Literature DB >> 23218878

Informed consent for innovative surgery: a survey of patients and surgeons.

Susan J Lee Char1, Nancy K Hills, Bernard Lo, Kimberly S Kirkwood.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Unlike new drugs and medical devices, most surgical procedures are developed outside clinical trials and without regulatory oversight. Surgical professional organizations have discussed how new procedures should be introduced into practice without agreement on what topics informed consent discussions must include. To provide surgeons with more specific guidance, we wanted to determine what information patients and surgeons consider essential to disclose before an innovative surgical procedure.
METHODS: Of those approached, 85 of 113 attending surgeons and 383 of 541 adult postoperative patients completed surveys; responses to the surveys were 75% and 71%, respectively. Using a 6-point Likert scale, participants rated the importance of discussing 16 types of information preoperatively for 3 techniques (standard open, laparoscopic, robotic) offered for a hypothetic partial hepatectomy.
RESULTS: Compared with surgeons, patients placed more importance on nearly all types of information, particularly volumes and outcomes. For all 3 techniques, approximately 80% of patients indicated that they could not decide on surgery without being told whether it would be the surgeon's first time doing the procedure. When considering an innovative robotic surgery, a clear majority of both patients and surgeons agreed that it was essential to disclose the novel nature of the procedure, potentially unknown risks and benefits, and whether it would be the surgeon's first time performing the procedure.
CONCLUSION: To promote informed decision-making and autonomy among patients considering innovative surgery, surgeons should disclose the novel nature of the procedure, potentially unknown risks and benefits, and whether the surgeon would be performing the procedure for the first time. When accurate volumes and outcomes data are available, surgeons should also discuss these with patients.
Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23218878      PMCID: PMC3602241          DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2012.08.068

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surgery        ISSN: 0039-6060            Impact factor:   3.982


  23 in total

1.  The public release of performance data: what do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence.

Authors:  M N Marshall; P G Shekelle; S Leatherman; R H Brook
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-04-12       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem.

Authors:  Peter Bacchetti
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-05-25

3.  Client preferences for informed consent information.

Authors:  Ellen B Braaten; Mitchell M Handelsman
Journal:  Ethics Behav       Date:  1997

Review 4.  Who oversees innovative practice? Is there a structure that meets the monitoring needs of new techniques?

Authors:  Steven M Strasberg; Philip A Ludbrook
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 6.113

Review 5.  Informed consent and the elusive dichotomy between standard and experimental therapy.

Authors:  Lars Noah
Journal:  Am J Law Med       Date:  2002

6.  A patient's right to know: a case for mandating disclosure of physician success rate as an element of informed consent.

Authors:  Steven G Rado
Journal:  Health Matrix Clevel       Date:  2008

7.  Failure of extracranial-intracranial arterial bypass to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke. Results of an international randomized trial.

Authors: 
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1985-11-07       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  What patients want to know before they have cataract surgery.

Authors:  M J Elder; A Suter
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  Doctor-patient communication. Clinical implications of social scientific research.

Authors:  H Waitzkin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1984-11-02       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee.

Authors:  J Bruce Moseley; Kimberly O'Malley; Nancy J Petersen; Terri J Menke; Baruch A Brody; David H Kuykendall; John C Hollingsworth; Carol M Ashton; Nelda P Wray
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-07-11       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  5 in total

1.  Initiating a Robotic Thyroidectomy Program in India.

Authors:  Krishnakumar Thankappan; Subramania Iyer
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-04-05

Review 2.  How much information do patients want or need.

Authors:  Jean-Claude Givel; Benedikt Meier
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Informed consent in robotic surgery: quality of information and patient perception.

Authors:  Alessia Ferrarese; Giada Pozzi; Felice Borghi; Luca Pellegrino; Pierpaolo Di Lorenzo; Bruno Amato; Michele Santangelo; Massimo Niola; Valter Martino; Emanuele Capasso
Journal:  Open Med (Wars)       Date:  2016-08-02

Review 4.  Surgical innovation: the ethical agenda: A systematic review.

Authors:  Marike L Broekman; Michelle E Carrière; Annelien L Bredenoord
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.889

5.  Discussing surgical innovation with patients: a qualitative study of surgeons' and governance representatives' views.

Authors:  Jesmond Zahra; Sangeetha Paramasivan; Natalie S Blencowe; Sian Cousins; Kerry Avery; Johnny Mathews; Barry G Main; Angus G K McNair; Robert Hinchliffe; Jane M Blazeby; Daisy Elliott
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-11-06       Impact factor: 2.692

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.