Literature DB >> 23228008

Patient perspectives on informed consent for anaesthesia and surgery: American attitudes.

C M Burkle1, J J Pasternak, M H Armstrong, M T Keegan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Principles of informed consent are ethically, morally, and legally grounded in physicians' responsibility to patients. This study examined patient expectations regarding the informed consent during the perioperative process, specifically risk information exchange, preferred method and timing of delivery, and the roles that patient anxiety and understanding might play.
METHODS: Five hundred patients seen in our pre-operative clinic were surveyed by written questionnaire. Patients were asked about their level of agreement with a number of statements pertaining to informed consent and their preferences for discussion of types of risks. Anxiety concerns, impact of ability to understand complexities of care, preferences for timing, and method of presentation were assessed.
RESULTS: Four hundred eleven of 500 surveys (82%) were completed. A majority of respondents (92% and 80%, respectively) believed the risk of common but less consequential complications and rare yet severe complications should be discussed. Only 21% agreed that anxiety generated by discussion of risks outweighed benefit and only 6% agreed that discussion of risks should be restricted based on patient inability to appreciate complexities of care. Discussion was preferred on the day of surgery, 1 week before, and 1 month before in 46%, 35%, and 16% of respondents, respectively, and independent of level of anxiety generated by such discussion (P = 0.87). Respondents preferred discussion with their anaesthesia provider alone (44%) or in combination with written information (52%) as compared with written information only (4%) (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Greater awareness of patient preferences and expectations may result in better information exchange between anaesthesia providers and their patients.
© 2012 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23228008     DOI: 10.1111/aas.12037

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand        ISSN: 0001-5172            Impact factor:   2.105


  7 in total

Review 1.  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

Review 2.  Prevention of chronic post-surgical pain: the importance of early identification of risk factors.

Authors:  Qutaiba Tawfic; Kamal Kumar; Zameer Pirani; Kevin Armstrong
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 2.078

Review 3.  [Perioperative risk and mortality after major surgery].

Authors:  O Boehm; M K A Pfeiffer; G Baumgarten; A Hoeft
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.041

4.  Not just a separate consent for anesthesia!

Authors:  Sandhya Yaddanapudi
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2017 Jan-Mar

5.  Sweet-Tasting Ionic Conjugates of Local Anesthetics and Vasoconstrictors.

Authors:  John K Neubert; Alexander A Oliferenko; Polina V Oliferenko; Sergey V Emets; David A Ostrov; Gary I Altschuler; Joe Calkins; Jay Wickersham; Robert Hromas; Iryna O Lebedyeva
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2021-02-12       Impact factor: 4.411

Review 6.  Popularity of internet physician rating sites and their apparent influence on patients' choices of physicians.

Authors:  Christopher M Burkle; Mark T Keegan
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  Are We Meeting the Current Standards of Consent for Anesthesia? An International Survey of Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Tomas Jovaisa; Ieva Norkiene; Juri Karjagin; Iveta Golubovska; Lukas Gambickas; Migle Kalinauskaite; Evaldas Kauzonas; Dhuleep Wijayatilake
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2020-10-05
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.