Mental Capacity Act 2005: The Consultee Model for Research

<role vocab="credit"
      vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
      vocab-term="Mental Capacity Act 2005: The Consultee Model for Research"
      vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/mental-capacity-act-2005-consultee-model" />

{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "DefinedTerm",
  "@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/mental-capacity-act-2005-consultee-model",
  "name": "Mental Capacity Act 2005: The Consultee Model for Research",
  "identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/mental-capacity-act-2005-consultee-model",
  "description": "The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) consultee model is the mechanism England and Wales use to allow research involving adults who lack the mental capacity to consent for themselves, where that research is not a clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product (CTIMP). Sections 30–33 of the Act set out when such research can lawfully proceed and who must be consulted before a person is enrolled. Why this is a separate regime from CTIMP consent England and Wales run two distinct legal frameworks for research involving adults who lack capacity, and CASRAI's Simplified Consent Arrangements for Adults Lacking Capacity entry covers the CTIMP side of that split — the legal representative pathway under Schedule 1 of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. CTIMPs are explicitly carved out of the MCA's own research provisions. This entry covers the other half: non-CTIMP intrusive research, which stays inside the MCA and uses a consultee , not a legal representative, as its safeguard. What counts as \"intrusive\" research Research is intrusive under the Act if it would otherwise require the participant's own informed consent — interventional studies, but also non-interventional work involving personal data processing, questionnaires, interviews, or direct observation of the person. Research that uses only non-identifiable data, or that is separately authorised under Section 251 of the NHS Act 2006 via the Confidentiality Advisory Group , is not intrusive in this sense and does not trigger the MCA consultee requirement. The consultee model Instead of a substitute decision-maker who consents on the participant's behalf, the MCA uses an advisory role: Personal consultee — someone connected with the participant in a personal capacity (typically a family member or close friend), not paid to care for them, who is willing to be consulted. Nominated consultee — used only when no personal consultee is available; an independent person appointed under Department of Health and Social Care guidance, often a clinician not involved in the research. The distinction that trips up first-time applicants: a consultee does not consent on the participant's behalf. They advise the researcher on what the participant's own wishes and feelings would likely be, and on whether the participant should take part. The decision to enrol — and the responsibility for it — sits with the researcher, informed by that advice, not transferred to the consultee. This is the structural difference from the CTIMP legal representative, who does give consent standing in the participant's place. The best-interests requirement Every enrolment decision must satisfy the Act's core principles: it must be in the participant's best interests, it must be the least restrictive option available, and — specific to research — the interests of the participant must always be assumed to outweigh those of science and society . A Research Ethics Committee (an \"appropriate body\" under Section 30) must also be satisfied that the study meets the Section 31 conditions before approval: The research is connected with an impairing condition affecting the participant, or its treatment. Comparable results could not be obtained by research involving only participants who retain capacity. The research either has the potential to benefit the participant directly without disproportionate burden, or carries only negligible risk while contributing knowledge relevant to their condition. The consultation and safeguard arrangements set out in Sections 32–33 are followed. The urgent-situation exception Section 32(8) allows enrolment without prior consultee consultation in genuinely time-critical circumstances — where urgent treatment is being provided and it is not practicable to identify and consult a consultee before that treatment (and, by extension, research participation) must begin. Consultation must still happen as soon as practicable afterwards, and the participant or their consultee can withdraw them from the study at that point. This is a narrower, differently-triggered exception from the emergency provisions built into the CTIMP legal-representative regime, and the two should not be conflated when writing a protocol that might need both. Geographic scope The MCA 2005 applies to England and Wales only. Scotland uses the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000; Northern Ireland uses the Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016. A mutual recognition arrangement lets a single Research Ethics Committee opinion cover a multi-jurisdictional UK study, but the underlying legal basis for enrolling an incapacitated adult still differs by jurisdiction, and protocols and participant information sheets should reflect the framework that actually applies at each site. Worked example A study recruiting stroke patients within 24 hours of admission to compare two rehabilitation protocols is non-CTIMP intrusive research. Patients unable to consent because of the stroke itself are approached through a personal consultee (usually a spouse or adult child present at the bedside) or, if none is available in time, a nominated consultee such as an independent clinician. The consultee is asked what the patient would likely have wanted, not asked to consent on the patient's behalf; the research team makes the enrolment decision informed by that advice, subject to the REC-approved protocol's Section 31 justification. Counter-example A Phase II trial of a new anticoagulant in patients with acute ischaemic stroke who cannot consent is a CTIMP. Even though the clinical scenario looks identical to the worked example above, this study falls under the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, not the MCA's consultee provisions — it requires a personal or professional legal representative who can give consent on the participant's behalf, not a consultee offering advice. Applying the wrong regime is one of the more common protocol-design errors in UK dementia and stroke trials that mix drug and non-drug interventions. Related terms See also Simplified Consent Arrangements for Adults Lacking Capacity for the CTIMP legal-representative pathway, Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG) / Section 251 for non-intrusive confidential-data research, and Favourable Opinion (NHS REC) for how a Research Ethics Committee records its Section 30 approval.",
  "inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/clinical-research#set",
  "url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/mental-capacity-act-2005-consultee-model",
  "sameAs": [],
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "publisher": {
    "@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
  },
  "author": {
    "@id": "https://casrai.org/#editorial-team"
  },
  "datePublished": "2026-09-01T00:56:43",
  "dateModified": "2026-09-01T00:56:43",
  "inLanguage": "en-GB",
  "isAccessibleForFree": true
}