PURPOSE: Official recommendations for obtaining informed consent for interventional radiology procedures are that the patient gives their consent to the operator more than 24 hr prior to the procedure. This has significant implications for interventional radiology practice. The purpose of this study was to identify the proportion of European interventional radiologists who conform to these guidelines. METHODS: A questionnaire was designed consisting of 12 questions on current working practice and opinions regarding informed consent. These questions related to where, when and by whom consent was obtained from the patient. Questions also related to the use of formal consent forms and written patient information leaflets. Respondents were asked whether they felt patients received adequate explanation regarding indications for intervention, the procedure, alternative treatment options and complications. The questionnaire was distributed to 786 European interventional radiologists who were members of interventional societies. The anonymous replies were then entered into a database and analyzed. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-four (32.3%) questionnaires were returned. Institutions were classified as academic (56.7%), non-academic (40.5%) or private (2.8%). Depending on the procedure, in a significant proportion of patients consent was obtained in the outpatient department (22%), on the ward (65%) and in the radiology day case ward (25%), but in over half (56%) of patients consent or re-consent was obtained in the interventional suite. Fifty percent of respondents indicated that they obtain consent more than 24 hr before some procedures, in 42.9% consent is obtained on the morning of the procedure and 48.8% indicated that in some patients consent is obtained immediately before the procedure. We found that junior medical staff obtained consent in 58% of cases. Eighty-two percent of respondents do not use specific consent forms and 61% have patient information leaflets. The majority of respondents were satisfied with their level of explanation regarding indications for treatment (69.3%) and the procedure (78.7%). Fifty-nine percent felt patients understood alternative treatment options. Only 37.8% of radiologists document possible complications in the patient's chart. Comments from respondents indicated that there is insufficient time for radiologists to obtain consent in all patients. Suggestions to improve current local policies included developing the role of radiology nursing staff and the use of radiology outpatient clinics. CONCLUSIONS: More than 50% of respondents are unhappy with their policies for obtaining informed consent. Interventional societies have a role to play in advocating formal consent guidelines.
PURPOSE: Official recommendations for obtaining informed consent for interventional radiology procedures are that the patient gives their consent to the operator more than 24 hr prior to the procedure. This has significant implications for interventional radiology practice. The purpose of this study was to identify the proportion of European interventional radiologists who conform to these guidelines. METHODS: A questionnaire was designed consisting of 12 questions on current working practice and opinions regarding informed consent. These questions related to where, when and by whom consent was obtained from the patient. Questions also related to the use of formal consent forms and written patient information leaflets. Respondents were asked whether they felt patients received adequate explanation regarding indications for intervention, the procedure, alternative treatment options and complications. The questionnaire was distributed to 786 European interventional radiologists who were members of interventional societies. The anonymous replies were then entered into a database and analyzed. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-four (32.3%) questionnaires were returned. Institutions were classified as academic (56.7%), non-academic (40.5%) or private (2.8%). Depending on the procedure, in a significant proportion of patients consent was obtained in the outpatient department (22%), on the ward (65%) and in the radiology day case ward (25%), but in over half (56%) of patients consent or re-consent was obtained in the interventional suite. Fifty percent of respondents indicated that they obtain consent more than 24 hr before some procedures, in 42.9% consent is obtained on the morning of the procedure and 48.8% indicated that in some patients consent is obtained immediately before the procedure. We found that junior medical staff obtained consent in 58% of cases. Eighty-two percent of respondents do not use specific consent forms and 61% have patient information leaflets. The majority of respondents were satisfied with their level of explanation regarding indications for treatment (69.3%) and the procedure (78.7%). Fifty-nine percent felt patients understood alternative treatment options. Only 37.8% of radiologists document possible complications in the patient's chart. Comments from respondents indicated that there is insufficient time for radiologists to obtain consent in all patients. Suggestions to improve current local policies included developing the role of radiology nursing staff and the use of radiology outpatient clinics. CONCLUSIONS: More than 50% of respondents are unhappy with their policies for obtaining informed consent. Interventional societies have a role to play in advocating formal consent guidelines.
Entities:
Keywords:
Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship
Authors: Jacob Lutjeboer; Mark Christiaan Burgmans; Kaman Chung; Arian Robert van Erkel Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2015-03-14 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Wouter Kg Leclercq; Bram J Keulers; Saskia Houterman; Margot Veerman; Johan Legemaate; Marc R Scheltinga Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2013-01-21
Authors: Andreas H Mahnken; Esther Boullosa Seoane; Allesandro Cannavale; Michiel W de Haan; Rok Dezman; Roman Kloeckner; Gerard O'Sullivan; Anthony Ryan; Georgia Tsoumakidou Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 2.740