Literature DB >> 1613369

Informed consent: the assessment of two structured interview approaches compared to the current approach.

P J Dawes1, L O'Keefe, S Adcock.   

Abstract

We prospectively studied 190 patients undergoing tonsillectomy or nasal surgery to assess the value of two structured interview techniques. There were four groups: Group A did not have a consent interview during the study period. Group B had an informal interview. Group C had a structured interview and Group D had a structured interview and were given an information sheet. Anxiety assessments were made and patients' recall of the operation name, details of the operation and its complications was assessed. Patients had higher than normal anxiety levels when admitted, but several hours after the interview anxiety was normal for Groups B, C and D. Group A maintained a higher anxiety level. Only 37 per cent correctly recalled the operation name, where as 87 per cent of all groups recalled the explanation of the operation. However, Groups C and D recalled a higher mean number of complications per patient. A structured interview when obtaining informed consent increases the number of complications recalled without increasing pre-operative anxiety.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1613369     DOI: 10.1017/s0022215100119711

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Laryngol Otol        ISSN: 0022-2151            Impact factor:   1.469


  10 in total

1.  Consent for surgery: time for a standardized NHS consent checklist.

Authors:  Rob Ritchie; John Reynard
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 2.  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

3.  Informed consent to satisfy everyone.

Authors:  Jin Keat Siow
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2008-05-10       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Innovating consent for pediatric HCT patients.

Authors:  J Platt; D B Thiel; S L R Kardia; S W Choi
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2016-02-29       Impact factor: 5.483

5.  Informed consent.

Authors:  L O'Keeffe
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-04-03

6.  [On informed patient consent].

Authors:  M C Kayser; Y von Harder; B Friemert; M A Scherer
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 0.955

7.  Bioethics for clinicians: 2. Disclosure.

Authors:  E Etchells; G Sharpe; M M Burgess; P A Singer
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-08-15       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  From the patient's perspective: is there a need to improve the quality of informed consent for surgery in training hospitals?

Authors:  Shamir O Cawich; Alan T Barnett; Ivor W Crandon; Samantha D Drew; Georgiana Gordon-Strachan
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2013

9.  Informed consent: what do patients want to know?

Authors:  P J Dawes; P Davison
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 18.000

10.  Clinical evaluation, imaging studies, indications for cytologic study and preprocedural requirements for duct brushing studies and pancreatic fine-needle aspiration: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Guidelines.

Authors:  Douglas Adler; C Max Schmidt; Mohammad Al-Haddad; James S Barthel; Britt-Marie Ljung; Nipun B Merchant; Joseph Romagnuolo; Akram M Shaaban; Diane Simeone; Martha Bishop Pitman; Lester J Layfield
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 2.091

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.