What is the difference between capacity and completeness

Data quality is crucial — it assesses whether information can serve its purpose in a particular context such as data analysis, for example. So, how do you determine the quality of a given set of information? There are data quality characteristics of which you should be aware.

As the name implies, this data quality characteristic means that information is correct. To determine whether data is accurate or not, ask yourself if the information reflects a real-world situation. Accuracy is a crucial data quality characteristic because inaccurate information can cause significant problems with severe consequences.

Why does completeness matter as a data quality characteristic? If information is incomplete, it might be unusable. Reliability is a vital data quality characteristic. You could make a mistake that could cost your firm money and reputational damage.

See what data quality assessment looks like in practice. Review four key metrics organizations can use to measure data quality. Why does relevance matter as a data quality characteristic?

Timeliness, as the name implies, refers to how up to date information is. In turn, that costs organizations time, money, and reputational damage. Precisely provides data quality solutions to improve the accuracy, completeness, reliability, relevance, and timeliness of your data.

In recent years there has been a growing awareness among organizations around their data and the role it plays in the success or failure of their most critical business functions. This shift in Competency is a global assessment and a legal determination made by a judge in court.

Capacity, on the other hand, is a functional assessment regarding a particular decision. Capacity is not static, and it can be performed by any clinician familiar with the patient.

A hospitalist often is well positioned to make a capacity determination given established rapport with the patient and familiarity with the details of the case. To make this determination, a hospitalist needs to know how to assess capacity. Although capacity usually is defined by state law and varies by jurisdiction, clinicians generally can assume it includes one or more of the four key components:.

It is easy to administer, requires no formal training, and is familiar to most hospitalists. However, it does not address any specific aspects of informed consent, such as understanding or choice, and has not been validated in patients with mental illness. It utilizes hospital chart review followed by a semi-structured interview to address clinical issues relevant to the patient being assessed; it takes 15 to 20 minutes to complete.

It has been validated in patients with dementia, schizophrenia, and depression. Limiting its clinical applicability is the fact that the MacCAT-T requires training to administer and interpret the results, though this is a relatively brief process. The Capacity to Consent to Treatment Instrument CCTI uses hypothetical clinical vignettes in a structured interview to assess capacity across all four domains.

The Hopemont Capacity Assessment Interview HCAI utilizes hypothetical vignettes in a semi-structured interview format to assess understanding, appreciation, choice, and likely reasoning. It is not necessary to perform a formal assessment of capacity on every inpatient. For most, there is no reasonable concern for impaired capacity, obviating the need for formal testing. Likewise, in patients who clearly lack capacity, such as those with end-stage dementia or established guardians, formal reassessment usually is not required.

Formal testing is most useful in situations in which capacity is unclear, disagreement amongst surrogate decision-makers exists, or judicial involvement is anticipated. The MacCAT-T has been validated in the broadest population and is probably the most clinically useful tool currently available. The MMSE is an attractive alternative because of its widespread use and familiarity; however, it is imprecise with scores from 17 to 23, limiting its applicability.

Understanding and applying the defined markers most often provides a sufficient capacity evaluation in itself. As capacity is not static, the decision usually requires more than one assessment.

Equally, deciding that a patient lacks capacity is not an end in itself, and the underlying cause should be addressed. Although some question the notion, given our desire to facilitate management beneficial to the patient, the general consensus is that we have a lower threshold for capacity for consent to treatments that are low-risk and high-benefit.

Stemming from a desire to protect patients from harm, we have a relatively higher threshold for capacity to make decisions regarding high-risk, low-benefit treatments. Clinicians should be thorough in documenting details in coming to a capacity determination, both as a means to formalize the thought process running through the four determinants of capacity, and in order to document for future reference.

Cases in which it could be reasonable to call a consultant for those familiar with the assessment basics include:.

When a patient is found to lack capacity, resources to utilize to help make a treatment decision include existing advance directives and substitute decision-makers, such as durable power of attorneys DPOAs and family members. You review with the patient and niece that dialysis would be a procedure to replace his failing kidney function, and that failure to pursue this would ultimately be life-threatening and likely result in death, especially in regard to electrolyte abnormalities and his lack of any other terminal illness.

The consulting nephrologist reviews their recommendations with the patient and niece as well, and the patient consistently refuses. Having clearly communicated his choice, you ask the patient if he understands the situation. He says, "My kidneys are failing. Following this discussion, you feel comfortable that the patient has capacity to make this decision. Having documented this discussion, you discharge him to a subacute rehabilitation facility.

In cases in which a second opinion is warranted, psychiatry, geriatrics, or ethics consults could be utilized. Acknowledgements:The authors would like to thank Dr. Jeff Rohde for reviewing a copy of the manuscript, and Dr.