Rehabilitation After Stroke: Whose Goal Is It?
Dr. Patel, a rehabilitation psychologist, is consulted on an inpatient stroke unit for Mrs. Kowalski, a 71-year-old woman 10 days post left-hemisphere ischemic stroke. She has right hemiparesis, mild-to-moderate aphasia (she follows simple conversation but has word-finding difficulty), and no documented cognitive diagnosis. The physiatrist's note lists goals of 'ambulate 50 feet with a walker and return home alone.' Mrs. Kowalski's daughter, her only family nearby, tells the team her mother 'would never want to be a burden' and asks that discharge planning focus on a skilled nursing facility. Mrs. Kowalski, when asked directly with yes/no and gesture support, indicates she wants to go home. The team is divided; the physiatrist says the daughter is 'more realistic.' Dr. Patel has 2 sessions before the discharge meeting.
1. How should Dr. Patel approach the question of decision-making capacity and the patient's expressed preference, given the aphasia?
Read the worked answer
Aphasia is not equivalent to incapacity. Capacity is decision-specific and functional: can Mrs. Kowalski understand the relevant information, appreciate the consequences, reason about options, and communicate a choice? Her ability to express a preference with yes/no and gesture support is meaningful evidence of communication, but Dr. Patel should not treat a single yes/no exchange as sufficient. She should (1) use supported communication (yes/no cards, visual scales, written keywords, extra time, a speech-language pathologist consult), (2) assess comprehension and reasoning for the specific decision (home with supports vs. SNF), not for abstract questions, and (3) document the method used, because a capacity determination will be scrutinized. If Mrs. Kowalski can demonstrate understanding and a consistent choice, her preference governs, and the daughter's view is relevant input but not decisive. If capacity is genuinely uncertain, a formal capacity evaluation and, if needed, a surrogate decision-maker process under state law applies. Dr. Patel should avoid letting the physiatrist's 'realistic' framing substitute for an actual capacity assessment. She should also recognize that the daughter's concern about burden may reflect caregiver strain that deserves its own attention, not dismissal.
2. What is Dr. Patel's role regarding the team's conflict, and how should she handle the daughter?
Read the worked answer
Dr. Patel's role is consultative, not decision-making: she contributes a capacity assessment, a formulation of the patient's values and preferences, and recommendations about supports that could make home discharge viable. She should not advocate for a disposition the team has not agreed to, but she should correct the process error - that the daughter's preference has been weighted as if it were the patient's, and that aphasia has been treated as incapacity without assessment. With the daughter, Dr. Patel should use a supportive, non-adversarial stance: acknowledge that caregiving is exhausting and that her worry is real, explore what 'burden' means in this family (financial, physical, emotional), and identify concrete supports (home health aide, outpatient speech and PT, respite, adult day program) that could change the calculus. She should be transparent that the team is working to understand Mrs. Kowalski's own wishes and that the daughter's input matters. If the daughter is the likely caregiver, her willingness and capacity are legitimate discharge-planning variables - but they should be addressed directly rather than converted into a claim about what the patient wants. Dr. Patel should also flag the aphasia to the team as a communication-access issue and recommend SLP involvement in the discharge meeting.
3. At the discharge meeting, the physiatrist asks Dr. Patel to 'just tell us what she wants.' How should she respond, and what should be documented?
Read the worked answer
The request asks her to substitute a psychologist's report for a team process and for the patient's own voice. Dr. Patel should decline the framing while still being useful: she can report what the assessment showed - the methods used, the patient's demonstrated understanding, her consistent expressed preference, and the limits of the assessment - rather than issuing a verdict on disposition. She should recommend that Mrs. Kowalski participate in the meeting with communication supports and that the team document the patient's stated preference. Documentation should include: the supported-communication methods used; the specific questions asked; the patient's responses; the capacity domains assessed and the conclusion with its basis; the daughter's stated concerns and her caregiving capacity; the supports identified; and the rationale for the final plan. If the team proceeds against the patient's expressed preference and she has capacity, that decision needs a clear legal and ethical basis and should be escalated (ethics consult, risk management) rather than settled by majority vote. Dr. Patel should also note that 'return home alone' as a goal may be unrealistic while 'return home with supports' is not - the binary framing has narrowed the options.