BACKGROUND: Autopsy rates continue to fall despite the enduring benefit of the procedure to families and medical science, yet there are few data about the consent process itself. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current practice of obtaining autopsy consent, by assessing the consent forms currently in use, the knowledge and attitudes of chief residents on the procedure, and the expert opinion of pathologists in those institutions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-seven US teaching hospitals. RESULTS: Of all autopsy consent forms we surveyed, 84.7% contained 7 of 10 elements recommended by the College of American Pathologists. Only 7.1% of institutions supplied educational materials for the physician, as recommended by the College of American Pathologists. Overall, 50.1% of chief residents reported deficiencies in their knowledge of the autopsy procedure. Correspondingly, greater than 74.5% felt that educational materials would be beneficial for physicians and the family. Finally, 93.3% of chief residents believed that a limited autopsy should be offered to families, while 68 (90%) of 76 pathologists at these institutions believed that limited autopsies are an unsatisfactory alternative to the complete procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Chief residents at US teaching hospitals reported substantial deficiencies in their knowledge about autopsy and desire more training on the consent process. Autopsy consent forms are often lacking information that might help physicians and families in making an educated choice about autopsy. Teaching institutions need to reevaluate the training for the autopsy consent practice.
BACKGROUND: Autopsy rates continue to fall despite the enduring benefit of the procedure to families and medical science, yet there are few data about the consent process itself. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current practice of obtaining autopsy consent, by assessing the consent forms currently in use, the knowledge and attitudes of chief residents on the procedure, and the expert opinion of pathologists in those institutions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-seven US teaching hospitals. RESULTS: Of all autopsy consent forms we surveyed, 84.7% contained 7 of 10 elements recommended by the College of American Pathologists. Only 7.1% of institutions supplied educational materials for the physician, as recommended by the College of American Pathologists. Overall, 50.1% of chief residents reported deficiencies in their knowledge of the autopsy procedure. Correspondingly, greater than 74.5% felt that educational materials would be beneficial for physicians and the family. Finally, 93.3% of chief residents believed that a limited autopsy should be offered to families, while 68 (90%) of 76 pathologists at these institutions believed that limited autopsies are an unsatisfactory alternative to the complete procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Chief residents at US teaching hospitals reported substantial deficiencies in their knowledge about autopsy and desire more training on the consent process. Autopsy consent forms are often lacking information that might help physicians and families in making an educated choice about autopsy. Teaching institutions need to reevaluate the training for the autopsy consent practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
College of American Pathologists; Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship
Authors: Sheri L Spunt; Sara O Vargas; Cheryl M Coffin; Stephen X Skapek; David M Parham; Joan Darling; Douglas S Hawkins; Charles Keller Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jennifer L Alabran; Jody E Hooper; Melissa Hill; Sandra E Smith; Kimberlee K Spady; Lara E Davis; Lauren S Peterson; Suman Malempati; Christopher W Ryan; Rae Acosta; Sheri L Spunt; Charles Keller Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Daniel Wittschieber; Frederick Klauschen; Anna-Christin Kimmritz; Moritz von Winterfeld; Carsten Kamphues; Hans-Joachim Scholman; Andreas Erbersdobler; Heidi Pfeiffer; Carsten Denkert; Manfred Dietel; Wilko Weichert; Jan Budczies; Albrecht Stenzinger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-05-22 Impact factor: 3.240