjustment difficulties, but not the continued pursuit of self-harm strategies. *Reduced suicide risk due to learning experience from failed attempt* - A prior suicide attempt, especially one of high lethality like hanging, is a powerful predictor of **increased future suicide risk**, not reduced risk. - The "lesson" the patient might have learned, as suggested by his online searches, is likely how to make a future attempt more "successful" or lethal, not a deterrent.
Practice by Chapter
Want unlimited practice?
Get full access to all questions, explanations, and performance tracking.
Start For Free