Shamir O Cawich1, Alan T Barnett2, Ivor W Crandon3, Samantha D Drew4, Georgiana Gordon-Strachan5. 1. Lecturer in the Department of Clinical Surgical Sciences at the University of West Indies in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. socawich@hotmail.com. 2. Lecturer in the Department of Surgery at the University of West Indies in Kingston, Jamaica. alanbarnett@gmail.com. 3. Lecturer in the Department of Surgery at the University of West Indies in Kingston, Jamaica. ivorcrandon@gmail.com. 4. House Officer in the Department of Surgery at the Southampton General Hospital, United Kingdom. sddrew@hotmail.com. 5. Lecturer in the Department of Surgery at the University of West Indies in Kingston, Jamaica. ggstrachan@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to evaluate the presurgical informed consent process at a training hospital in Jamaica. METHODS: A postoperative survey was administered to all consecutive able and willing adult patients who underwent the presurgical informed consent process with surgical residents during a 5-week period. Information was collected on patient demographics and patients' perception and satisfaction with the informed consent process. RESULTS: There were 210 surveys completed. Patients were unaware of the training status of the physician involved with their presurgical informed consent process in 48% of cases. Nineteen (9%) patients were instructed to sign a consent document without any discussion. An attempt was made to secure a signature after some discussion with the remaining 191 patients. Patients reported that details of the operation were discussed 74% of the time; potential benefits of the surgery, 72% of the time; potential morbidity, 84% of the time; potential mortality, 19% of the time; predicted postoperative course, 49% of the time; projected recovery, 26% of the time; and other treatment options, 33% of the time. Forty-five patients believed that they were instructed to sign the consent document with minimal discussion. At termination of the consent process, only 70% of the 210 patients reported that they signed the consent form voluntarily. Overall, 67% of patients thought the current informed consent process was unsatisfactory. CONCLUSION: The current informed consent process in use in the surgical training program at the University Hospital of the West Indies requires improvement to meet expected ethical and legal standards.
OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to evaluate the presurgical informed consent process at a training hospital in Jamaica. METHODS: A postoperative survey was administered to all consecutive able and willing adult patients who underwent the presurgical informed consent process with surgical residents during a 5-week period. Information was collected on patient demographics and patients' perception and satisfaction with the informed consent process. RESULTS: There were 210 surveys completed. Patients were unaware of the training status of the physician involved with their presurgical informed consent process in 48% of cases. Nineteen (9%) patients were instructed to sign a consent document without any discussion. An attempt was made to secure a signature after some discussion with the remaining 191 patients. Patients reported that details of the operation were discussed 74% of the time; potential benefits of the surgery, 72% of the time; potential morbidity, 84% of the time; potential mortality, 19% of the time; predicted postoperative course, 49% of the time; projected recovery, 26% of the time; and other treatment options, 33% of the time. Forty-five patients believed that they were instructed to sign the consent document with minimal discussion. At termination of the consent process, only 70% of the 210 patients reported that they signed the consent form voluntarily. Overall, 67% of patients thought the current informed consent process was unsatisfactory. CONCLUSION: The current informed consent process in use in the surgical training program at the University Hospital of the West Indies requires improvement to meet expected ethical and legal standards.
Authors: Thomas G Weiser; Scott E Regenbogen; Katherine D Thompson; Alex B Haynes; Stuart R Lipsitz; William R Berry; Atul A Gawande Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-06-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Fiona Wood; Sean Michael Martin; Andrew Carson-Stevens; Glyn Elwyn; Elizabeth Precious; Paul Kinnersley Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 3.377