BACKGROUND/AIM: There are many differences and deficiencies in the process of informed consent. The aim of this study was to get the view of gastrointestinal endoscopists in Croatia on obtaining patients' consent before endoscopic procedures. METHODS: During the 2004 annual meeting of the Croatian Society of Gastroenterology, endoscopists were asked to answer a questionnaire according to common clinical practice in affiliated institutions. It included questions on endoscopists' experience and education in medical ethics, as well as on the nature and quality of information given to patients and their opinion on proposed measures for improvement of the informed consent process. RESULTS: The questionnaire was distributed to 96 endoscopists attending the meeting and the response rate was 54% (52/96). In only 50% of institutions was the obtained consent written and potential complications of endoscopic procedures are occasionally given to the patient. In the minority of cases the patient is provided with information about alternative diagnostic tests and/or treatment options, and the information about mortality rate was almost never discussed. CONCLUSIONS: In Croatia, the process of informed consent for endoscopy needs improvement and should be regarded against the background of education in medical ethics, regional burden in endoscopic practice and appropriateness of by-laws and local guidelines. Copyright 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.
BACKGROUND/AIM: There are many differences and deficiencies in the process of informed consent. The aim of this study was to get the view of gastrointestinal endoscopists in Croatia on obtaining patients' consent before endoscopic procedures. METHODS: During the 2004 annual meeting of the Croatian Society of Gastroenterology, endoscopists were asked to answer a questionnaire according to common clinical practice in affiliated institutions. It included questions on endoscopists' experience and education in medical ethics, as well as on the nature and quality of information given to patients and their opinion on proposed measures for improvement of the informed consent process. RESULTS: The questionnaire was distributed to 96 endoscopists attending the meeting and the response rate was 54% (52/96). In only 50% of institutions was the obtained consent written and potential complications of endoscopic procedures are occasionally given to the patient. In the minority of cases the patient is provided with information about alternative diagnostic tests and/or treatment options, and the information about mortality rate was almost never discussed. CONCLUSIONS: In Croatia, the process of informed consent for endoscopy needs improvement and should be regarded against the background of education in medical ethics, regional burden in endoscopic practice and appropriateness of by-laws and local guidelines. Copyright 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.