Stay Awesome
Vaccinating Care Home Residents: Consent, Mental Capacity, Best Interests and PGDs- HELP!!
November 2026
Who can consent to vaccination when a resident lacks capacity? Does next of kin have any legal authority? Can a nurse vaccinate under a Patient Group Direction following a best-interests decision? And whose responsibility is it to establish all of this before a care home vaccination session?
These are important questions for healthcare professionals delivering seasonal influenza, COVID-19, RSV, pnumococcal and other vaccination programmes in residential and nursing care homes. They are also questions that can generate considerable uncertainty, particularly when practitioners are responsible for vaccinating large numbers of residents during a single visit. It can feel like a minefeld!
The challenge is that several different legal and professional frameworks overlap. There is the requirement for informed consent, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the role of relatives and legally appointed decision-makers, and the medicines legislation governing administration under PGDs and VGDs. Understanding how these frameworks work together is essential for safe, lawful and person-centred vaccination practice.
Consent is not simply a signed form
Consent is a fundamental requirement of healthcare, including vaccination. However, obtaining consent is not simply a matter of asking someone to sign a form. The Green Book, Chapter 2, explains that consent must be informed and voluntary, and that people should be supported to understand the benefits and risks of vaccination, including the consequences of declining it. Importantly, written consent is not a legal requirement for routine vaccination. Verbal consent can be entirely appropriate, provided it is valid and appropriately documented. A signed consent form does not necessarily demonstrate that meaningful informed consent has been obtained. Equally, the absence of a signature does not automatically mean that vaccination cannot proceed.
This becomes particularly important in care homes, where forms may be distributed to residents or relatives before a vaccination session. Such forms can support communication and record keeping, but they cannot replace the professional responsibilities of the vaccinating healthcare team.
Does a diagnosis of dementia mean a resident cannot consent?
No. Mental capacity must never be assumed to be absent simply because someone has dementia, a learning disability or another condition that may affect cognition.
Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, adults must be presumed to have capacity unless it is established otherwise. Capacity is both decision-specific and time-specific. Someone may be unable to manage complex financial affairs but still be perfectly capable of deciding whether they want an influenza vaccination. Before concluding that a resident lacks capacity, practitioners should consider whether they can understand, retain, use or weigh the relevant information and communicate their decision.
Every practicable step should be taken to support the person to make the decision themselves. This might involve using simpler explanations, visual information, familiar staff, communication aids or choosing a time of day when the resident is more alert.
The important question is not simply whether the resident has dementia, but whether they have capacity to make this particular vaccination decision at the relevant time.
Can next of kin consent to vaccination?
This is probably one of the most frequently misunderstood aspects of care-home vaccination. Being someone's next of kin does not automatically give a person legal authority to consent to medical treatment on their behalf. A daughter, son, spouse or other relative may know the resident extremely well and have valuable information about their wishes, preferences and beliefs. However, unless they hold the appropriate legal authority, they cannot simply provide substitute consent.
In England and Wales, relevant decision-making authority may be held by an attorney appointed under a registered health and welfare Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), or by a court-appointed deputy acting within the scope of their powers. A property and financial affairs LPA does not provide authority to make vaccination decisions.
Where a resident has an appropriately authorised attorney or deputy, their role and powers must be established before proceeding. Any disagreement between an authorised decision-maker and the clinical team requires careful consideration and may require legal advice. Where there is no legally authorised decision-maker, relatives should normally be consulted where practicable and appropriate, but their role is to help establish the resident's wishes and best interests rather than to provide legal consent.
This is an important distinction when designing care-home vaccination forms. A form labelled 'next of kin consent' may incorrectly imply that relatives possess legal powers they do not actually have.
What happens when a resident lacks capacity and has no LPA?
A lack of capacity does not automatically prevent vaccination. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides a framework for making decisions about care and treatment when a person cannot make the decision themselves. Where there is no legally authorised person able to make the relevant decision, the healthcare professional responsible for the proposed treatment may make a best-interests decision in accordance with the Act. Section 5 provides legal protection for acts connected with care or treatment where the statutory conditions are satisfied, including reasonable beliefs concerning the person's lack of capacity and best interests.
A best-interests decision involves considering the individual circumstances of the resident. This includes the clinical benefits and risks of vaccination, their previous wishes and beliefs, their present wishes and feelings, and the views of people who know them well. It is good practice to consult family members, carers and others interested in the person's welfare where practicable and appropriate. However, the absence of an available relative does not automatically prevent a best-interests decision from being made.
Nor does every best-interests decision automatically require a GP to authorise it. The appropriate decision-maker will depend on the proposed treatment, the clinical circumstances and any relevant legal authority or local governance arrangements.
They've always had their flu vaccine. Isn't that enough?
Previous vaccination history can provide useful evidence about a resident's likely wishes, but it is not sufficient on its own. Consider a resident with advanced dementia who has received influenza vaccination every autumn for the past decade. That history may suggest that vaccination is consistent with their previous preferences and beliefs. However, it does not establish that vaccination is automatically in their best interests this year.
The resident's current clinical circumstances must still be considered, together with any known wishes, concerns, contraindications or changes in their health. Previous acceptance of vaccination is therefore relevant evidence, not an enduring consent agreement. Similarly, a previous refusal should be explored rather than automatically treated as a permanent refusal. The circumstances and reasons for that refusal may be important, particularly if the resident expressed clear wishes while they had capacity.
Can vaccination following a best-interests decision be administered under a PGD?
This is where consent legislation and medicines legislation intersect.
A PGD is a legal mechanism permitting specified registered healthcare professionals to supply and administer medicines to individuals who meet the criteria of the PGD, without requiring an individual prescription.
The Mental Capacity Act provides a separate legal framework for decisions about treatment when a person lacks capacity.
These frameworks operate alongside one another.
A resident who lacks capacity is not automatically excluded from vaccination under a PGD simply because they cannot personally provide informed consent. However, the practitioner must comply with the particular PGD, including its consent provisions and all other eligibility requirements. For example, the spring 2026 COVID-19 PGD, version 4.0, explicitly included within its exclusion criteria individuals for whom valid consent or a best-interests decision under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had not been obtained. This wording is significant because it recognises that a properly made best-interests decision can satisfy the consent-related requirement for vaccination under that PGD.
Practitioners must always check the precise wording of the current PGD they are authorised to use.
Where the requirements of a PGD cannot be met, an alternative legal mechanism, such as a PSD, may be required. Importantly, a PSD does not bypass the Mental Capacity Act or remove the requirement for an appropriate best-interests decision.
What changes when vaccination is delivered under a VGD?
Vaccine Group Directions are another legal mechanism supporting NHS vaccination programmes. The distinction is particularly relevant where registered and unregistered practitioners work together to deliver vaccination sessions.
Under a VGD, the specified registered healthcare professional must undertake the clinical assessment and consent process, but certain subsequent activities may be delegated to appropriately trained and competent practitioners.
This does not mean that consent or the clinical assessment can simply be delegated to a healthcare assistant or care-home employee.
Where a resident lacks capacity, the registered professional responsible for the assessment must ensure that the appropriate Mental Capacity Act requirements have been satisfied before vaccination proceeds. Care-home staff can support the process by providing information, facilitating communication and helping to establish the resident's wishes. They do not automatically acquire legal authority to make vaccination decisions on behalf of residents.
What does NHS Specialist Pharmacy Service say?
SPS provides additional guidance on the legal mechanisms used to administer medicines in care homes, including PGDs.
SPS confirms that although care-home staff cannot themselves operate under PGDs, appropriately authorised registered healthcare professionals from external providers may administer medicines under PGDs to residents within care homes. The care-home setting does not, therefore, automatically prevent PGD use.
Interestingly, SPS also recognises that administration under a PGD may be appropriate where a patient cannot provide consent, provided the relevant legal requirements are met and organisational policies support the decision. SPS further emphasises that repeat administration of medicines under PGDs requires a fresh assessment for each episode of care. Previous vaccination history cannot simply replace the assessment required for the current vaccination.
For VGDs, SPS makes clear that clinical assessment and obtaining informed consent remain the responsibility of the appropriately registered healthcare professional and cannot be delegated to other staff.
Is there specific guidance for care-home residents?
Yes.
UKHSA has previously published COVID-19 vaccination consent resources specifically for care-home residents. These included separate forms for residents able to consent, legally authorised representatives, and relatives providing information to inform a best-interests decision. The distinction between a legal representative's decision and a relative's views is particularly useful. Although these documents originated during the earlier COVID-19 vaccination programme and should not automatically be treated as current campaign requirements, they illustrate an important principle: consulting relatives about a resident's wishes is not the same as asking relatives to give consent.
Whose responsibility is it to prepare for the vaccination session?
A successful care-home vaccination programme requires cooperation between the care home and the healthcare professionals delivering the vaccines.
The care home can play an important role in identifying eligible residents, gathering information about previous vaccination decisions, providing relevant medical and care records, identifying legally authorised representatives and facilitating discussions with relatives. However, arranging for relatives to complete forms does not transfer the clinical and professional responsibilities of the vaccination team to the care home. The healthcare professionals responsible for assessment and vaccination must be satisfied that the resident is eligible, that the relevant consent or best-interests arrangements are in place, and that administration is lawful under the medicines framework being used.
Ideally, residents requiring capacity assessments or best-interests decisions should be identified before the vaccination session. This allows time for meaningful consultation and avoids rushed decisions when the vaccinator arrives. Where information is missing, or a decision is complex or disputed, postponing vaccination until the necessary assessment has been completed may be appropriate.
What if a resident resists vaccination?
A best-interests decision is not blanket permission to proceed regardless of the resident's response.
Even where a decision has been made that vaccination is in a resident's best interests, practitioners must remain attentive to their wishes, feelings and behaviour. A resident who becomes distressed, actively resists or attempts to withdraw from the procedure should not simply be vaccinated on the basis that they have received the vaccine previously.
The situation requires reassessment.
The Mental Capacity Act contains specific safeguards concerning restraint, including requirements relating to necessity and proportionality. Any proposal involving restraint requires careful consideration and appropriate governance. For routine vaccination, the safest immediate response to active resistance will generally be to stop, reassess and seek further advice where necessary.
What should be documented?
Documentation is particularly important when vaccination is provided to a resident who lacks capacity. The clinical record should demonstrate that the decision was individualised, lawful and appropriately considered.
Relevant documentation may include:
The decision-specific capacity assessment and support offered.
The resident's previous and current wishes, feelings and beliefs.
Any relevant LPA, deputyship or other legal authority.
The people consulted and the information they provided.
The benefits, risks and alternatives considered.
The rationale for the best-interests decision.
The PGD, VGD, PSD or other legal authority used for administration.
The resident's response when vaccination was offered or administered.
The extent of documentation should be proportionate to the complexity of the decision and consistent with organisational policy. A straightforward, uncontested decision will not necessarily require the same process as a situation involving disagreement between relatives, an attorney and the clinical team.
Final thoughts
Vaccinating care-home residents is an important part of protecting people who may be particularly vulnerable to complications from infectious diseases.However, protecting residents from infection must not come at the expense of their rights, autonomy or the legal safeguards surrounding healthcare decisions.
A diagnosis of dementia does not automatically mean someone lacks capacity. Being next of kin does not automatically confer authority to consent. A history of previous vaccination does not constitute ongoing consent. And a signed form does not necessarily demonstrate that the correct legal process has been followed. Equally, a resident who lacks capacity should not be denied the opportunity for vaccination simply because they cannot personally provide consent or because no relative is available to sign a form.
The Mental Capacity Act provides a framework for making appropriate best-interests decisions, while PGDs and VGDs provide the separate medicines authority required to administer vaccines within their specified conditions. The key is understanding how these requirements fit together and ensuring that care-home vaccination sessions are planned, documented and delivered with the individual resident at the centre of the process.
Further reading
UKHSA - Green Book Chapter 2: Consent
Mental Capacity Act 2005 - Code of Practice
Office of the Public Guardian - Vaccinations for attorneys and deputies
UKHSA - Care-home vaccination consent forms
UKHSA - PGDs and VGDs
Reviewed November 2026. This article relates principally to the legal framework in England, with Mental Capacity Act principles also applicable in Wales. Practitioners should refer to the current national guidance, locally applicable authorisations and organisational policies.
