Literature DB >> 22874604

The myth of informed consent in rectal cancer surgery: what do patients retain?

Adena S Scheer1, Annette M O'Connor, Beverly P K Chan, Husein Moloo, Eric C Poulin, Joseph Mamazza, Rebecca C Auer, Robin P Boushey.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous research in colorectal cancer has focused on survival, recurrence, and functional outcomes. Few have assessed the decisional needs of patients or the information patients are retaining from the informed consent process.
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to describe the decisional needs of adult patients with rectal cancer when deciding on the surgical treatment of their disease and to identify gaps in patients' recollection of the informed consent discussion.
DESIGN: Face-to-face interviews were conducted with the use of a questionnaire based on the validated Ottawa Decision Support Framework Needs Assessment.
SETTING: This study was performed at a university-based academic Cancer Assessment Center, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: Adult patients with rectal cancer treated with low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were patients' knowledge and understanding of decision and their decisional needs.
RESULTS: Thirty patients were interviewed between November 2009 and July 2010. Eighty percent were male, with a median age of 65. None of the patients perceived having a choice of surgical options. When questioned about the main outcomes of rectal cancer surgery, 47% could not recall a preoperative discussion of risks to bowel function, 47% could not recall a preoperative discussion of risks to sexual function, and 57% could not recall a preoperative discussion of risks to urinary function. Patients would like information regarding functional outcomes, body image, and the immediate postoperative period. A minority of patients desire information regarding cure rate, need for a second surgery, or the ability of surgery to treat their symptoms. Patients would like information that is portable and trusted by their health care team that they can review at their own time. LIMITATIONS: To avoid introducing decisional conflict before surgery, patients were interviewed at the first postoperative visit. Preoperative informed consent discussions were not standardized.
CONCLUSION: Despite a comprehensive educational oncology pathway, patients retain little of the informed consent discussion. This study highlights the dichotomy between the outcomes that surgeons and patients value most. The results of this study will guide future efforts to improve informed consent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22874604     DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31825f2479

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  16 in total

1.  Midterm functional results of taTME with neuromapping for low rectal cancer.

Authors:  W Kneist; N Wachter; M Paschold; D W Kauff; A D Rink; H Lang
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2015-11-11       Impact factor: 3.781

2.  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

Review 3.  Informed consent in surgery.

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

Review 4.  Patient-provider communication about sexual concerns in cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jennifer Barsky Reese; Kristen Sorice; Mary Catherine Beach; Laura S Porter; James A Tulsky; Mary B Daly; Stephen J Lepore
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 4.442

5.  Electrophysiology-based quality assurance of nerve-sparing in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: Is it worth the effort?

Authors:  D W Kauff; N Wachter; R Bettzieche; H Lang; W Kneist
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-02-19       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Risk Factor Analysis for Newly Developed Urogenital Dysfunction after Total Mesorectal Excision and Impact of Pelvic Intraoperative Neuromonitoring-a Prospective 2-Year Follow-Up Study.

Authors:  Daniel W Kauff; Hauke Lang; Werner Kneist
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  A qualitative study of patient and clinician attitudes regarding surveillance after a resection of pancreatic and peri-ampullary cancer.

Authors:  Raymond G Deobald; Eva S W Cheng; Yoo-Joung Ko; Frances C Wright; Paul J Karanicolas
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 3.647

8.  Prospective evaluation of bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Yolanda Ribas; Montse Martín-Baranera; Ladislao Cayetano; Carles Maristany; Josep Bargalló; Salvadora Delgado; Arantxa Muñoz-Duyos
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 9.  Conversations for providers caring for patients with rectal cancer: Comparison of long-term patient-centered outcomes for patients with low rectal cancer facing ostomy or sphincter-sparing surgery.

Authors:  Lisa J Herrinton; Andrea Altschuler; Carmit K McMullen; Joanna E Bulkley; Mark C Hornbrook; Virginia Sun; Christopher S Wendel; Marcia Grant; Carol M Baldwin; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Larissa K F Temple; Robert S Krouse
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 508.702

10.  The Experience of Extended Bowel Resection in Individuals With a High Metachronous Colorectal Cancer Risk: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Emma J Steel; Alison H Trainer; Alexander G Heriot; Craig Lynch; Susan Parry; Aung K Win; Louise A Keogh
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 2.172

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.