Literature DB >> 10636343

Hospital informed consent for procedure forms: facilitating quality patient-physician interaction.

M M Bottrell1, H Alpert, R L Fischbach, L L Emanuel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Informed consent forms should document and reflect the goals of informed consent and shared decision making. We conducted this study to examine the extent to which informed consent for procedure forms meet accepted informed consent standards, how well state informed consent statutes correlate with these standards, and whether existing forms can enhance the interactions between patients and physicians or other health care providers. HYPOTHESIS: Informed consent forms do not meet accepted standards. A different format may be more useful for patient-physician interactions.
DESIGN: A content analysis was conducted of hospital informed consent for procedure forms from a random selection of hospitals in the 1994 American Hospital Association membership directory. Forms were examined for evidence of the basic elements of informed consent (nature of the procedure, risks, benefits, and alternatives) and items that might enhance patient-physician interactions and encourage shared decision making. UNIT OF ANALYSIS: From 157 hospitals nationwide, 540 hospital informed consent for procedure forms were examined.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-six percent of forms indicated the nature of the procedure, but risks, benefits, and alternatives were found less often. Only 26% of forms included all 4 basic elements, 35% included 3 of 4 elements, 23% had 2 of 4 elements, 14% had only 1 element, and 2% had none of the elements. Forms appear to authorize treatment (75%) or protect hospitals and caregivers from liability (59%) rather than clarify information about procedures (40%) or aid patients in decision making (14%). Forms from states with statutes that require that all 4 elements be provided were no more likely than other states to include them (Fisher exact test = 1.000). Fewer than 40% of forms supported models of shared decision making.
CONCLUSIONS: The content of most forms did not meet accepted standards of informed consent or patient-physician interactions. We propose a form that more fully supports the models of ideal informed consent and shared decision making to enhance the applicability of informed consent in the clinical setting.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10636343     DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.135.1.26

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Surg        ISSN: 0004-0010


  35 in total

Review 1.  Informed consent for clinical treatment.

Authors:  Daniel E Hall; Allan V Prochazka; Aaron S Fink
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2012-03-05       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Improving the process of informed consent for percutaneous coronary intervention: patient outcomes from the Patient Risk Information Services Manager (ePRISM) study.

Authors:  John A Spertus; Richard Bach; Charles Bethea; Adnan Chhatriwalla; Jeptha P Curtis; Elizabeth Gialde; Mayra Guerrero; Kensey Gosch; Philip G Jones; Aaron Kugelmass; Bradley M Leonard; Edward J McNulty; Marc Shelton; Henry H Ting; Carole Decker
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 4.749

Review 3.  Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures: a systematic review.

Authors:  Yael Schenker; Alicia Fernandez; Rebecca Sudore; Dean Schillinger
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Opportunities to Improve Informed Consent with AHRQ Training Modules.

Authors:  Sarah J Shoemaker; Cindy Brach; Alrick Edwards; Salome O Chitavi; Rene Thomas; Melanie Wasserman
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2018-05-03

5.  Adherence to informed consent standards in Shiraz hospitals: matrons' perspective.

Authors:  Alireza Mohsenian Sisakht; Najme Karamzade Ziarati; Farideh Kouchak; Mehrdad Askarian
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2014-10-26

6.  The Quality of Informed Consent Forms-a Systematic Review and Critical Analysis.

Authors:  Julia Lühnen; Ingrid Mühlhauser; Anke Steckelberg
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 5.594

7.  Informed consent and the readability of the written consent form.

Authors:  N Sivanadarajah; I El-Daly; G Mamarelis; M Z Sohail; P Bates
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2017-10-19       Impact factor: 1.891

8.  Women's accounts of consenting to surgery: is consent a quality problem?

Authors:  M Habiba; C Jackson; A Akkad; S Kenyon; M Dixon-Woods
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2004-12

Review 9.  A review of surgical informed consent: past, present, and future. A quest to help patients make better decisions.

Authors:  Wouter K G Leclercq; Bram J Keulers; Marc R M Scheltinga; Paul H M Spauwen; Gert-Jan van der Wilt
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.352

10.  Patients' perception of quality of pre-operative informed consent in athens, Greece: a pilot study.

Authors:  Matthew E Falagas; Patrick D Akrivos; Vangelis G Alexiou; Vasilios Saridakis; Theofanis Moutos; George Peppas; Barbara K Kondilis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-11-26       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.