Literature DB >> 20510800

Predictors of comprehension during surgical informed consent.

Aaron S Fink1, Allan V Prochazka, William G Henderson, Debra Bartenfeld, Carsie Nyirenda, Alexandra Webb, David H Berger, Kamal Itani, Thomas Whitehill, James Edwards, Mark Wilson, Cynthia Karsonovich, Patricia Parmelee.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient comprehension during surgical informed consent remains problematic. Using data from our randomized trial of methods to improve informed consent comprehension, we performed an additional analysis to define independent factors associated with improved patient understanding. STUDY
DESIGN: Patients scheduled for 1 of 4 elective operations (total hip arthroplasty [n = 137], carotid endarterectomy [n = 178], laparoscopic cholecystectomy [n = 179], or radical prostatectomy [n = 81]) at 7 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers were enrolled. All informed consent discussions were performed using iMedConsent (Dialog Medical), the VA's computerized informed consent platform. Using a unique module within iMedConsent, we randomized patients to repeat back (RB), requiring correct reiteration of procedure-specific facts, or standard (STD) iMedConsent. Patient comprehension was tested after the informed consent discussion using procedure-specific questionnaires. Time spent completing the informed consent process was measured using time stamps within iMedConsent. Multiple linear regression identified factors independently associated with improved comprehension.
RESULTS: We enrolled 575 patients (276 RB, 299 standard); 93% were male, 74% were Caucasian, and 89% had at least a high school education. Independent factors associated with improved comprehension included race (p < 0.01), ethnicity (p < 0.05), age (p < 0.02), operation type (p < 0.01), group assignment (+/- RB; p < 0.05), and total consent time (p < 0.0001). Patient comprehension was maximized when informed consent took between 15 and 30 minutes. RB's positive impact on patient comprehension was weaker in the analysis including consent time.
CONCLUSIONS: Comprehension during informed consent discussions may be limited in individuals with potential language difficulty due to ethnicity or education. Total consent time was the strongest predictor of patient comprehension. Affording adequate time for informed consent discussions and using informed consent adjuncts such as RB may enhance comprehension in such individuals. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20510800     DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.02.049

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Surg        ISSN: 1072-7515            Impact factor:   6.113


  26 in total

1.  An audit of the knowledge and attitudes of doctors towards Surgical Informed Consent (SIC).

Authors:  Bushra Ashraf; Nasira Tasnim; Muhammad Saaiq; Khaleeq-Uz- Zaman
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2014-10-27

Review 2.  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

3.  Patient expectations of functional outcomes after rectal cancer surgery: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Jason Park; Heather B Neuman; Antonia V Bennett; Lily Polskin; P Terry Phang; W Douglas Wong; Larissa K Temple
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.585

4.  Critical roles of orthopaedic surgeon leadership in healthcare systems to improve orthopaedic surgical patient safety.

Authors:  Calvin C Kuo; William J Robb
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 5.  Informed consent in surgery.

Authors:  Miguel A Cainzos; S González-Vinagre
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Effect of the informed consent process on anxiety and comprehension of patients undergoing esophageal and gastrointestinal surgery.

Authors:  Simonetta Betti; Andrea Sironi; Greta Saino; Cristian Ricci; Luigi Bonavina
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  The impact of iMedConsent on patient decision-making regarding cholecystectomy and inguinal herniorrhaphy.

Authors:  Daniel E Hall; Barbara H Hanusa; Galen E Switzer; Michael J Fine; Robert M Arnold
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2011-05-23       Impact factor: 2.192

8.  Do surgeons and patients discuss what they document on consent forms?

Authors:  Daniel E Hall; Barbara H Hanusa; Michael J Fine; Robert M Arnold
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 2.192

Review 9.  The extent of surgical patients' understanding.

Authors:  Omar Talhouk Pugliese; Juan Lombardi Solari; Alberto R Ferreres
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 3.352

10.  e-Consent: approaching surgical consent with mobile technology

Authors:  Allison Bethune; Marisol Davila-Foyo; Mikaeel Valli; Leodante da Costa
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 2.089

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.