Skip to textbook content
Doctor’s PassportTextbook
QuestionsFlashcardsBriefsDashboardAccount
TopicsAll topics

Loading topic navigation…

Textbook navigation
TopicsAll topics

Loading topic navigation…
← Psychiatry indexChapter sections
OverviewAetiologyPathophysiologyClinical features and red flagsInvestigationsDifferential diagnosisManagementComplicationsMonitoring and follow-upSpecial situationsCommon pitfallsQuestionsSources
Full textbook13 sectionsOpen only what you need
Educational draft · awaiting clinical reviewThe full textbook explains uncertainty but does not replace live national or local guidance, specialist advice, or current prescribing information.

Communication passports and accessible consent

Psychiatry · UK scope · Sources checked 27 Aug 2026 · Clinical review pending

RapidFull
!
Urgency does not erase communication

Life-threatening illness may require rapid treatment, but failure to use available signs, symbols, interpreters, hearing aids, familiar supporters or a current passport can create avoidable incapacity, distress and error.

Action: Presume a conscious patient has capacity and seek consent using the fastest effective communication support while stabilising immediate threats. If, despite practicable support, there is a reasonable belief that the person lacks capacity, give only immediately necessary treatment reasonably believed to be in their best interests, check any applicable advance decision or authorised attorney as far as practicable, involve the person as much as possible and record the legal basis.

Overview

Use a co-produced communication passport to make needs visible while preserving the person's own voice, support valid consent and capacity assessment, and carry precise adjustments safely across care boundaries.

Communication is broader than speech. A person may use objects, pictures, signs, gesture, eye pointing, a device, behaviour, written keywords or supported speech, and may understand more than they can express. A good passport tells unfamiliar staff how to address the person, establish yes and no, present information, allow processing time, recognise baseline and distress, manage sensory or positioning needs, involve chosen supporters and check understanding. It is a practical bridge, not a diagnostic summary or permission to bypass the person.

Develop the passport directly with the person wherever possible. Ask what they want professionals to know, who may see it and which details are private. Family, carers, speech and language therapists and advocates can add observations, but label their contribution and resolve disagreement rather than presenting it as the person's settled choice. Include effective approaches and approaches to avoid. Date the document, name who will review it and keep it available in the format and location needed during referral, ambulance transfer and admission.

Practice

Two practice questions

Your practice draft is saved in this browser.

Question 1 of 2
0 correct
PsychiatryOriginal SBA

Unsupported apparent refusal

A patient with learning disability pushes away a consent form they cannot read, but uses picture symbols successfully at home. What should the clinician do before assessing capacity?

Choose one answer, then submit
← Rapid synopsisBack to overviewAll Psychiatry topics →
Sources and review status5 sources · checked 27 Aug 2026 · clinical review pending+
Sources

Sources and review status

National guidance is shown before implementation-dependent detail. Apply principles in context and verify current guidance when a decision affects care. Source check completed 27 Aug 2026; clinical approval remains outstanding.

  • NHS England Accessible Information Standard implementationIdentifying, recording, flagging, sharing, meeting and reviewing communication needs.
  • NICE NG108 decision-making and mental capacitySupported decision-making, capacity assessment, best interests and advocacy.
  • Mental Capacity Act 2005 section 1Statutory principles of presumption, practicable support, unwise decisions, best interests and least restriction.
  • Mental Capacity Act Code of PracticeOperational guidance for capacity, consent, best interests and authorised decision-makers.
  • GMC decision making and consentCurrent professional guidance on supported consent, emergencies and treatment where capacity is absent.

Editorial contact: Doctor’s Passport editorial team. Source-check date is separate from clinical approval. Report a content problem · Content changes

Authoring stateComplete draftClinical stateAwaiting review

Accessible consent is a process. Break information into concrete parts, use the person's preferred format, reduce unnecessary language, show equipment, offer a quiet setting, allow processing and revisit information if fatigue or distress interferes. Explain material benefits and risks in a way relevant to that individual, including what may happen without treatment and reasonable alternatives. Use open checks such as asking the person to show or explain what they think will happen; repeated yes/no questions can invite acquiescence and do not demonstrate understanding.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 in England and Wales starts from capacity and requires all practicable help before incapacity is concluded. The assessment is tied to one decision at the material time. Identify an impairment or disturbance of mind or brain, then determine whether it causes inability to understand, retain, use or weigh the relevant information, or communicate the decision by any means. Short retention can be enough when it lasts long enough to decide. The assessment must not demand a higher level of reasoning because clinicians dislike the outcome.

When a person lacks capacity, check for a valid and applicable advance decision to refuse treatment and the scope of any health-and-welfare lasting power of attorney or court deputy. If nobody has authority, decide best interests by considering the person's past and present wishes, values, beliefs, views of relevant others, clinical benefit and less restrictive options. An Independent Mental Capacity Advocate is required for specified serious medical treatment or accommodation decisions when the person lacks capacity and has no appropriate unpaid representative, subject to statutory detail. Record reasoning, review if capacity may return, and keep the person involved.

Key points

  • A communication passport is a concise, person-owned account of how someone understands, expresses choices, shows pain or distress, and what practical approaches help care succeed.
  • Co-produce it with the person, record the source and review date, distinguish the person's preferences from supporter interpretation, and avoid turning it into a behavioural control plan.
  • The Accessible Information Standard requires services to identify, record, flag, share, meet and review disability-related information and communication needs.
  • Consent requires accessible information about the nature, purpose, material benefits, risks and alternatives, plus a genuine opportunity to ask questions and decide voluntarily.
  • Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, presume capacity, take all practicable supportive steps, and never infer incapacity merely from disability or an unwise decision.
  • Assess capacity for the specific decision and time: can the person understand, retain, use or weigh relevant information and communicate a choice by any means?
  • If capacity is absent, comply with any valid and applicable advance decision and verify an attorney's or deputy's scope. Otherwise make and record the overall best-interests decision; before acting, consider whether the purpose can be achieved as effectively in a way less restrictive of the person's rights and freedom.

Aetiology

01

Developmental communication difference

Intellectual, language, autism or motor differences may alter how information is understood and expressed throughout life without eliminating preferences or decision-making.

02

Acquired access loss

Stroke, dementia, delirium, hearing loss, visual impairment or critical illness can disrupt an established communication method and require rapid reassessment.

03

Environmental communication failure

Noise, time pressure, unfamiliar staff and abstract wording can create apparent inability that improves when the setting and information are adapted.

Pathophysiology

  1. 1
    Receptive processing load

    Long sentences, unfamiliar vocabulary and rapid delivery can exceed working memory before the person has encoded the decision's essential meaning.

  2. 2
    Expressive bottleneck

    Motor, language or anxiety barriers may prevent a person displaying knowledge and preference even when relevant information has been understood.

  3. 3
    Acquiescence tendency

    Social pressure and repeated closed questions can reward agreement, producing answers that reflect the interviewer rather than the person's considered choice.

  4. 4
    Fluctuating cognition

    Pain, fatigue, seizure, medicine effects and delirium can temporarily impair attention and weighing, so timing materially changes functional capacity.

Clinical features and red flags

Receptive communication need

The person needs simplified spoken language, pictures, demonstration, sign, an interpreter or extra processing time to understand information.

Expressive communication need

Choices, pain or questions are conveyed through gesture, device, behaviour, eye pointing or supporter interpretation rather than fluent speech.

Acquiescent responding

Answers follow the last option, agree with leading questions or change with the questioner, so genuine preference needs another method.

Decision-specific difficulty

The person manages familiar everyday choices but cannot use or weigh particular complex consequences even after tailored explanation and support.

Fluctuating access

Pain, delirium, medication, fatigue, seizure or sensory-aid failure temporarily changes communication and may alter capacity at different times.

Red flags requiring action

  • A patient who usually communicates choices becomes unable to do so after illness, sedation or removal of aids; treat this as a change and restore access before concluding incapacity where time allows.
  • An outdated passport that instructs staff to defer automatically to a carer may conflict with the adult's present wishes, confidentiality and decision-specific capacity.
  • Apparent agreement obtained through acquiescence, repeated leading questions or inaccessible risk information is not reliable evidence of informed consent.

Investigations

  1. 01
    Communication-needs assessmentFirst step
    Why
    Identify how the person receives information, expresses choices and signals pain, distress or disagreement.
    Interpretation and limitations
    Specify the method and support required rather than recording only a diagnosis; obtain speech and language expertise when needs are complex or newly changed.
  2. 02
    Passport accuracy check
    Why
    Confirm that recorded preferences, baseline and supporter roles remain current and person-endorsed.
    Interpretation and limitations
    Resolve contradictions with direct observation and the person's present account; a passport guides care but does not override current communication or law.
  3. 03
    Consent conversation
    Why
    Establish voluntary understanding of the proposed intervention, material risks, expected benefits and reasonable alternatives.
    Interpretation and limitations
    Use accessible formats and open checks; a signature, nod or supporter agreement alone does not demonstrate informed consent.
  4. 04
    Decision-specific capacity assessment
    Why
    Determine whether an impairment causes inability to make the particular decision despite practicable support.
    Interpretation and limitations
    Record relevant information, support tried and each functional element; do not use a global score, diagnosis or perceived wisdom of the choice as a shortcut.

Differential diagnosis

01

Communication impairment alone

A person may understand and decide but need sign, eye gaze, a device or an interpreter to communicate the choice.

02

Temporary incapacity

Acute illness, intoxication, sedation or overwhelming distress may prevent a decision now while recovery could restore ability soon.

03

Coercion or undue influence

The person may possess cognitive capacity yet be unable to decide voluntarily because another person controls, threatens or manipulates the choice.

04

Simple disagreement

A clinician or carer may dislike a decision that the person nevertheless understands, weighs and communicates after appropriate support.

Management

01Prepare communicationBuild an actionable passportFirst stepA person has communication needs that unfamiliar teams may not reliably meet.+
  1. 1Ask the person how they want information delivered, how they show choices and distress, who may support them and what approaches should be avoided.
  2. 2Combine direct preferences with clearly attributed observations, recording concrete examples, essential aids, sensory needs and a review date.
  3. 3Flag and share the passport through approved systems with the person's involvement, then ensure receiving staff can access and use it before care begins.
02Seek consentSupport the person to decideExamination, treatment, disclosure or another material choice requires agreement.+
  1. 1PreferredDescribe the decision, material benefits, risks, alternatives and likely result of no action in the person's preferred accessible format.

Complications

01

Invalid consent

Inaccessible or coercive communication can produce apparent agreement without understanding, exposing the person to unwanted intervention and legal harm.

02

Unlawful exclusion

Assuming incapacity can remove the person's voice, confidentiality and control from choices they could make with practicable assistance.

03

Unsafe information loss

When passports and aids do not cross service boundaries, staff may miss pain signals, allergies, distress triggers and effective de-escalation methods.

04

Excessive restriction

Poorly reasoned best-interests decisions may default to restraint, institutional convenience or blanket rules without considering whether the purpose can be achieved as effectively in a less restrictive way.

Monitoring and follow-up

  • Review the passport with the person after communication, health, sensory, living or supporter changes and whenever staff discover a better or unsafe approach.
  • Check that identified needs remain clearly recorded, visibly flagged, lawfully shared and actually met at referrals, investigations, admission and discharge.
  • Reassess capacity when the specific decision, relevant information or person's condition changes, particularly after delirium, sedation, pain control or recovery.
  • Audit whether consent records describe accessible information and understanding rather than relying only on a form, signature or carer presence.
  • Monitor any best-interests plan for benefit, burden and restriction, and reopen the decision if the person objects, capacity returns or a less restrictive option emerges.

Special situations

Passport is not proxy consent

The document explains communication and support; it does not confer legal authority on the person who helped to write or carry it.

Retention can be brief

A person need only retain relevant information long enough to make the decision, so prompt recording or action may preserve their autonomous choice.

Communication has many forms

The capacity test accepts a decision communicated by speech, sign, gesture, device or any other means; absence of speech is not inability.

Unwise is still autonomous

A choice others consider imprudent cannot by itself prove incapacity, though safeguarding, coercion and the person's understanding still require careful enquiry.

Common pitfalls

  1. 01

    Treating a communication passport as fixed truth despite outdated details, changed health or a different present choice from the person.

  2. 02

    Asking only leading yes/no questions and mistaking acquiescence, echolalia or distress-driven compliance for informed agreement.

  3. 03

    Declaring global incapacity from learning disability, non-speaking status, a low cognitive score or one previous best-interests decision.

  4. 04

    Assuming next of kin can consent for an adult without checking capacity, advance decisions and formally authorised decision-making powers.

  5. 05

    Providing Easy Read text while ignoring that the person uses objects, signs, audio, interpretation or demonstration instead of reading.

  6. 06

    Sharing sensitive passport information indiscriminately rather than agreeing purpose, relevance and lawful access with the person.

JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
  • A supporter who appears coercive, blocks private communication, changes the person's answers or controls medication and money raises a safeguarding concern.
  • 05
    Authority and advance-planning check
    Why
    Identify any applicable advance decision, attorney, deputy or statutory advocacy requirement.
    Interpretation and limitations
    Verify the document, decision scope and activation conditions; ordinary next of kin has no automatic general power to consent for an adult.
  • 2Optimise hearing, vision, pain, timing, environment, interpreter or communication-aid access and allow sufficient processing without coercive repetition.
  • 3Check understanding and voluntary choice openly, answer questions and document consent; if difficulty persists, proceed to a specific capacity assessment.
    • 03Capacity absentApply authority and best interestsAn impairment causes inability to make this decision after all practicable support has been tried.+
    1. 1Check for a valid applicable advance decision and the decision-making scope of any attorney or deputy, and arrange an IMCA where statutory criteria apply.
    2. 2Consult the person and relevant others about wishes, feelings, beliefs and values, compare benefits, burdens and less restrictive effective alternatives.
    3. 3Record the legal basis and reasoning, implement the proportionate plan and review when circumstances or the prospect of regained capacity changes.